To IS or not to IS: Image Stabilization

[poker]

I recently purchased a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM non-IS. After using it at the beach and bonatical garden, I'm starting think I lack the ability to handle a large lens with the 2x TC. My photos when magnified in PS are somehwat soft. I've used the lens with a monopod and tripod. Tripod usage is fine but my tripod is very heavy to bring around. I don't know if I'm using the monopod efficiently.

Should I bite the bullet and get the IS version? The price difference is $600 if you didn't know already.

I want to believe there are techniques out there that will help use a large lens efficiently. People were using long lenses way before IS came out.

Some will ask, well what are you shooting? Let's just say almost everything. I haven't decided on a niche. I will be using it for events and wildlife. I haven't done sports yet but will shortly.

Please share your thoughts and suggestions in using heavy long focal length lenses with or without IS (VR is the Nikon version?). It doesn't matter what type of photography you shoot. I will probably try it out soon anyway, so please comment.

Thanks in advance!

[Sebastian]

EVERY shot with the 2x tc will be unacceptably soft. Ditch it in favor of the 1.4 and see what that lens is capable of. There is almost no visible loss in sharpness with the 1.4. I would bet any money that the softness you see has nothing to do with your technique now that I know the TC was used.

[poker]

Here are some of my shots taken with the new setup just for reference. Sorry for the lack of EXIF...I wasn't planning on using them as examples

With TC and handheld:
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...&ppuser=236288

With TC and handheld:
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...&ppuser=236288

No TC on tripod with timer release:
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...&ppuser=236288

Not sure about TC but most likely and both with monopod
June Photo Project: Plantlife

Not sure about TC but with monopod for sure:
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...&ppuser=236288

[poker]

EVERY shot with the 2x tc will be unacceptably soft. Ditch it in favor of the 1.4 and see what that lens is capable of. There is almost no visible loss in sharpness with the 1.4. I would bet any money that the softness you see has nothing to do with your technique now that I know the TC was used.

I should do a day of shooting without the 2x TC and see where I'm at with it. That will be a good test for myself. I've read that the 1.4x was very good.

[another view]

I should do a day of shooting without the 2x TC and see where I'm at with it. That will be a good test for myself.

I agree, remove that variable and see where you're at. Moose Peterson has this info on his site about long lens technique.

[poker]

I agree, remove that variable and see where you're at. Moose Peterson has this info on his site about long lens technique.

Thanks AV! I hope Moose saves me 600 clams. I love good helpful links....

[Loupey]

Hi, Eric (I found you! )

You know my thoughts on both the IS technology and 2x converter but I will restate them here in hopes that someone else might benefit from my experience.

While I strongly disagree with the comment that "EVERY shot with the 2x tc will be unacceptably soft", I do agree that we are talking about 2 different issues here. Since you are referring to IS, lets disregard the 2x converter for now.

I also agree that learning "proper" shooting technique with long telephotos (remember your 200mm is now 320mm with the crop factor effect) is your first step. Some of the pictures you referenced appear to be soft not so much the result of camera shake, but more so from a shallow depth of field.

That said, I do believe that IS (or VR) technology is an amazing tool. Until last year, I've been toting my tripods religiously for over 20 years. I now have the freedom (and image proof) that I can shoot highly acceptable images handheld up to 600mm (thats 960mm with the crop factor) with the IS! To me, that is a tremendous advantage as a wildlife and macro shooter. I can literally shoot subjects on-the-fly with virtual no setup time. In fact, the longest delay in me shooting is the time it takes my 10D to wake up (2 seconds). I don't care how experienced someone is with a tripod (and I have a Benbo - one of the easiest and fastest tripods to set up), I've got some images in the Nature / Wildlife forum that a tripod shooter would never have been able to set up in time.

Of course I'm only talking about lens stabilization as it relates to camera shake. Subject motion blur is something all together different.

[Loupey]

Another thought, Eric...

In light of the fact that told me you wanted to upgrade your kit lens someday, how 'bout this:

For the price of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, buy both the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS and the 300mm f/4L IS. Then, if you keep your 2x TC, you'll have good coverage from 28mm to 600mm using the double-focal-length method. I really like the results I'm getting with the 300mm prime.

[paulnj]

read this too ;wink: , it was in AV's link .

http://www.moosepeterson.com/techtips/shortlens.html

I have posted those 2 links 100's of times over the last 5 years.... they work!!!!

[Lionheart]

Should I bite the bullet and get the IS version? The price difference is $600 if you didn't know already.
Thanks in advance!

IS is nice when you need it, but I doubt IS will help you here. The 2x TC mark II (I'm assuming you have the newer version) is not awful, but it certainly will leave your cropping options limited. It is quite probably the least used piece of equipment in my gear bag, just slightly behind my 1.4x TC mark II. The 70-200 f2.8L, in either flavor is razor sharp as far as zoom lenses go, quite probably has no equal in the zoom world with the exception of Nikon's 80-200 f2.8 lenses, but it's definitely soft compared to primes. Now add the mildly subpar 2x TC, and the images get noticeably softer. The 1.4x is much better, but I've actually stopped using the TC's unless I really need the extra reach with my 70-200 f2.8L IS. I'll use them on my 400 f5.6L when I need the extra reach, but focusing really begins to be a problem at f5.6, and f8 respectively.
Here's some photos from a thread I posted two years ago comparing the 70-200 f2.8L IS with 2x TC against the 400 f5.6L.

[Loupey]

Nice examples, Lionheart. Thanks for posting those.

However, since a zoom is generally outperformed by any corresponding prime lens and any TC is going to degrade the image to some extent, comparing any zoom with any TC to an unadulterated prime is not really a fair comparison. Now a prime 200mm f/2.8L with a 2x TC compared to the 400mm f/5.6L prime would be an interesting comparison.

Here is a field example that I posted in the Nature/Wildlife forum earlier this spring. Shot with the said 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with 2x II TC at a full 400mm. Handheld at 1/250s at f/11

[Loupey]

A few more examples.

My point is that the IS technology and 2x flexibility will enable many to shoot in situations which might be difficult to set up otherwise. Sure the image quality is not going to outproduce a prime in controlled or studio conditions.

IMO, a "degraded" image of an interesting subject/action is "better" than a sharper image of a dull one. Again, the point here is get the shot. For me at least, handholding with IS and occasionally reaching out with a 2x allows me to do that.

My apologies for the amount of digital noise here - all were shot at ISO 400 with my tired old 10D. I consider ISO 200 to be my nomal go-to setting.

Besides, I've never yet encountered studio conditions out in the field