Canon Telephoto Prime Lenses, no IS!

[Derek Neustaeter]

We have been looking at purchasing a EF Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS and have been looking at other options as well. One question i have is why hasn't canon added IS to any of their telephoto prime lenses such as the 180 or 200mm f2.8 lenses? Their 100mm f2.8 macro is the only IS lens it seems until you hit the big 300mm lenses which is a little excessive for the weddings we will be using it for. Has anyone found any success in lenses such as the sigmas in this area? We do use a 70d's dual pixel autofocus and have been apprehensive about any lenses but canon. The lens will occasionally be used on the 70d but mainly on our full frame 6d. Any input it greatly appreciated!

[Jon Fairhurst]

Canon says that this will be the "Year of the Lens", so we might see something before long. IS seems to be a hot theme for them in recent releases.

BTW, both the 100/2.8L Macro IS and 70-200/2.8 II IS are brilliant. I own the former and we have the latter here at my workplace.

[Charles Newcomb]

I have the 70-200mm f4L IS and the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, and my preference is the f2.8. I don't miss the IS at all.

[Derek Neustaeter]

I thought IS was almost a must on the telephoto end of things? What are you using the 2.8 non IS for? I've always been curious how much shake the IS lenses take out.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I like IS on the 70-200/2.8L IS II. I used to own the 200/2.8L II and shot an event presentation with it. The tripod was on some soft carpet with a bottom spreader so it wasn't perfectly solid. At 200mm on the 5D2, it showed every last micro-vibration and touch. Of course, it would have been better with the tripod on spikes, but one doesn't always have time to adjust the setup at live events. With the 70-200 and IS, I have no such worries. Things float just a bit, but it's not really noticeable unless you're looking for it. Sharp micro-vibrations, on the other hand, really draw attention.

With an excellent tripod and ideal conditions, IS isn't needed, but not all tripods are excellent and not all conditions are ideal. Considering the price of an excellent tripod, the extra cost of IS seems pretty reasonable.

[Charles Newcomb]

I'm using a Sachtler FSB8 for video, and a Varizoom Chicken Foot monopod for stills. The only time I get micro vibrations with the tripod is in very strong wind, or on a porch where people are stomping. I don't think IS would help with that.

[Jon Fairhurst]

With stomping and wind, IS can help smooth out the fast impacts. You'll still get some low frequency drift but not the high frequency shocks. This is especially effective when filming a distant scene as the effect is mainly angular. If close objects are in the scene, you'll get x-y motion. As far as I recall, only the 100L Macro has hybrid (position + angle) stabilization. Personally, I find that smoothing the corners off of vibrations reduces the chance of distracting from the story.

FWIW, Canon announced two new IS lenses, but they are wides, not telephotos. This shows their continued IS strategy.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Press Release

I think this makes a lot of sense for stills. You're shooting wide photos in a cathedral. You want deep focus. No tripods allowed. Up to four stops of IS can make a huge difference. But for video, I generally want 1/50 or 1/60 no matter what. IS will help stabilize the picture, but it won't let me drag the shutter for better exposure in low light. The extra stop of f/2.8 over f/4 can make a huge difference when on the edge of the ISO cliff.

[Derek Neustaeter]

I agree that the extra stop of light is important in low light. I have found that the IS is nice to have as well from some experience with the 24-105 I have. Nothing worse then something nudging your tripod and ruining a shot. From what I have read the 70-200 mark i is very similar to the mark ii, just a little sharper. I can justify spending 2500 on the 2.8 and IS but I can justify the mark I used for 1500. If canon releases some telephoto IS primes I can look at those then. Anyone used the sigma primes?

[Jon Fairhurst]

FWIW, the 16-35/4L IS (I know, not a telephoto) doesn't have a mode switch for the IS. Apparently, the new IS system analyses the motion to determine if it's handheld, panning on a tripod, etc. and the mode is selected automatically. Just an educated guess, but I expect to see the same on future IS tele's.

Personally, I like this auto-selection feature. I find that the IS modes behave a bit differently, but not knowing the details of the algorithms, it's not always obvious which mode is best. I don't necessarily have time to do a test and looking for motion on a small LCD screen doesn't tell the whole story. IS is never perfect. Sometimes it overshoots or slurs a pan. Trying to figure out which mode is the least imperfect is a challenge. I'm happy to let the lens decide which is best depending on the external motion as the engineers who develop it in detail will be the most familiar with the trade offs.

I generally prefer manual control, but when the selection criteria aren't clear and aren't based on artistic intent, auto is fine by me. That way, if the IS is imperfect (and it is), I don't second guess or blame myself for unwanted IS motion. :)

[Michael Thames]

I recently got a 70-200 f4 non IS..... also have a 24-105 f4 IS. After I saw the first few images shot with the 70-200 I was shocked at how much better the color and contrast was! I also pixel peeped and between the two lens and the found the 70-200 was significantly sharper than the 24-105. That said I still love the 24-105 it's a real work horse.

After have the 70-200 non IS for about two weeks shooting video as well as photos on my 5D3, I felt it was non as sharp as I would like, so I bought the 70-200 IS f4, and noticed it was significantly sharper than the non IS, and much less of a headache to worry about using. I take this lens to bed at night, and never it out of my sight, this lens is magnificent!

The 70-200 IS f4 is sharper than the 2.8 IS, and it is much lighter. On the f2.8 there are problems with color fringe and sharpness wide open which makes it almost unusable until f4, the 70 -200 f4 is clear and sharp wide open and has no color fringing. I not talking about the 70-200 f2.8 IS ii USM, but the 70-200 f2.8 IS (the older model).

The auto focus they say is better on the 2.8, but the first time I used the the F4 it was blazing fast, it took my breath away!

You can find so good deals on 70-200 f4 IS on Ebay for around $800 if you are lucky.

[Michael Thames]

I recently got a 70-200 f4 non IS..... also have a 24-105 f4 IS. After I saw the first few images shot with the 70-200 I was shocked at how much better the color and contrast was! I also pixel peeped and between the two lens and the found the 70-200 was significantly sharper than the 24-105. That said I still love the 24-105 it's a real work horse.

After have the 70-200 non IS for about two weeks shooting video as well as photos on my 5D3, I felt it was non as sharp as I would like, so I bought the 70-200 IS f4, and noticed it was significantly sharper than the non IS, and much less of a headache to worry about using. I take this lens to bed at night, and never it out of my sight, this lens is magnificent!

The 70-200 IS f4 is sharper than the 2.8 IS, and it is much lighter. On the f2.8 there are problems with color fringe and sharpness wide open which makes it almost unusable until f4, the 70 -200 f4 is clear and sharp wide open and has no color fringing. I not talking about the 70-200 f2.8 IS ii USM, but the 70-200 f2.8 IS (the older model).

The auto focus they say is better on the 2.8, but the first time I used the the F4 it was blazing fast, it took my breath away!

You can find so good deals on 70-200 f4 IS on Ebay for around $800 if you are lucky.