70-200 f/2.8L IS AF twice as fast as non-IS?

According to Canon the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS focuses twice as fast as the non -IS: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/report.html#t4 . "Feature 3: Silent, high-speed AF. The AF performance of the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is up to about twice as fast as that of the EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM by improving the AF drive circuits and AF algorithm of the ring USM drive and inner focus design."

Has anybody tried/owned both and found this to be true? I'm going to purchase one of these for use with my 40D to shoot my grandson's baseball, soccer, and granddaughter's dance performances. I'll be using the lens 90% of the time for the action shots and 10% of the time for indoor church services. I know the IS lens would be useful for the indoor church shots if I didn't want to use a monopod or tri-pod. But if the AF is really twice as fast as the non-IS, then the IS version might be worth the extra $550 for action sports and dance performances. What do you all think?
Don

Hi Don,

Let me take you in a different direction. The 70-200 f4.0 L non-IS is one of the best lenses Canon has made. It's great wide open and since modern Canon DSLR's are excellent in higher ISO, you can get almost everything you want with just that lens. It's as sharp, some say sharper than the 2.8 big sister!

In order for the heavier 70-200 f2.8L IS to focus well it has to be able to recognize that it has found focus. So grabbing focus is the first consideration. However, Canon has crippled the cost-nothing electronics in the sub-flagship cameras precisely to induce us to constantly climb higher. My 5D cannot reliable use the 70-200 2.8L in very low light. The focus system is not good enough in low light! The 1DII has the same issue. I have no doubt that a 1D Mark III would be excellent.

However, you do not have these cameras.

For my money, I'd get a new Canon XSi that has the latest focusing that seems pretty good and the 70-200 f4 IS. I cannot believe that you won’t be super-happy. Better still, you can hold that camera from now 'till eternity and not hurt your back, get hemorrhoids or a hernia.

The central cross hair (of the 9 focus points) requires a lens of at least f2.8 in aperture to be activated! Well that seems awful! Well in practice you'll do fine with the other focal points.

Go to your local store and hook up the f4 70-200 L IS to the Canon Rebel 400D, ak.a, the "Xsi", and you will be very pleased with its ability to focus in dim light.

Before you spend the extra cash on a big hunk of f2.8 glass, ask yourself if that what you really need.

If I were doing this, I'd rather get the system I suggested and be saving for the new Canon 5D II replacement or a used 1DII.

If the Xsi had been available 20 years ago it would have fetched $70,000 and there would have been a long line to get them. That camera (or the Nikon lines) are simply breathtaking.

In any case, think of the flash! You need that and that's more money as well as a wider lens for groups! Trust me, you have a lot more cash to spend!

Asher

Hi Don,

I have tested both the 2.8 IS and non-IS on my 5D, before settling on the f4 IS.
In my brief tests, I have not seen any focussing speed differences, especially not in the order of x2. I can definitely recommend looking into the f4-IS. It is tack sharp and lighter/compacter/cheaper.

Cheers,

Cem

IS is very useful even on a monopod. And if your church and dance performances are lit like ours are, you'll value both the IS and the f/2.8 aperture over the f/4. But mind you, the f/2.8L IS is a big heavy lens.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill Toulme said:

IS is very useful even on a monopod. And if your church and dance performances are lit like ours are, you'll value both the IS and the f/2.8 aperture over the f/4. But mind you, the f/2.8L IS is a big heavy lens.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

I agree with Nill…

IS is not usefull all the time but it has saved me many times!

The best combination I've found is with a carbon monopod and RRS ballhead… simply demoniac…

Nicolas and Nill,

Given the advanced features, great CMOS chip and low noise at High ISO, do you agree that, for the Canon brand, at least the Xsi rebel with the available ultrawide zoom and the 70-200 IS makes a hardly beatable combo for any enthusiast?

I may get one just to add reach to my 70-200 with a x1.4 to shoot humming birds. With my 5D, they are still too small. This combo should perform very well for sports too and weddings. If one cannot do a good job with this setup, it's likely not the camera's fault.

Sure it's not a professional grade camera but a professional could save his butt with one of these at the bottom of his camera bag!

Asher

I haven't experienced an Xsi yet, but I can tell you I'm very pleased with my XTi. A Sigma 18-200 OS lives on mine, and occasionally gets swapped out for a 70-300 IS USM.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

As far as I can read the specs, looks a very promising camera for not that much money…

As for me, thanks, I've got enough ! LoL!

Nicolas and Nill,

I have borrowed a friends 70-200 2.8L non-IS and have really liked the outdoor soccer and baseball pictures I captured with it. However, in the low light church and dance recital performances the lens certainly challenged my getting good clearly focused shots with the 40D even at ISO 3200.

From your experiences using the IS version indoors in low light, am I going to have regrets if I don't spend the extra money for the IS 70-200 2.8L? I know I could always turn the IS off if it would cause delays when shooting outdoor action sports.

Personally, yes I think you would. I find IS to be of enormous value on that lens for the sorts of indoor shooting you describe. And it's not necessary to turn it off when shooting action outdoors, although there's no harm in doing so at higher shutter speeds.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Don Springer said:

Nicolas and Nill,

I have borrowed a friends 70-200 2.8L non-IS and have really liked the outdoor soccer and baseball pictures I captured with it. However, in the low light church and dance recital performances the lens certainly challenged my getting good clearly focused shots with the 40D even at ISO 3200.

Click to expand...

Sports Shots: We'd love to see the sports pics with this f2.8 non-IS lens on your camera. Did you have a monopod? That's what Nicolas uses. ReallyRightStuff.com has a good page on monopods and heads. We have lots of sports photography fans here and you might get more help there than you might ever imagine!

Low Light in the Church: Each sanctuary has it's own rules. Some unusual officiants do not even allow any photography at the ceremony in their sanctuary, so you have to stage it before hand!!

Most will allow flash but will specify what points in the ceremony the do not want disturbance. It really is necessary to have a rehearsal anyway and go over with the mother of the bride, the bride and the officiant the expectations and restrictions. Again a tripod or at least a monopd will make possible shots you might otherwise not get even with IS. I often manual focus. With flash, you can set your flash for that distance and the auto focus is not important.

Asher


I have strong views on weddings, since people doing them at low or no cost can easily disappoint themselves and the family. So do a search for some stipulations to check off before taking on this responsibility. You may be already accomplished and if so you will excuse my caution.

Don Springer said:

Nicolas and Nill,

I have borrowed a friends 70-200 2.8L non-IS and have really liked the outdoor soccer and baseball pictures I captured with it. However, in the low light church and dance recital performances the lens certainly challenged my getting good clearly focused shots with the 40D even at ISO 3200.

From your experiences using the IS version indoors in low light, am I going to have regrets if I don't spend the extra money for the IS 70-200 2.8L? I know I could always turn the IS off if it would cause delays when shooting outdoor action sports.

Click to expand...

Yes you should!
I second Nill's advice, and would add that one day you'll wish to update your camera, keeping the lens!

When you buy glass it is almost for long period of time, bodies, for a few years only…

On the monopod head, I would also consider the Wimberley (http://www.tripodhead.com) maybe more appropriate than the RRS (which I'm in love with) for sport shooting…

Nill?

I second Nicolas who seconds Nill: the IS is immensely valuable and effective. It is more than worth the additional costs that may be involved.

For sport shooting IMO you're much better off with no head at all on a monopod, just a quick release clamp.

Same for shooting theater/dance unless you're shooting from a seat or the balcony. Actually for theater I prefer a tripod, in which case yes, the Wimberley Sidekick is great for the 70-200 as well as larger lenses.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Hi, Don,

I had both the non-IS and the IS versions for some time on a 1D Mark II. I did not notice any difference in focusing speed or accuracy between the two lenses--that's not to say Canon is wrong, I just didn't notice any (not that I was looking for it, either). Both lenses seemed to 'snap' into focus very nicely.

Note that the camera driving the lens will have an impact on its performance. Not sure if there is a variable there or not.

Take care,
Brad