Telephoto lens - Stabilised or not?
 

A query please that I dare not post on airwhiners. Bought a digital SLR lately, a second hand Canon 40D. Now, I need to buy just the one lens - the options seems to be the Image Stabilised Canon 70-300 or the non stabilised 70-200 f4 L.

May I have your recommendations, please.

Thanks. Greetings from Cork!

From experience with a Nikon, go for the stabilised lens, you won't regret it.

Definately go for a stabilised lens, no compertition, wish I could afford one.

Stabilised, definitely. I use a Canon 55-250mm lens on my 450D, and the images are noticeably sharper with the stabilisation switched on.

I've got the Nikon 55-200VR (Vibration Reduction) which has Image Stabilisation. I use it on my D40SLR.

It's absolutely superb. Highly recommended. Just one thing though - if it's on a tripod apparently you need to switch the VR function off. No idea about Canons though.

I buy cameras made by camera companies, not photocopier manufacturers. ;) (Joke!! Before all the Canon fanbois jump down my throat!)

Just wish my 55-200VR would work on my Nikon F90X film SLRs, but can't have it all I guess.

Its not whether its stabilised or not that matters, what matters is how fast the lens is, or put another way what is the f number. The lower the number the faster the lens, it will let in more light as the optics are larger, that way you will be able to up the shutter speed which should give sharper images.

You dont mention what f number the first lens has ? 300mm might sound very tempting but if the optics are inferior the other might be a better option.

Lenses that give a massive zoom option are usually a jack of all trades and master of none.

mine - (Nikon D3 with range of 2.8 lenses, none of which have VR, I just have steady hands :O)

The 70-300 is f4/5.6 IS. Very interesting replies. I am using a Sigma 18-200 non IS lens and though I try as much as I possibly can it is just all but impossible for me to get a steady image though I am doing what is advised and use f8 on Aperture Priority selection. This is for very slow or stationary subjects, well, aeroplanes, really, you know yourself :}. It would be more understandable if the quarry were moving quickly but they are not. It is galling and I can understand now why I have stayed away from taking photos for so long. Not much fun yet anyway.

True enough, but the VR is handy in low-light and for exposure times that you wouldn't want to attempt hand-held otherwise.

You can get results that are just as good without it if you know what you're doing, but I like the fact that I can just fire away with no special precautions and everything still comes out clear.

Given that VR doesn't add much to the cost of lenses these days anyway, I can't think of a reason not to buy a new lens with it personally. :confused:

The Canon 70-300 IS is often referred to as 'Canon's hidden L lens' I've owned one and it is a very good lens indeed. The IS is the icing on the cake and I thoroughly recommend it

I'd go with all MAN777 says. You cannot make up for a poor lens or poor technique by relying on VR/IS. Aperture/speed and lens quality is what counts. Prime versus zoom always being better.

Not sure what lenses you're buying!? VR/IS are noticably more expensive, drving up the cost of all long focal length primes and zooms

RR

"The 70-300 is f4/5.6 IS. Very interesting replies. I am using a Sigma 18-200 non IS lens and though I try as much as I possibly can it is just all but impossible for me to get a steady image though I am doing what is advised and use f8 on Aperture Priority selection"

Tom

You are probably getting camera shake, because if you use aperture priority the camera is choosing the shutter speed (which is probably too low), with moving subjects you need to control the shutter speed. Therefore if you select shutter priority and a speed of about 500th sec or higher you should get sharp images as you are literally freezing the scene. This will work fine in normal lighting conditions but when the light fails you will run out of aperture to give a correct exposure. When this happens you will have to make the camera more sensitive by increasing the ISO rating (the higher the number the more sensitive) This will allow correct exposures to continue. As with everything there is a limit to what the camera can do, if you increase the ISO too high the pictures will start to become grainy.

The VR lens you describe has two f stop settings, the 5.6 will be at 300mm and f4 at 70mm. f4 is twice as fast as 5.6 (or a full stop in photographic terms) So when using 300mm the lens lets 1/2 the light in so it may need the VR in low light conditions to get a sharp image.

Another thing to consider is that telephoto lenses used at maximum aperture will have a very narrow depth of field, or in other terms only a small area in focus, making background and foreground blurred.

I am not trying to put you off this lens, it is a very capable modern lens, all I am trying to say is that like everything in life you get what you pay for.

The very best lenses like you see sports photographers using are f2.8 with massive front elements they are the absolute dogs b**locks when it comes to quality but they cost in excess of £5000 !!!!!!!!

Hope this is of use.

Thanks, MAN777, for the helpful explanations. I will read over your post a few times and try it out with shutter priority and report back on how it goes after the weekend. A few 737s and A320s and hopefully the AT7s in EI colours are going to get a good thrashing over the next few days!

Tom

I know it sounds a bit complicated, but photography is actually quite simple once you understand the relationships between, f stops, shutter speed etc.

Can I suggest you just google "basic photography" you will find loads of online tutorials which cover the basics.

Have a nice weekend :ok:

When I went shopping for my 55-200 Nikon there was about £20 difference between the new (VR) one and the old Non-VR model. Didn't take me long to think about it. :ok:

Basics? Try this:

what are shutter speed, aperture and ISO? © 2004 KenRockwell.com

Yes mate but if you recall I said long focal lenses. A 200mm isn't in this category. Yes, you can even get compacts with VR nowadays but try getting a longer lens (300mm +) and the price difference is marked. RR

Of the two lenses your comparing, the 70-200mm F4 L is definately the better quality and faster lens. I've read of many Canon users really liking this one. So, despite it not being stabilised; it may be the better choice for you.

It does rather depend upon what you intend to do with it! If it's for Airshows etc, then you need more reach. So, the 70-300mm would offer that. However, you may do better fitting a 1.4 convertor to the 70-200mm F4 and getting the extra reach that way. 200mm x 1.6 = 320mm x 1.4 = 448mm (35mm equivalent).

All that said, most Canonists at Airshows migrate to the 100-400mm Zoom it would appear.

I'd go and check with the Canon forums at www.dpreview.com

Aquatone1
 

I used the Canon 70-200 f4 before investing in the 70-200 f4IS and found both produce excellent results. It can be a little short on focal length for flying shots and the 1.4 converter helps. The converter is left on pretty much permanantly, with no need to stop down to counter any fall off of the image.

The image stabilisation is great for static shots.

It is probably the best lens I have owned and relatively easy for an "old un" like me to lug around all day.:)


Edit. I would add that the none IS 70-200 f4 was excellent too. Just that as one gets older the IS helps.:)

Just a footnote regarding the use of teleconvertors, adding them can drastically reduce the available light, an F4 lens with a 1.4 convertor effectively looses 1 stop so becomes the same as an f5.6 lens.

Lenses
 

Consider switching to Olympus - arguably the best glass on the market, and the stabilization it built into the camera rathr than being in the lens, so it works with any lens.

David

In the end the only shots I got in at the weekend were a few of one of the two lunchtime Iberworld A320s at Cork. Tried the Shutter Priority, ISO 160, 1/160th of a second and f20. Had the camera body steady as I could on a railing. Result was only fair. Worse than that though is that I have now noticed a speck of dust/dirt presumably from the sensor on the image. Now, before the 40D I had bought a 20D (both second hand) and traded in the 20D due to the same issue and it was an expensive enough upgrade to the 40D. Original shots on the newer 40D had no signs of dust etc and the 18-200 lens has been aboard her since the start when I took the plunge. It is really galling me. Only for the fact that there are two nice machines due in later today at Cork I would be giving out like stink in the shop.

Maddening though.

I am enjoying reading the replies to the original post.

Thanks.