Stabilization feature on lenses

[PhotoBug7]

I am about to enter into the field pf professional sports photographer.  I am looking at a good 7-200 2.8 lens.  Is it worth it to get the stabilization feature on the lens.  Ive seen great used prices on 2.8s and came across a couple 100-300 lenses but withOUT the stabilization feature.  Please advise.  THANK YOU!

[Waddizzle]

---

@PhotoBug7 wrote:

I am about to enter into the field pf professional sports photographer.  I am looking at a good 7-200 2.8 lens.  Is it worth it to get the stabilization feature on the lens.  Ive seen great used prices on 2.8s and came across a couple 100-300 lenses but withOUT the stabilization feature.  Please advise.  THANK YOU!

---

I don't understand why you, a professional photographer, are even asking the question, not unless budget is a consideration.  Buy the best gear.  Get the IS.  The Mark II telephoto zoom lenses have updated IS systems, that are smart enough to adjust for panning, or being mounted on a tripod or monopod..

In fact, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is extremely good.  Good enough that you can almost get by with just that lens, a 1.4x III extender, and a crop body like the 7D mark II.  Another good lens to have is the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, with the same 1.4x III extender.. Depending upon the sport(s), having a standard zoom on hand wouldn't hurt, either.

[cicopo]

Some sports venues will be far easier to shoot well with a lens that has IS & especially one which works while panning.

[jrhoffman75]

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2014/20140225_winston_IS_blog.shtml

[PhotoBug7]

Hey John, thanks for that link.  Very helpful.  The article points out that the photographer used an extender a lot but sounds like stabilization just automatically ehnaces the details of a lot of pictures regardless of shutter speed, etc.

[RobertTheFat]

Waddizzle wrote:

---

PhotoBug7 wrote:

I am about to enter into the field pf professional sports photographer.  I am looking at a good 7-200 2.8 lens.  Is it worth it to get the stabilization feature on the lens.  Ive seen great used prices on 2.8s and came across a couple 100-300 lenses but withOUT the stabilization feature.  Please advise.  THANK YOU!

---

I don't understand why you, a professional photographer, are even asking the question, not unless budget is a consideration.  Buy the best gear.  Get the IS.  ...

---

He's asking the question because when you first enter the field, money is tight and there is lots of equipment to be bought, just to get into the game. So let me try to make the case for buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

A few years ago our department had a few $$ left over at the end of the fiscal year, so my boss asked me what I needed. I chose that lens and found it on sale for $2000, although the list price at the time was $2300.

Now I'm about to retire, so I'll have to give the lens back. It's hard to face life without it, so I'm fairly resigned to having to buy a replacement. What will I have to pay? $2000, apparently. Virtually every other commonly used piece of photographic equipment has depreciated by 40% or so in that time, but not, it seems, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. It looks like I'll have to pay what my employer paid four or five years ago. Which says that the lens has held its value pretty well. It's still one of the most highly regarded lenses made, so the risk involved in buying it seems relatively low. Nobody can say for sure what the future will bring. But if I do end up paying the current price for that lens, I guess I won't feel that I'm being robbed.

[PhotoBug7]

Bob from Boston, I really appreciate your answer and your kindness.  Yes, money is tight.  Buying thr best equipment can get awful expenseive.  But from what I am reading in my reserach, I shouldnt be penny wise and pound foolish.  As an amatuer, I got away  without using a 2.8 lens.  With my Canon 70D and shooting a lot of daytime outdoor sports, I got away with it.  But now it is time to step up with the big boys.  A decent lens with Image Stabilization will last me for years, will enhance my photos, and will certainly help me in those darker, night time or indoor situations.

Any thoughts on the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with stabilization for $1,149.  Seems like a no brainer.

[Waddizzle]

"Any thoughts on the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with stabilization for $1,149.  Seems like a no brainer."

I've never used it.  Compared to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, the Sigma is not as well made.  The Sigma isn't weather sealed against dust and moisture. 

I'm not a big fan of the Sigma "OS", Optical Stabilization, system.  Panning seems to confuse the lens to the point where I have to turn OS off.  But, it works great for eliminating hand shake for a steady shot..  I guess I've been spoiled by Canon's more advanced Image Stabilllization system, which can compensate for panning without seeming to get into a tug of war with the autofocus. 

Being able to quickly pan effectiviely is probably a critical skill for the sports photographer.  Something similar could be said for using weather sealed gear.  I'm an amateur,not a pro.  I think the Sigma is for amateurs, and the Canon is for professionals.

[EDIT]  I have found that I carry my Canon 100-400 far more than my Sigma 150-600.  Why?  Ease of use.  When I use the Canon, I just simply take the shots.  With the Sigma, I use the lens to capture images.  I cannot "flow" with the Sigma because I have to THINK about using the lens too much, instead of just taking the shot.

[ebiggs1]

"I am about to enter into the field pf professional sports photographer."

The cold hard facts of life?  The 100-300 or the 100-400 are not pro level 'sports' lenses.  If you must choose a lens in this price range make it the SIgma 150-600mm Sport.  Get a good high quality monopod.  Although not my first choice for pro level lens it will do as much as possible for the price point.  It will stand up to the roughest demanding use.

The top choice in the 70-200 category is led by the ef 70-200mm f2.8L USM IS II.  Second, IMHO, is the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. You will need a lens in the 70-200 class.

If this is truly your goal and not just a whim, the life of a sports photographer's lens is not easy.  They go through a lot as it is the shot that counts.  Not the lens!  This is why 80% of real pro sports photographers use Canon. The preferred lens is the ef 200mm f2, the ef 300mm f2.8 and ef 400mm f2.8 but these cost a boat load of money. Welcome to the world of pro sports photography!

If all you have is a 70D, you need a better camera to be able to compete in this world.  Either the 1Dx or 5D Mk III.  You didn't mention which sport you are most interested in.  As football requires different lenses than basketball for instance.

You need Photoshop.  Mandatory!

My best advice, get the big Siggy S with a monopod and go shoot some amateur sports for a year or two.