70-200 f/4 non IS... do you need to shoot on tripod?

[thetathink]

I'm looking at getting the Canon 70-200 f/4L. I was wondering if people who shoot with this lens typically use a tripod with it, or are you able to get sharp images handheld?

 

[gsgary]

Never used a tripod, are these shots sharp enough ?

 

[thetathink]

Look sharp to me. But I guess I'm just wondering how the IS version compares, I've never had an IS lens, and am wondering what kind of improvement you will notice.

 

[AverageJoe]

Keep in mind IS keeps the lens steady, but if you are shooting something that is moving it doesn't benefit from IS.

 

[ericonoahu]

Is it also true that on a tripod you need to turn the IS off because it will adversely effect the photo if not compensating for hand shake?

 

[ann]

if you use an IS lens on a tripod you have to turn it off.

 

[rufus5150]

Not true, actually. Older IS models, yes, but most up-to-date IS models are tripod-aware and effectively turn the IS off (ex: the 70-200 f2.8 II is sensitive to tripod stabilization, whereas the 100-400mm L IS is not, and lenses such as the 300mm f2.8 will actually compensate for mirror slap while disabling the IS which can cause bad mojo when used in junction with a tripod). The manual still recommends turn it off to save battery life.

 

[Josh66]

I'm looking at getting the Canon 70-200 f/4L. I was wondering if people who shoot with this lens typically use a tripod with it, or are you able to get sharp images handheld?

Outside, I don't think I've ever needed a tripod with this lens. Inside, in low light - yes, you do need one sometimes.

 

[Canon Man]

I use 70-200 f/2.8 non IS without tripod even in low light. It's really fast.

 

[Soocom1]

Short answer... yes. Use the tripod if its non I.S.

I have a boom with mine, and mount the boom to the tripod and loosen up the head on the tripod and boom. Then it becomes a stableizing rig. This if your going to stay stationary. Otherwise, even a monopod will work.

 

[Fate]

I guess it also depends on what subject your shooting and also what camera body you use. If you can push the ISO up nice and high then theres no worries! Go for it and you'll save your self a fortune!

 

[786soul]

What's your guys' thoughts on the 70-200 for portrait work then? 2.8 IS or 2.8 non IS?

 

[Big Mike]

There are many times when someone might want or need to use a tripod (or not), irregardless of which lens they are using.

I think that testing shows that you can gain two to three (maybe even four) extra stops of 'handholdability'. Meaning that if you can normally shoot steady at 1/125, then you could shoot at 1/15 or thereabouts.

What's your guys' thoughts on the 70-200 for portrait work then? 2.8 IS or 2.8 non IS?

Either one is an excellent choice for portraits...mainly because of the focal length and the top quality of the lens/glass.

Having IS, is a nice feature and can really save you in some situation...but as mentioned, it can't stop moving subjects. So when shooting people, there is an extra window that it gives you, but it won't be a lifesaver when the light gets dim.
For example, without IS, you'd want to keep the shutter speed at 1/200 or faster, to avoid camera shake. With IS, you could shoot down to 1/60 or 1/30 and still be OK...but at 1/30, it's hard to get very sharp shots of people who aren't perfectly still.