OS vs SSS

[Juanito200]

Hello all- I am looking to upgrade some of my lenses soon, as what I have is beginning to fall short of my needs. My main concern is nighttime/low light shooting at football games and indoor band concerts for my kids. This means f2.8 glass, but my main question is: given a choice between two, say 70-200 f2.8 lenses, or 24-70 f2.8 lenses, would choosing the one with OS be better for me (I don't have very steady hands)? I've read that OS seems better for longer focal lengths, but nothing definitive... I am leaning towards a 70-200 f2.8 first, and would be looking at the new Sigma with OS, or the Sony G.
Which gives you more 'shake reduction' OS or SSS? I can use a tripod for my kids indoor band concerts most of the time, but when Ian is marching, that isn't an option.
Two of my co-workers have Canon camers with OS lenses. I really like how they work, such as seeing the reduction in the viewfinder, but a few shots in a cath lab aren't the best test for deciding..
I would be using my a700 as the primary body. (and I know that SSS has to be turned off for OS)
Any thoughts/ suggestions would be appreciated.

[David Kilpatrick]

I've used both systems from many makers. SSS works best for getting critical sharpness from normal exposures, and with shorter focal lengths. It can sharpen up results at setting like 1/250th with a standard lens. IS in-lens is better for longer focal lengths, I guess over 200mm shows the most benefit with the stabilised view. It's hard to say that Shirley's shots with her 18-250mm OS Sigma show any 'shake' advantage over her shots with the 18-250mm Sony before it, except right at the 250mm end. We went for the Sigma after she lost a few shots at 250mm in Venice with the Sony lens, which I would have expected to be OK - shutter speeds like 1/60th. The same has never happened with the Sigma. So while I would not rush to buy a 17-50mm OS, for a 150-500mm or something like that I would recommend it.

David

[bakubo]

I haven't done any testing, but my impression is the same as David's. I have been using the Tamron 18-270mm VC on my 60D for a few weeks now and it seems like at the long end the VC is working a bit better than SSS. I have for years preferred SSS for focal lengths up to about 200mm (on APS-C), but ILIS for anything longer because IBIS works with any lens. The stabilized vf is really nice when you get to longer focal lengths, but I don't find it important at all when the focal lengths are shorter (less than ~200mm).

Something to remember with ILIS though is that there is more battery drain since, unlike IBIS, it is active for long periods rather than just during exposure. On the 60D I have found that even with ILIS my battery is lasting many times longer than my A700 batteries though. I suspect that if the same lens was on my A700 then the battery life would take a pretty big hit.

[Juanito200]

Thanks David and Henry- Your responses were exactly what I was looking for, real world experience from people who have used both. That helps quite a bit in my decision making process. If I do go with OS, it sounds like I'd better get a VG for my a700, as it seems to use batteries faster than my a200, and would be worse with an OS lens. Thanks again, John

[agorabasta]

There's one more thing to keep in mind about the lens IS - it causes additional CA and sharpness loss due to decentring of the active element, and that CA is also decentred. And it is so even with some high-end Canon/Nikon lenses.
Yet quite surprisingly, the Sigma 18-250 hardly shows any IS-added CA at all, maybe just a little more in one or two corners.

[InTheSky]

Personally, I think (this probably wrong) for sport picture in low light (inside building not profesional place) and for concert (not big Bonjovi, Madona,... setup), the main goal is to have faster exposition as possible. So the main choice should be on the Camera body (good quality High ISO performance) and after that faster exposition (more than 1/125) meaning very fast lens. (opposed to travel landscape picture)

If the subject is not moving long distance on the stage or on the field often ... portable Tripod or mono pod is better investment that buying lens for the IS system in it.

So far... with personal experience, in low light concert photo, I realized that 2.8 is very the far limit, and acceptable is from 1.4 to 2.0. ISO 3200 is a minimum too. Outside that range you are sure to miss good picture. Most of my personal picture are often in the 1/30 at F/1.7 ISO 3200, and usually better at 1/60 at F/1.7 ISO 6400.

In conclusion, is probably better getting a prime in the middle of a Zoom lens range: zooming with a crop on a clean and sharp subject, than zooming with the lens and getting a clean background but a blurred subject.

Regards,

Frank

[Juanito200]

Thanks for your input Frank... Every opinion counts to me, as I am learning, and I don't have too much experience shooting in these situations. I considered the 135 f1.8, but I think that for me, a zoom (even at f2. is a better value for me, as I can afford only 1 really expensive lens. I definitely agree that a good tripod is a necessity. For Ian's band and orchestra concerts, he isn't moving, and a tripod is ideal. But, during marching season, he is marching about the field, and I may need different focal lengths to capture what I want. I shoot with an a700 and I use my Minolta 100-300 apo for all tele shots. I have posted what I think is my best (quality wise) shot from his latest concert. a700 100-300apo, 1/125 sec, +0.3 ev, +3.0 flash compensation, ISO 1250. I had to use the onboard flash, as I broke the flash mount on the camera, and will get it fixed after the holidays... I don't know if using a shorter focal length, such as 135mm, and cropping would be as good as using 200mm on a zoom @ f2.8 or 3.2 at normal size. I can't get too close on the indoor concerts, and while marching the distance varies.. Again, thanks for your input. Could you give a link to some of your concert shots, so I can see your technique. Thanks a million, John
@agorabasta, that gives me something to think about, I do get some CA in my shots, especially off of the shiny parts of the instruments. John
Here is his last concert. The full size can be found here on my Flickrhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/johnleblan ... otostream/

[InTheSky]

Here is the link to my general pbase gallery : http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/photo_shows.

I'm always continue learning after all those band I have covered. Most of my picture are in condition where there is some time not enough light to shoot at ISO 6400 F1.4 1/10 sec ... but I like this condition because it is the best way to improve skill. Probably with a Nikon D3s In that condition I could play with 2.8-3.5 ... but not with a Sony A900.

I have sold my A700 in 2008 for the A900, but this is the last show I have covered with it. http://www.pbase.com/nadeauf/laypoo3 Before meeting Lightroom 3.0, the A700 was to my taste far superior to the A900 in that low light condition:

Picture from this show:
A700 50mm 1/50s F1.6 ISO5000



The only 2.8 lens I'm still using in low light are the Minolta Fisheye 2.8 (that its feel 2 times brighter than my other 14mm 2.8 Tamron) and the Minolta 200mm 2.8 most of the time a 2.8 when there is good light on the subject like this one :

A900 200mm 1/80s F2.8 ISO3200

For this last one, the SSS and good breath has help to get the picture clean.

Regards,

Frank

[Juanito200]

Thanks Frank- Those are some very challenging situations for photography. There are some awesome photos in your Pbase galleries. Thank you for posting the link. You all have given me much to think about in my dilemma. Thanks John