To IS or to not IS?? that is the question!

[yummymummy]

Ok, so I'm getting a new lens in the coming months, been doing a bit of research, and want to know, I am getting the Canon 70-200 F2.8, but can't really decide whether to get IS or not. None of my other lenses have IS, and I seem to do fine with them Thoughts??

[PH005]

My thought would be. If I was spending that much on a new lens I would go the extra bit and get the IS. I assume that it is an advantage when shooting hand held at the longer focal end. If you think you will be useing it on a tripod most of the time then I'm not so sure. There are a lot of members here with either models, so I reckon you will get a lot of advice. Best of luck Yummy.

[yummymummy]

Thanks, yeah that was my thoughts, I think I'm just in brain overload at the moment, I've been looking at reviews and pages of info and my head is just in a million places at once lol.

[fillum]

To add to PH005's reply, the rule-of-thumb for hand-holding is that your s/s needs to be "one over the focal length" or faster to get sharp images, so a min of 1/200 here at the long end (or 1/320 if you want to consider the crop factor), although the exact figure would obviously vary between individuals. If you're going to be shooting hand-held at speeds lower than this then IS is a good idea.


Cheers.

[PH005]

Thanks, yeah that was my thoughts, I think I'm just in brain overload at the moment, I've been looking at reviews and pages of info and my head is just in a million places at once lol.

I know what you mean. Did you catch any of the " Advice from birders on lens choice " thread that I started. Phew, I changed my mind every 2nd post I recon. Great fun though.

[jgknight]

I have that particular lens and I am so glad I got the IS model. You can turn it off when using a tripod but it is extremely beneficial when using hand held.

[mikew09]

Hmm, I am still going through this dilema. I bought the 70-200L f4 non is and have not missed the is at all but it is all outside phtotgraphy mostly in good light. Bought the Tamron SP17-50 f2.8 and it has always been a very sharp and great lens non VC model. My friend bought the 70-200 f2.8 NON IS and is very happy with it. Remeber that IS is only benefit to camera shake so if you are prone to unsteady hands I think you should consider it. Having said that, there is a fair difference in price between the 2.8 non is and the new is model and for the same you could buy a 24-105 and the non is 2.8 build of the 70-200. For me I don't miss is at all and did have it on an earlier lens, but to be honest I don't take a lot of photos where conditions warrant is, either good to great lighting or tripod mounted - landscape / sunset / rise.
If you can afford IS and it is not taking you away from another purchase I would go the IS.

[ving]

get IS... it comes in handy. if you dont want the IS you can just turn it off,.

[Bennymiata]

The longer the lens, the more you need IS.

The usefullness will be remembered long after the price is forgotten (to paraphrase an old saying).

While I can hold a camera pretty steadily, it's often when you need to take a quick photo and you are excited about getting it, that IS will come in very handy.
Personally, I won't buy any lens over about 80mm that doesn't have IS, as I am getting older and weaker and I need every bit of help I can get.

[yummymummy]

Thanks everyone, certainly a lot more to think about now... most of my photos are outdoor ones, like kids footy for instance, I'm not sure I'd use a lens that length indoors a lot, but as was pointed out when i posted the same question on fb, if i were to get the lens and by chance end up taking photos at a wedding where they don't allow flash in the church, then i'd be stuck either lugging around a tripod or monopod, or I'd get shaky photos. A lot to think about, especially the extra money :-s that seems to be the biggest issue right now for me.

[kiwi]

kids footy you dont need it, everything else that the lens is great for, portraits, indoor events, weddings, its definately handy

i would recommend the nikon vrii though - much better

[yummymummy]

only one problem with the Nikon vrii ... it won't fit on my camera

[kiwi]

ooh, i have an answer for that problem too

[Scotty72]

Just when you think you are as cool as a cucumber with rock-steady hands, you will realise just how unsteady you are - especially at 200mm.

That rule of thumb starts to become less sensible the longer the lens. I'm not sure I'd wanna rely on my rock steady hands trying to hold the Bigma at 500mm at anything less than 1/2000 sec if I wanted a pic even resembling sharp

Indoors you'll need is.

Outdoors, on gloomy days you'll need is.

[brindyman]

from what i heard the 2.8 IS has more elements ? which would lead me to believe the bokeh would be more creamy making the image pop more...along with the ability to use slower speeds in low light while still getting a sharp picture

[yummymummy]

Thanks, yeah that's what I heard too. I'm excited! probably won't get it for a few months yet, gotta save the extra $$'s now lol

[agb]

Plenty of examples of what others have done with the non IS on http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=168429

[yummymummy]

Thanks agb

[dulvariprestige]

I just went through the same thing, I couldn't afford the MKII, so it was between the canon non IS and the sigma OS, bit the bullet on Monday and ordered the sigma, Wednesday it arrived,

So far, I'm so impressed with this lens, the IQ is way better than the non OS version that I had, and stabilization is so nice when you need it.

So if you want IS, and can't go for the $2,500 canon MKII, I'd seriously have a look at the sigma, it's half the price, and the shots that I've got, are as good as the ones that I've got from the canon MKI IS

[agb]

Thanks agb

Pleasure is all mine. I often go there to drool over the results that others get with their lenses,nd dream about getting one of them. One of life's great pleasures is dreaming.
Though lens envy is probably a bad thing.