Canon : How important is lens IS given IBIS?

[Brentor]

If say the 70-200 L f4 is optically the same as the 70-200 L IS f4, is it still worth buying the IS version if it is to be used on a body with IBIS? Yes you will get more stops of stabilisation, but in the real world will it make much difference?

 

[Adam-G]

I don't shoot Canon so I can only share my experience in my own kit but the IS in my Sigma 70-200 2.8 Sport Lens is absolutely wonderful.

I shoot Lumix S Series and the IBIS is widely regarded as best in class for full frame. Even so, I can notice the difference immediately when I click the lens IS on and they start working together.

I'd say go with the image stabilised version of the lens but Canon shooters may have better advice.

 

[Fixer]

A YouTube videographer commented use IBIS for wider angle lenses and the lens IS for telephoto lenses. Last week I was shooting with a 300mm f2.8 IS at f2.8 at 1/60s with just IS no problems at all. Search for this on YouTube and go to 08m 47s.

Do You Need Image Stabilization? | Ask David Bergman​

 

[DemiLion]

If say the 70-200 L f4 is optically the same as the 70-200 L IS f4,

It isn't.

 

[Overread]

It can also vary depending on your personal fitness and what you shoot. Eg my 70-200mm gets used the most at outdoor events shooting most action based subjects. So a lot of the time I'm well over the rule of thumb of 1/focal length (1/200 at the long end) for steady hand held shooting. So in theory I don't need the IS (in fact the IS tends to sit there in the off position).

However if I were shooting indoors or in dimmer conditions more and more and shooting subjects that were static or moving slower so I could use slower shutter speeds, then I might well find more use for IS. For me having IS on the lens means I get to choose. I can turn it on and off and use it when I need too. If you don't have IS on a 70-200mm lens then I don't think its the end of the world, esp with modern cameras which not only have built in IS systems, but also have very good ISO performance so you can always up the ISO and claw back enough to get a more comfortable shutter speed.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

From experience with R6... not very.... in fact IS is a potential and very expensive point of failure.
I've been happily shooting ART primes and even 400mm at speeds where DSLRs would simply consistently present issues.

However you will want to have it all on tripod with IS / IBIS off for the best and most consistent results.

I also notice Sony is designing many of their new lenses without IS, so clearly it is not as important on their newer bodies any longer

If say the 70-200 L f4 is optically the same as the 70-200 L IS f4

while you could argue they are somewhat close on lower resolution cameras, no they are not the same, and the latter doesn't even have weather sealing. For the price difference it hard to justify older lens, unless as above you are very afraid of IS failure.

 

[DemiLion]

and the latter doesn't even have weather sealing.

I hink that you might have misordered the lenses. The IS certainly does have weather sealing.

 

[ecoleman]

If say the 70-200 L f4 is optically the same as the 70-200 L IS f4, is it still worth buying the IS version if it is to be used on a body with IBIS? Yes you will get more stops of stabilisation, but in the real world will it make much difference?

It depends what that real world is.

If the real world requires an extra few stops of stabilisation, then yes it will make a difference.
If that real world is bright an sunny, unlike the UK a the moment, then you probably won't notice the difference.

 

[Craikeybaby]

I also notice Sony is designing many of their new lenses without IS, so clearly it is not as important on their newer bodies any longer

Now that most new Fuji bodies have IBIS, they have released a new kit without IS, so same thing.

It probably makes sense to have image stabilisation in the body, for all lenses used, rather than a separate stabilisation sensor/motor etc in each lens.

 

[ecoleman]

while you could argue they are somewhat close on lower resolution cameras, no they are not the same, and the latter doesn't even have weather sealing. For the price difference it hard to justify older lens, unless as above you are very afraid of IS failure.

The former (Non IS) didn't have weather sealing. The latter (IS) did.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I hink that you might have misordered the lenses. The IS certainly does have weather sealing.

In op the list is upside down so there you have it!!!

 

[ecoleman]

In op the list is upside down so there you have it!!!

If say the 70-200 L f4 is optically the same as the 70-200 L IS f4, is it still

Nope it's the correct way round. So there you have it.

Former would be the Non IS version and the latter would be the IS version, therefore your statement that the latter did not have weather sealing is incorrect.

The Non IS did not have weather sealing, The IS version did.

 

[Phil V]

Now that most new Fuji bodies have IBIS, they have released a new kit without IS, so same thing.

It probably makes sense to have image stabilisation in the body, for all lenses used, rather than a separate stabilisation sensor/motor etc in each lens.

I think the reason Canon stuck to lens IS is simply that in body stabilisation is much less effective for longer lenses. Whilst it works very well for wide angle / standard lenses.

 

[Overread]

I think the reason Canon stuck to lens IS is simply that in body stabilisation is much less effective for longer lenses. Whilst it works very well for wide angle / standard lenses.

Agreed; plus if you have effective IS communication between lens and camera you can likely get even more improved performance over just one or the other; esp with longer lenses. It likely means that the parts which allow the sensor to compensate for shake, don't have to move as much as if they had to try and factor in IS systems for 1000mm lenses as well.