is IS worth it?

smithe

Suspended / Banned
Messages
119
Edit My Images
Yes
sorry I'm sure this has been asked before but cant search for IS cause its too short.

Basically I am looking at getting a canon 70-200mm L and have found one without IS for around £700 and I'm trying to work out if its worth it or should I save and get the IS version?

Thanks
 
(This is based on experience of Nikon's equivalent VR)


Unless you're going tripod 100% of the time, very much worth it.
 
The IS version whenever possible.:)
 
Think it also depends on what your photographing. I would def consider the IS if you can afford it, but on some lenses it adds another £3-400 and for that difference, personally, I feel you've got to be certain you can't do without it to spend that extra money. :thumbs:
 
Here's the way i see it i have a Nikon VR lens and i can shoot just as sharp without the VR being on. If you think back to the good old days they never had this luxury and people got amazing shots then.

All that said it is a nice bonus to have though not worth the extra money in my book we are just being ripped off for something that will cost so little to install in the lens at build.
 
Here's the way i see it i have a Nikon VR lens and i can shoot just as sharp without the VR being on. If you think back to the good old days they never had this luxury and people got amazing shots then.

All that said it is a nice bonus to have though not worth the extra money in my book we are just being ripped off for something that will cost so little to install in the lens at build.

VR/IS is something that really isn't necessary in lightweigh consumer lenses such as the 18-105 that you have, but it comes into it's own once you get up to around the 200mm mark, especially with heavier pro glass.

Having said that faster glass (ie f/2.8 and above) is preferable to something that's wide open at f/5.6 and has VR/IS.
 
I wouldn't buy a long lens without IS. For me, it's worth every penny. Not only does it reduce camera shake dramatically, it also stabilises the viewfinder which makes framing easier. I've just bought a new 135mm prime and it's my longest lens without IS. I am surprised at just how much is jiggles about.

However, if you regularly shoot fast action that demands 1/400sec or 1/500sec anyway, then there's perhaps not much to be gained with IS with that lens. However, if you've got IS, there's nothing to lose. (I just don't believe that IS lenses are less sharp than their non-IS counterparts.)
 
thanks for all the tips everyone, I think I might save as its going to be used quite a bit at gigs or concerts where I mainly have to handhold, now have to hunt for a good price on the IS
 
thanks for all the tips everyone, I think I might save as its going to be used quite a bit at gigs or concerts where I mainly have to handhold, now have to hunt for a good price on the IS
for gigs I would be looking for the 2.8IS.
 
Very much worth it IMHO. It ups your slow shutter speed 'keeper rate' massively. Of course it won't compensate for bad technique, but it just gives you a bit of a helping hand. One thing to bear in mind is that most IS systems take around 1 second to effectively stabilise the optics (usually stated by half-pressing the shutter button to focus), which may be a bit too much time to make it useful in gig photography
 
I tried both
IS made such a difference for me
couldn't live without it

another good question is
How many people with IS ever turn it off?4
answer
probably very very few!
 
I tried both
IS made such a difference for me
couldn't live without it

another good question is
How many people with IS ever turn it off?4
answer
probably very very few!
Never turn mine off.
 
Never turn mine off.

Nor me. If you're worried about battery life just get a spare battery and/or a grip. It's such a useful feature, no point having it and turning it off.
 
Presume you mean to 2.8L for £700 - that seems like a steal.
 
Presume you mean to 2.8L for £700 - that seems like a steal.
There's a 70-200 f/2.8L IS in the classifieds here for £975.

I'm inclined to disagreement with some here, because I don't think IS is a silver bullet and would generally be inclined towards faster glass than IS if given a choice at the same price.

But for the extra £275, it'd definitely be worth it for me.

Stroller.
 
My thoughts for what they are worth. I had a 70-200L non IS. I sold that and bought a 300 F4L (IS), that got damaged so claimed on insurance. Bought myself a 50D, sold old 400D and bought another 70-200F4L non IS.So my views.

IS is another money spinning gimmick to a certain degree, I would have thought the two big names could easily incorporate that function within the body.

Learn how to develope your own comfortable way of holding your camera, there is no right or wrong way, just what feels good. Besides every situation will require you to be taking shots in a different position.GlasgowGunner was right in a way about the good old days, although I think todays DSLR`s seem to be a little bit more sensitive to vibration.

Learn how to control your breathing, this really helps.
Learn how to relax, nothing worse than having that great shot opportunity and you go all tence.

Depends how much money you got to throw at the hobby, which covers everything. Do I need one flash or two? I own a 300MM should I buy a 400mm? Should I get a 2.8 or F4.

Just think about your needs and how much you will use that piece of equipment, does it warrant spending the extra couple of hundred. Think about the little extras you might want along the way, those little bits soon add up to a couple of hundred quid. Only you know the answer to that. Good luck in whatever you decide. ;)
 
thanks for all the help, I went for an IS model, got quite a good deal on it so I think it was worth the little extra. I'll have to see. Oh yeah and it was the non IS for 700 for those that asked.
 
Back
Top