Is the IS feature really needed

rookies

rookies

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
As title really I was r a new canon lens looking at canon 200mm 2.8 L but is IS really needed
 
If you want to shoot handheld at relatively slow shutter speeds then IS is a big advantage, but if you want to shoot at fast shutter speeds or on a tripod then there's no benefit.
 
If you need IS then its needed
If you don't need IS then its not needed.

Rocket Science rule number #1467
 
rookies said:
As title really I was r a new canon lens looking at canon 200mm 2.8 L but is IS really needed
Click to expand...

If you want to shoot hand-held below about 1/200sec, then yes.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you want to shoot hand-held below about 1/200sec, then yes.
Click to expand...

I think that would depend on the lens and the person using it... I'm pretty sure I can use my 16-36 or your 17-40 at a slower shutter speed without major difficulties.

With regards to the original question - it's quite nice to have, but no it's not really needed. You can bump your iso up or open the aperture if you need.
 
Ok that's answers it all thanks guys
 
How many stops does IS hekps
 
It just that I can get a Canon 200mm 2.8 L uses £350
 
KIPAX said:
Its a 200mm and the op will be using it :)
Click to expand...

Missed that!

OP if you want the lens then get it. Most of my lenses don't have IS (including some very expensive ones like the 24-70 2.8 is ii, and 16-25 2.8 ii). With f2.8 you will be able to open it up plenty wide enough to get a decent shutter speed. Oh - and it doesn't help if the subject is moving anyway, it's only any good for your own shaky hands. I don't think it's the most necessary thing in the world.

P.S. I've never believed in the rubbish about 1/lens length. I've got the 50 1.4 and I've managed my some miracle to get it to work at 1/25 before... People come up with rules and then state them as if they are facts. Everyone is different, so just get the lens.

And the number of stops is dependent on the lens and how much you believe the marketing rubbish. If you haven't got it then you don't need to worry about it.
 
rookies said:
It just that I can get a Canon 200mm 2.8 L uses £350
Click to expand...

then you didn't ask the right question.. a blanket is IS really needed... thats silly... you wanted to ask is it worth the extra cost between a non IS...... I would then change my answer to

Better to have and not need than to need and not have...
 
I see IS as not something that is needed or not, but as a feature that if I can pay for it, it may become handy at some occasion... With IS you'll loose nothing, and you'll win the stabilisation. If I could afford it, I'd definitely go for the IS version.
 
supersammy said:
Missed that!

OP if you want the lens then get it. Most of my lenses don't have IS (including some very expensive ones like the 24-70 2.8 is ii ????, and 16-25 2.8 ii). With f2.8 you will be able to open it up plenty wide enough to get a decent shutter speed. Oh - and it doesn't help if the subject is moving anyway, it's only any good for your own shaky hands. I don't think it's the most necessary thing in the world.
Click to expand...

KIPAX said:
then you didn't ask the right question.. a blanket is IS really needed... thats silly... you wanted to ask is it worth the extra cost between a non IS...... I would then change my answer to

Better to have and not need than to need and not have...
Click to expand...


:plus1:
 
Let me clarify what I be using the lens for.

It the reach I need to take images of our daughter sometime keeping still or sometime running about in the field of playing etc.

I currently owns the following 2 lens

Canon 24-105
Canon 85 1,8
 
If your camera has good iso capability and you can guarantee shutter speeds above your focal length (don't forget to add in crop factor if you're on cropped sensor) then no IS would be ok. Another school of thought is that if your sensor has a huge MP count then you need an even higher shutter speed as camera shake will show even more.

Having said that I went with the Tamron 17-50 vc over the non vc model because as stated, better to have it as not to have it. But then I could afford the extra 40 quid. With a big lens like what you're looking at the difference could be huge money.
 
Last edited:
Yes is the difference in price wasn't there I would prob have a IS but the price difference is big.

I've a canon 5d MKIII
 
rookies said:
How many stops does IS hekps
Click to expand...

I think the highest stabilisation claimed is 5 stops (Fuji 18-135). I reckon the Nikon VR lenses I have give 3-4 stops and that Canon's IS offer the same sort of range. Can be very handy.
 
It's a lovely lens and at the right price I would grab one despite lack of IS. The speed will have to stay ideally at or above 1/320s to get consistently sharp images, but you can happily keep it at 2.8 which helps. In Arizona you wouldn't really need IS until sunset, but up here in the gloom and darkness the feature is really helpful.

P.S. IS not so much of a benefit with moving subjects. It helps a little, but you can't expect to shoot at silly speeds.
 
It's a great lens and a superb price. I just sold mine for £330 to mpb, I sold it to part fund a 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM, but if I could have afforded to I would have kept it. With canon tele converters you can turn it into a very sharp 280mm f/4 and a 400mm f/5.6 - and it weighs almost nothing. One of the best lenses for travel I ever had.
 
Thst a shame would of had thst off you for 350
 
supersammy said:
Missed that!

OP if you want the lens then get it. Most of my lenses don't have IS (including some very expensive ones like the 24-70 2.8 is ii, and 16-25 2.8 ii). With f2.8 you will be able to open it up plenty wide enough to get a decent shutter speed. Oh - and it doesn't help if the subject is moving anyway, it's only any good for your own shaky hands. I don't think it's the most necessary thing in the world.

P.S. I've never believed in the rubbish about 1/lens length. I've got the 50 1.4 and I've managed my some miracle to get it to work at 1/25 before... People come up with rules and then state them as if they are facts. Everyone is different, so just get the lens.

And the number of stops is dependent on the lens and how much you believe the marketing rubbish. If you haven't got it then you don't need to worry about it.
Click to expand...

The principle is certainly not rubbish, and though we're all different and circumstances play a big part, in practise it's a good rule of thumb. Camera shake is directly related to magnification of the 'optical system' which is effectively focal length x crop factor. So if you can successfully hand-hold a 50mm lens at 1/25sec, then you'll get the same standard of sharpness at 1/100sec with a 200mm lens, and so on. From this, it follows that image stabilisation is increasingly beneficial at longer focal lengths.

Edit: when you're on the limit, there's safety in numbers. If you shoot three or four frames together, they will all be different but there's a good chance that one will be acceptably sharp. And a monopod is a very good substitute for image stabilisation.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
The principle is certainly not rubbish, and though we're all different and circumstances play a big part, in practise it's a good rule of thumb. Camera shake is directly related to magnification of the 'optical system' which is effectively focal length x crop factor. So if you can successfully hand-hold a 50mm lens at 1/25sec, then you'll get the same standard of sharpness at 1/100sec with a 200mm lens, and so on. From this, it follows that image stabilisation is increasingly beneficial at longer focal lengths.

Edit: when you're on the limit, there's safety in numbers. If you shoot three or four frames together, they will all be different but there's a good chance that one will be acceptably sharp. And a monopod is a very good substitute for image stabilisation.
Click to expand...

Size and weight also can add to the shake. I find that midsize glass between 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 gives me the best stability, while smaller (85/1.8) or much bigger give me a fair bit of problems holding them as steadily. (that's why you'll never sell me a mirror-less)
 
It's a lot of needless talk, there's no IS version of the 200 2.8L lens to compare.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top