to have IS or not

brad131987

brad131987

Suspended / Banned
Messages
909
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
ive never had an IS lens but am after getting the 70-200mm L
but dont know if i should spend a little more for the IS version

is it worth it or not?
 
im my opinion, if you can afford the is version get it, but, i had the F4 non is version and loved it!
 
I have the 70-200 F2.8L non IS and I love it. SHots come out sharp and crisp, colours great and seems sharp right to the edges.

I dont miss the IS but given the choice I would have prefered it. However I got a bargain for my minty brand new condition lens so it's all good.
 
so if ive never had it should i just avoid it for now?
im going to have a bit of money in about 6 months so could always upgrade to an IS after
 
Depends on what you are going to use it for, if its action photography then the IS is a waste of time, if its a general use lens then it would be worth it if you can afford it. I believe the IS version is a tad sharper than the non IS version. I have the IS version and its sharp enough :) takes a converter well too.

Matt
 
ha
well im only 24 so hope i wont be struggling to hold it any time soon
 
Save some pennies and get the none IS then, you should be able to hand hold at 1/70th at the short end and 1/200th at the long end. I can and I'm old and decrepit LOL.
 
ill see what the prices are like on ebay
and get back to you when i have chosen
but it wont be for a few days theres not many ending soon
 
ChrisH said:
Save some pennies and get the none IS then, you should be able to hand hold at 1/70th at the short end and 1/200th at the long end. I can and I'm old and decrepit LOL.
Click to expand...

That would be assuming you can get those shutter speeds I guess.
I only really use IS where I can't get a sensible shutter speed without going to a silly ISO.
If I can get a shutter speed I could hand hold at I prefer IS to be off.

So, if OP does little low light work IS may not be a great benefit anyway.
 
ChrisH said:
Save some pennies and get the none IS then, you should be able to hand hold at 1/70th at the short end and 1/200th at the long end. I can and I'm old and decrepit LOL.
Click to expand...

That might be true if the lens extended during zooming, the 70/200 doesnt and it might be true if it was on a FF camera, where the reciprocal rule was usefull but on a crop camera you might need a faster shutter speed. Personally I struggle below 1/250 to get a sharp image without IS, YMMV of course.
Matt
 
Last edited:
I bought a 70-200 f4 L non IS and while it was fantastic and gave me some great photos I always hankered for an IS version. I decided to sell my underused MP-E65 and my 70-200 f4 and get a 70-200 2.8 IS L MkI (couldn't stretch to the MkII) and the difference is amazing. The f2.8 is as sharp as the f4 and the IS means I can get away with some great low light long(ish) exposure handheld (resting) at about 1/15 and get some great water shots.
 
brad131987 said:
ha
well im only 24 so hope i wont be struggling to hold it any time soon
Click to expand...

That's not really important. Regardless of your age, IS will help you to get a sharp picture (of a static subject) at a lower shutter speed when you are hand-holding the camera.

Also, with both of the Canon 70-200mm lenses (the f4 and the f2.8), there are more differences between the IS and ordinary versions than just the presence of IS. The IS versions are newer lenses with different, improved designs.
 
MatBin said:
That might be true if the lens extended during zooming...
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with it? The focal length is longer when you zoom in regardless of whether the lens extends or not.
 
SamHH said:
What's that got to do with it? The focal length is longer when you zoom in regardless of whether the lens extends or not.
Click to expand...
It is usually advised to use 1/Focal length as a rule of thumb for a hand holding speed, based on the physical length of the lens, usually a 200m lens is approx 200m long and a 70mm lens 70mm long, the extra length of long lenses giving rise to waggling etc due to their c of g being further away from the film plane (or sensor), however in this case the 70/200 is always approx 200mm long as it doesnt extend during zooming (other than some internal which dont affect c of G much in this case). Therefore the rule-of-thumb doesnt really apply at the short end (for this lens) and it would be advisable to use 1/200 as a minimum hand hold speed (if no IS is present) for this particular lens regardless of focal length in use.
The "rule" is also based of a FF camera as the crop body/small sensor exagerates the effect of any movement at the front element of the lens.
Its all based on practial experience rather than scientific fact of couse and it varies from user to user and how "shakey " they are.
Of course if its a mirror lens that doesnt apply either :)

Matt
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
It is usually advised to use 1/Focal length as a rule of thumb for a hand holding speed, based on the physical length of the lens, usually a 200m lens is approx 200m long and a 70mm lens 70mm long, the extra length of long lenses giving rise to waggling etc due to their c of g being further away from the film plane (or sensor),
Click to expand...


That recommendation (1/focal length) is not about the physical length of the lens, it's about the focal length.
 
SamHH said:
That recommendation (1/focal length) is not about the physical length of the lens, it's about the focal length.
Click to expand...

True and when that advise became common place (years ago - I can at least remember it 35 years ago when I first picked up a camera) if you measured a lens its focal lengh and physical length were broadly similar. As far as I know in additiona focal length is from the front element to the focus point i.e. the focal plane/sensor so in general the two are very similar assuming the lens doesnt protrude into the body by a huge amount and follows "normal" lens design, obviously some that have a true front element deep inside the body e.g. some L series zooms, particulary 24/70 or Sigma 15/30 for instance.

Matt
 
I had the 70-200 f4 non is on a canon 40d and got fed up in the dismal British weather when shooting my kids or landscapes having to push the iso high to get sharp shots so sold it and now have the is version and love it.....
Just save for a bit longer and only buy once.....
 
kennysarmy said:
I had the 70-200 f4 non is on a canon 40d and got fed up in the dismal British weather when shooting my kids or landscapes having to push the iso high to get sharp shots so sold it and now have the is version and love it.....
Just save for a bit longer and only buy once.....
Click to expand...

I second that. I had the none IS but it was never enough so I saved and picked up the IS and never looked back. Its great for handheld and indoors.
 
I got the non-IS a month or two ago, it's a fantastic (& relatively light) little lens - I'm sticking with it for the summer, but am considering an upgrade to the IS version in the long term - it depends how much I use it really. I've got a 300mm F4 IS (which I love!), and even with it's quite old implementation of IS, it feels like I can get nicer results in shakier/darker conditions with that lens.
 
Last edited:
ok still thinking about it

i got to the desert for 6 months soon
so sunny weather constantly
would i need IS?
ill have money after to upgrade when i get back
 
Brad IS is useful in lowlight situations if you don't want to use a high ISO and would like to let a little more light in using a longer shutter speed. If you are going to the desert and shooting in the day then no, you may as well save your pennies and go for the non IS version and invest in a tripod or even a flash if you don't already own one.
 
got a flash and tripod but not taking them due to weight restrictions,
looking at getting one from procamerashop -would it be worth it?
they are cheapish,
would be cheaper to just get the IS becouse every thing ive brought for my camera ive kept
 
I think you have your mind set on an IS lens, as you don't want an IS and a none IS lens, as you say that will be total waste of money and you will lose money when selling it on. Good luck
 
it all depends on my wife if she will let me
i did just buy a canon 7D the other day
 
MatBin said:
True and when that advise became common place (years ago - I can at least remember it 35 years ago when I first picked up a camera) if you measured a lens its focal lengh and physical length were broadly similar. As far as I know in additiona focal length is from the front element to the focus point i.e. the focal plane/sensor so in general the two are very similar assuming the lens doesnt protrude into the body by a huge amount and follows "normal" lens design, obviously some that have a true front element deep inside the body e.g. some L series zooms, particulary 24/70 or Sigma 15/30 for instance.

Matt
Click to expand...

It's focal length Matt, not physical length. The two have only a loose relationship and anyway the figure must be adjusted for the crop factor, and that makes a big difference when you look at Micro 4/3rds for example with 2x factor.

How would you account for a 2x converter, that might extend the focal length by maybe 300mm, but the physical length by only 50mm?

If you wanted to bring a physical element into it, weight would probably make a bigger difference.
 
get the IS! if u can afford it... makes a huge difference when u need it the most...
 
just ordered a non is version from Natmoore from here
cant wait for it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top