Which do you think is the best IS lens so far?

Hello everyone,

 

I suspect i'll be a great fan of IS when i have the money to buy my first one

soon. So i was just wondering - Which IS lens one do you think is the best from

your own working experience and love "emotionally"? I know there are so many

different lenses for totally different situations so they can't all be compared

side by side.

 

Also, is the IS in the newer IS lenses like the 70-200 f4L IS better? That's a

lens that i really want to get:)

 

Barrie

It depends upon how you look at it. I believe the 300 f/2.8L IS is my best lens with IS although the 500 f/4L IS is a close second. My 70-200 f/2.8L IS is my favorite zoom with IS.

300 f/4L IS. Just a super useful lens all around. It focuses much more closely than Canon's

other super telephoto lenses, making it perfect for handheld field macro of unapproachable

subjects like dragonflies and rattlesnakes.

Brian Potts, "I believe the 300 f/2.8L IS is my best lens with IS although the 500 f/4L IS is a close second."

 

At $3900 and $5500 respectively one might expect extraordinary performance!

 

All snideness aside, the 300 f/2.8 is an awesome lens. It my favorite borrow from CPS when I get the chance.

 

In the sub-stratospheric price class, the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is a very commonly used lens; I love mine - probably 90% of my shots are taken with it. In my business (aviation), the focal-length range is right, and the price isn't astronomical.

 

My next telephoto will likely be one of the 70-200mm ones. I'm trying to decide between the faster f/2.8 with older IS and the slower f/4 with the latest IS... Tough choice.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

Geoff, perspective is everything. Someone who is looking at purchasing a 70-300 IS would think the 100-400 is in the stratosphere, and someone buying a point and shoot would think the 70-300 IS is up in the stratosphere.

 

Barrie's question was fairly simple "Which IS lens one do you think is the best from your own working experience and love "emotionally"?" He didn't put a price range on it or any other qualifications.

 

With this said, I do like the 100-400 as well.

Brian Potts, "Geoff, perspective is everything. Someone who is looking at purchasing a 70-300 IS would think the 100-400 is in the stratosphere, and someone buying a point and shoot would think the 70-300 IS is up in the stratosphere."

 

Very true; it wasn't long ago that I was thought an $800 lens was out-of-this-world.

 

I didn't mention it, but I think one of Canon's strengths is that they have a number of decent IS lenses in the ~$500 range the: 28-135mm, 17-85mm, and 70-300mm. Nikon really only has the 24-120mm (and maybe stretching to the $900 18-200mm). Once they start delivering the new $530 70-300mm VR they'll be closer (but based on the 18-200mm history I'm not holding my breath). It's also important to consider the fact that most of Nikon's VR lenses are "3+ stop stabilized" while many of Canon's are the older 2-3 stop technology.

 

If only it were easy...

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

Barrie Tan, "Also, is the IS in the newer IS lenses like the 70-200 f4L IS better?"

 

Yes it is. The technology in the 70-200mm f/2.8 is a few years old, and "only" gives you 3-stops of stabilization (meaning you will get the same camera-motion blurring with IS on that you would see with a 3-stop faster shutter speed and no IS). The 70-200mm f/4 is newer, and claims 4-stops improvement.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

I love my 600 f4IS and 300 f2.8IS but the 70-200 f2.8 IS helps pay the bills... My old 28-135IS got me started a long time ago...

I am strictly an amateur and have no reason to buy the real expensive lenses. I have three Canon IS lenses. 17-55mm 2.8, 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 and 70-300mm 4-5.6 I can't say which is the better. Probably the 17-55mm, but considering you use them for different purposes, it is not easy to say which is the better or best.

I have the 24-105 f/4L IS but the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is my favorite.

Here is one way to look at it. The best IS lens is the one you can afford.

70-200 F2.8L IS

 

IS at the range you need it. Anything higher I'd probably use a tripod. Anything closer I can handhold.

Those big bazookas hurt ma shoulder. Ah likes da EF 24-105 4L IS USM. Perfect range for

walkaround, travel and landscapes.

With the 70-200/2.8, honestly, I can't really tell the difference. With the optically poor 75-300 it really made a difference. With 28-135 ... the long end benefits. I guess with over 300 mm it helps always significantly.

another vote for the 300/f4 IS

My best IS lens is my EF 4.0/500mm L IS, but not only because of its IS. I like the EF 4.0/300mm L IS too, but do not use it that often.

Believe it or not, I didn't like the EF 2.8/70-200mm L IS very much (I know, I know, ...) and I am much happier with the f/4 version, even the non-IS. The EF 4.0/70-200mm L IS is an excellent lens, if, like me, you don't need f/2.8 or stop down anyway.

It basically depends on what you want to photograph, and on your wallet.

 

Aender

My favourite one is definitely the 28-300/3.5-5.6 L IS USM.

Indeed i echo what all the brothers have been saying about the wallet being the deciding

factor!

 

IS will be on my list of must haves for the long reach handholds. Esp since i'm an amateur.

But can anyone tell me whether IS or a larger aperture will be able to correct for blur images

in low light situations provided the photo subject is quite still ie. not fast moving?

Yet again, I vote with Puppy, though my 100-400 always amazes me with what I can shoot over some really long distances

Barrie Tan, "But can anyone tell me whether IS or a larger aperture will be able to correct for blur images in low light situations provided the photo subject is quite still?"

 

In that specific situation (no subject motion), large aperture and IS are essentially interchangeable.

 

For example, imagine you need 1/500s shutter speed to get a sharp shot w/o IS and you have enough light to get that exposure at f/2.8. The non-IS shot at 1/500 & f/2.8 will show (approximately) the same camera-motion blurring as a "2-Stop" IS lens at 1/125 & f/5.6 (two stops smaller aperture and two stops longer exposure).

 

Obviously there will be differences in DOF due to the aperture, and any subject motion will be sharpened by the higher shutter speed.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

No doubt; the 300mm f2.8L IS is the winner for me. Phenomenal.

I would say 28-300IS. When I travel, I take it with me and it provides very good image. Indoor, IS makes a big difference. This is my One-Lens solution.

I find I don't take the 28-135/3.5-5.6 off my camera very much. Great all-purpose lens for the money!

I agree with the responder who said the best IS lens is the one you can afford.

 

I love my 24-105 for the convenient range AND it allows me to do night/dusk photography without a tripod, in some instances. This lens provides resonably sharp hand-held shots to 1/4 sec and slower!

I had the 300/4 IS and 70-300 IS and have the 70-200/2.8 IS. The IS in the 70-300 IS was far more efficient than the other two L lenses.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.