Is "IS" that important?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by nadiaduchemin, Jun 23, 2011.

  1. Hello everyone,
    I'm currently looking for a used lens to upgrade my photography bag. On Keh, there's one a 55-200mm that looks interesting with a price I can afford, however the lens don't have the "IS" on it.
    I will be using the lens mostly with no tripod.
    Do you absolutely need IS on a lens?
    My camera is a Rebel XS.
    Thank you.
     
  2. Do you absolutely need IS on a lens?​
    Absolutely yes for handheld telephotos and telephoto zooms. There will be others who will absolutely disagree with me.
     
  3. mmmm......yeah, sometimes it will gain you a stop or two, maybe save a shot that you wouldn't have captured without it. You still have to be as still as can be and then.....yeah, sometimes.
     
  4. Look at which lens are offered with IS. The preponderance is at the telephoto end. Normal focal length and normal zooms are more split, some with, some without, though the newer offerings tend towards IS. The wide angles, both primes and zooms, are pretty much as a class not IS.
    Since the lens are designed with market demands, that pretty much sums up the need for IS: the longer the lens, the more indespensable IS becomes. One exception might be panning shots with a telephoto, ie: following a moving subject, say a runner or race car. Even there IS can help: many of the Canon telephotos have an IS setting for use when panning: only stabilizing vertically.
     
  5. I understand. Thank you :)
     
  6. You want IS if you have a problem with holding the camera steady enough for clear shots. This will tend to be more of a problem with telephoto shots, which are more sensitive to camera motion because of their greater magnification.
    I rarely shoot anything longer than 200mm, and I try to keep my shutter speed faster than or equal to the reciprocal of my focal length (1/50 at 50mm, 1/200 at 200mm, etc.), which I find generally is good enough to prevent blur caused by camera shake. When I can't do that, I brace myself or the camera against something, or I use a tripod. I don't remember the last time I used IS. I don't think I even own any IS lenses anymore. I don't miss it.
    This is not to deny that some people find IS useful. It can allow you to get some shots hand-held that otherwise might require a tripod. But only if camera shake is the reason for your shots not being sharp in the first place.
     
  7. Absolutely yes for handheld telephotos and telephoto zooms. There will be others who will absolutely disagree with me.​
    Perhaps not "absolutely yes" (as Craig's post implies), but I certainly find IS to be nearly indispensible in my longer telephotos, given that I do most of my shooting handheld. Apart from considerations of cost, I cannot see a compelling reason why anyone wouldn't want IS in a telephoto prime or zoom.
     
  8. IS on telephotos became an important once cameras with crop sensors and higher than 12MP started to saturate the market. Denser pixel structures tend to magnify movement as do crop factor sensors (by decreasing the angle of view, they are in effect magnifying the image)-also, on these types of cameras, the inverse rule mentioned above becomes skewed. It's been my experience that a 300mm lens without IS become very difficult to handhold with consistently clear results at shutter speeds below 1/800 on a 1.6 crop body w/18MP.
     
  9. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    You don't need IS on a lens if--
    • You use a tripod all the time or
    • You habitually shoot in bright light with fast shutter speeds
    • You don't use long lenses , which are difficult to keep steady even at fast shutter speeds
    • Sharpness isn't particularly important to you.
    If any of the above aren't true, then some of your photographs (not all) will be visibly improved by IS. Personally, even though I'm using a tripod much of the time, I don't see myself buying a lens without IS unless maybe a very wide angle.
     
  10. I use a 135L and do not find IS would be at all useful in 90% of situations for portrait work, any blur is almost always due to the difficulty shooting with f/2 and its very shallow DOF. However I use a 24-105L for the few landscapes I try and find IS essential throughout the range, a real lifesaver in fact. Everyone will have a different opinion on this one I imagine
     
  11. A lot of good advice in these postings, but it might help to refocus on your original question. It all depends on what you are shooting. If you are going to be doing handheld shots with that equipment at 200mm and will want a shutter speed of less than 1/320 or so, you will want IS. Personally, for what I shoot, I find IS on a 200mm lens tremendously valuable and would not buy one without it, even though I have two shorter lenses without IS that I use for other purposes, and I have virtually never felt the absence. Keep in mind that because IS helps only with hand motion, not subject motion, the question is in part whether you are shooting images (e.g., not kids in a race) that would allow a shutter speed slower than that anyway.
     
  12. Before IS and hi ISO came along we all struggled to keep our long lenses steady. IS would have been indispensible then. Generally if you can get shutter speeds up over 1/1000th you won't need IS. It's pretty obvious that this is still not always possible for low light shots so I'd say IS is necessary for low light, but not essential for good light.
     
  13. If my budget could by any means be stretched to afford the IS on a given medium to long focal length, I would always buy the lens with the feature. I have fairly steady grip and shoot lots of longer legacy lenses without any real problem, but the IS gives you an edge.
    In most cases, given my kind of shooting, I'd buy the IS lens over a faster (aperture) lens without IS.
     
  14. I am considering the 80-200 f4 L as a travel tele zoom. I use field expedients such as handy guard rails, trees, utility poles, etc, as well as the higher ISO's of which recent DSLR's are capable. I also use a monopod or tripod occasionally. Add to that a lens that is acceptably sharp wide open, and I don't feel I need IS.
    If I shot sports or PJ for a living, and someone else was footing the bill for IS, of course., I'd shell out for it.
     
  15. With my 5D MkII I find myself taking advantage of its excellent IQ at ISO 6400, but, even then, I shoot at handheld speeds as low as 1/15th second for night street scenes. The IS in my 24-105mm allows me to do such things almost effortlessly. With my 500mm f/4 in the dark woods, I'll occasionally shoot as slow as 1/160th second, hand held. Once again IS is invaluable. I own tripods and monopods, but they're not always with me and they can be a negative when trying to do candid street shooting.
    If you'll never do any of the above, then IS would be a waste. For me, IS opens up new possibilities.
     
  16. I have many lenses none of which have IS and I don't miss it a bit. However, I strongly believe nothing beats an monopod or tripod. I realy like my Gitso Monopod it is very light, makes a good walking stick, or baton for protecting my 5D Mark II and bag of L-series primes. Also, because my lenses are all F2.8 or faster they are big and heavy. I like the monopod just to take the weight of the camera off my neck and arms when shooting fashion shows or other events where I am waiting for the shot for a long time. I think too many people don't use tripods or monopods which to me make a huge difference in both video and photo qualitiy.
     
  17. At first I thought IS would be vital but quickly understood that it isn't.

    "IS is useful for teles" is what people say. Long lenses are often used for portraits, wildlife and sports. In all those cases you need a short shutter to freeze the subject, so IS becomes obsolete.

    I use 135/2 and 1/125". IS wouldn't add much. IS is useful for handheld macro shots though.
    In summary, IS is useful but if it comes at a high price tag, I'd rather put that money in a larger aperture.
     
  18. This photo was taken hand held at 200mm, f/2.8 and 1/25 s. Without IS, it wouldn't have been usable.
    00YwSO-372903584.jpg
     
  19. Hocus Focus would be right for you if all you are doing is portraiture - where maybe a good tripod is better anyhow than either wider aperture (unless for 'bokeh') or IS.
    Actually, IS is not so great for sports either, unless you are going for the blurred motion effect, since the IS only handles motion on the near side of the camera, and will not help stop blur from motion by the subject.
    However, for the great mass of the pictures that most of us take, the IS gives from 2-3 stops advantage in stopping camera/user blur.
    If you are looking at a 55-200mm, you really owe it to yourself to look at Canon's own EF-S 55-250mm IS lens. It's very inexpensive (I think it's a kind of 'loss-leader' to get you sucked into buying Canon glass), and is by every test I've seen astonishingly good (see http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/411-canon_55250_456is_50d ).
     
  20. Let me rephrase:
    IS is useful for slow consumer lenses (f/5.6, f/4) and less useful the larger the aperture gets (f/2.8 - f/1.4).
    Ever wondered why the expensive primes (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2...) don't come with IS? Because they don't need it.
    For portraits, wildlife, sports, concerts, wedding, events... the large aperture produces a more pleasing picture than a slow lens with IS in my opinion.
    I find IS useful when using a small aperture, like for macro, landscape and travel when you don't haul a tripod.
     
  21. For that lens I 'd spring for the IS version. When you get to lenses like 500mm f4 where IS adds a few thousand dollars to the price then it becomes more of an issue but the 55-200 with IS shouldn't be much more.
     
  22. IS is so useful with the 500/f4 that I'm seriously considering updating to the new Series II 500mm only because it offers another two stops of IS performance over my current lens that's only one-year old. The premium is around $3000, but that's one IS lens to a newer IS lens. Losing a full pound in weight doesn't hurt either.
    I shoot 99% handheld with my 500/f4, finding that it greatly increases my keeper-rate over using a tripod, particularly for birds in flight; however, some people almost never shoot their 500/f4s hand held, so for them the extra money would be a waster.
    The decision, whether with a 500mm or a 24mm, depends on how you use your lenses and camera(s). I find IS very useful from wide to super-tele.
     
  23. Unlike some gimmicky features dreamt up by marketing zombies, IS has real utility for photographers who value image
    sharpness.
     
  24. Ever wondered why the expensive primes (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2...) don't come with IS? Because they don't need it.​
    For reasons already discussed elsewhere, short normal to wide lenses can do well enough without the feature because camera shake contributes only a small percentage of the total picture. In those cases, while the IS would improve the image somewhat, you wouldn't notice it anyway.
    The rest of them don't have it because they are relatively ancient designs predating the availability of modern IS - introduced in the Canon 75-300mm IS lens of way back. You will note that even the fastest new 70-200, etc zooms have IS. The feature is omitted only as a cost-saving measure for people who think like Hocus Pocus and those who always use a tripod anyway. :)
     
  25. 135mm and 85mm being normal to wide?
    There are people who shoot and there are people who read online forums. I'd get my advice from someone who shoots.
    The noob will tell you "get the longest zoom with IS" and the pro will say "pick the focal length you need with the widest aperture you can afford". There is of course the middle road with large aperture zooms to which 55-200 doesn't belong.
    If you need a supertele, 70-300 IS is a better tool on crop. And if you need a regular tele, 85/1.8 on crop performs much better than either at a similar price.
     
  26. That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
    (OK, somebody had to say it).
     
  27. Joseph Wisniewski, everyone! Joseph will be performing at Caesar's all next week!


    :)


    It IS what it IS!
     
  28. No. Also consider the Canon EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM. Good image quality, very light, very fast autofocus, and very quiet.
     
  29. IS is another really useful tool and it all comes down to a financial decision. IS does not add much to a lenses size and weight (and although it reduces battery life this is not a big deal) but it can add a lot to the price. In general it becomes a very desirable feature in lenses over 100mm and slower than F4. With faster lenses or shorter ones it is a nice to have feature and it's importance depends on what you shoot. So for example my 70-200 f4 is the IS model but my 70-200 F2.8 is not - this is a personal decision but for me I mainly shoot sports with the F2.8 lens so I don't miss IS. On the slower lens IS is more important as it is my general purpose lens and IS adds a lot of flexibility. Would IS be nice on the F2.8 - sure but it almost doubles the lens price (although I have had my F2.8 lens for a very long time).
    The 70-200 F2.8 IS II costs $2400, the F2.8 non IS is $1400 and the F4 IS is $1300. So the decision here would be spend and extra $300 and get two lenses which gives you a lightweight option as the F4 lens is half the weight - or take the convenience of the F2.8 IS single lens solution. This is a difficult decision which depends on what you need them for.
    In the case of the EFS 75-300 / 70-300 IS the difference is $200 vs $550 so again it really depends how much you need the lens. IS will make this lens a lot more useful but it is over twice the price so if you only plan to use it occasionally you may not need to get it.
    Canon's IS pricing is very interesting - their EFS kit lens is only $160 and includes IS but on most of their better lenses IS can add $500 - 1000 or more. I know the optical quality of these lenses is higher but it does seem to be a case of Canon being a long way from cost based pricing here!
     
  30. I haven't read the whole thread, so I'll have to imagine the hornets nest I might be stepping into...
    Aside from price, there isn't really any downside to getting the IS version of a lens - you can always switch it off if you think that is necessary.
    As to how important it is, that depends on what and how you shoot. It is probably very clear by now that IS can help with certain types of blur but won't help with others. It compensates for certain types of camera motion that you'll get when you hand hold the camera. So if your issue is that the camera moves and causes blur, then IS can reduce this problem. As others point out, it may perhaps be most useful on longer lenses where the camera vibration is effectively amplified. However, it can also be useful on lenses with shorter focal lengths since it is not impossible to find yourself, say, needing to shoot slower than 1/25 second on a 24mm focal length.
    And, yes, IS does not help when the problem is subject motion rather than camera shake/motion. For that you simply need a short enough shutter speed - or electronic flash. In some ways, relying too much on IS could get you into trouble when you shoot active subjects if you don't remember that the shutter speed needs to be higher if you goal is to "stop" motion.
    I'm often amused at those who will post and tell us that they can hand hold their 200mm lens at 1/25 second. How wonderful for them! And so what! Most people can't, and even those who can will be able to shoot with a bit less fussiness about keeping the camera still and will get a higher percentage of sharp images with IS.
    I probably do 90% of my shooting from the tripod, so I don't usually need IS. However, on more than one occasion having it has made the difference between getting (and in some cases, subsequently selling) the shot or not.
    Dan
     
  31. IS reduces image quality (especially in the out of focus areas), but not nearly as much as camera shake would reduce image quality. If shooting stationary (or slow-moving) subjects, the rule of thumb is that your shutter speed ought to be above your focal length. In other words, if you have a 200mm lens, your shutter speed should be above 1/200th of a second to avoid camera shake.
    If you're shooting sports or other fast-moving subjects, you generally need a shutter speed of 1/250th to avoid motion blur from the subject. This means that for most conditions and most lenses, IS will usually not be terribly useful for fast-moving subjects. I find myself turning off the VR (IS) on my Nikon 70-200 VR very frequently.
    I think what it boils down to is that if the lens would be good for you without the IS, and the IS version is in the budget, then buy the IS version. It helps sometimes, so why not? If the lens doesn't suit your needs, then adding IS isn't going to fix that. Since many excellent lenses of all shapes and sizes aren't even availible in IS versions - including many pro lenses - it's safe to say that the IS isn't a good enough feature that you should be selecting a lens just because it does or doesn't have it.
     
  32. read what people say
    The rest of them don't have it because they are relatively ancient designs predating the availability of modern IS​
    and the rest....
     
  33. you guys all missed the big picture. He's asking about a EF55-200, not a EF-S55-250 IS. Apparently it's one of the worse lenses canon has made in EF mount.
     
  34. Hi
    But I really think the IS has no mean , I have a 70-200LF4 IS USM on 7D
    ok, you if you shoot at 200mm ( on my camera 320 ) you need to be at 1/200 sec or more than that for proper and fixed ( sharp ) image, then in that speed you won't need IS , cause the speed itself make the image to be fixed. and if you shoot at 200mm but lower than 1/200sec shutter speed then as I take it the IS won't help you to fix the scene, or just in some few moments..
     
  35. OPK

    OPK

    for me IS is unnecessary cost and I'dont need it. there's just need to bear in mind that your shutter speed should be at least equal to focal lenght. that's it.
    so, as long as you shoot at 200mm on FX, shutter speed ought to be 1/200th or 1/250th
     
  36. One over focal length is a bare minimum for managing camera shake. It doesn't ensure sharp images. IS can
    improve sharpness up to four times the shutter speed depending on conditions. 1/30th with IS can have the camera
    motion supressing power of 1/250th. But even at 1/250th, IS can improve sharpness.



    Of course IS has no effect on the movement of objects within the frame. Only shutter speed or flash can freeze
    subject movement, but I think that's well known.
     
  37. Bob Himmelright , Jun 24, 2011; 11:06 p.m.
    you guys all missed the big picture. He's asking about a EF55-200, not a EF-S55-250 IS. Apparently it's one of the worse lenses canon has made in EF mount.​
    No, we got that. We just thought it would be more useful to answer his question than to say, "That's a crap lens! You're an idiot!"
    Dan South [​IMG], Jun 25, 2011; 07:11 a.m.
    One over focal length is a bare minimum for managing camera shake. It doesn't ensure sharp images. IS can improve sharpness up to four times the shutter speed depending on conditions. 1/30th with IS can have the camera motion supressing power of 1/250th. But even at 1/250th, IS can improve sharpness.​
    That's the theory. The counterpoint to that is since IS is altering an already-focused image, the quality of that image will suffer; the fact that bokeh is instantly improved by switching off IS is clear, but the in-focus areas are subject to variations. But since I lack the physics expertise to produce a chart of what lenses will suffer camera shake on what bodies, what shutter speeds, and from what people, I figured it would be easier to just go with the general rule :)
    Dan South[​IMG], Jun 25, 2011; 07:11 a.m. Of course IS has no effect on the movement of objects within the frame. Only shutter speed or flash can freeze subject movement, but I think that's well known.​
    You'd think so. But as they say, common sense isn't very common.
     
  38. The "1/focal length" so-called rule needs some clarification, based on what I am reading here.

    First, this "rule" is more of a "rule of thumb" or a starting point estimate. It is a rough estimate of a shutter speed that
    might be OK for typical shooters, in typical circumstances, using a 35mm film camera, and probably not trying to
    achieve the highest level of sharpness. It also exists perhaps because it is an easy formula to remember as much as
    because it is objectively accurate or ideal.

    Using this "rule" does not, by any means, guarantee that you'll make the right shutter speed choice. For example, if
    you have steady hands and careful technique and know a few tricks you can sometimes shoot successfully at
    considerably lower shutter speeds than those predicted by the "rule." On the other hand, if you are working quickly,
    under pressure, while on the move, or very casually, the "rule" shutter speed may leave you with blurry images. At
    best, the "rule" could be a fine place to begin conducting a few careful experiments to find out what works best for you.
    You may discover that your work and shooting style requires higher shutter speeds or that it tolerates lower speeds,
    and so forth.

    Keep in mind that a rule that might work for full frame or 35mm shooting needs to be modified if you shoot a different
    format. For example if you shoot a 50mm lens on a 1.6x cropped sensor camera and the 1/focal length rule works for
    you on 35mm or full frame, you need to incorporate the crop factor into your calculation and assume that 1/80 second
    would be your baseline. (I will spare everyone the full explanation, but a bit of thought will make you see why ths is
    so.)

    All the forum theorizing in the world about what should happen means little compared to knowledge of what actually
    does happen in the field. Attentive photographers eventually pick this up through their photography, but you can
    accelerate the process by doing a bit of careful experimentation. There are many possibilities. For example, go out and
    make 50 exposures at shutter speeds determined by the rule and inspect them closely, or photograph several scenes
    at a variety of shutter speeds and compare.

    Also, recognize that in the field things are often less cut and dried, and that multiple tradeoffs need to be made. In a
    marginal light situation you might have to decide what combination of larger aperture (shallower DOF, soft corners,
    need for more critical focus, need to use prime rather than zoom), ISO (possible concern about noise and dynamic
    range), flash (can't shoot as rapidly, alters lighting radically, equipment complexity, hard to be discreet), shutter speed
    (risk of blur from subject and/or camera motion) is the best compromise. In one case a bit of motion blur might be best,
    while in another a bit more noise might be OK.

    In the end, IS can be another useful tool for many types of shooting. Having IS capabilities has few serious
    disadvantages and there are situations in which it makes the difference between getting the shot or not.

    Dan
     
  39. Dan - the only disadvantage I see with IS is the Bokah (which does suffer wide open with IS on) - but of course you can always switch it off!
     
  40. Can someone post examples of Bokeh worsening with IS on vs. IS off?
    I have never heard of this but am always willing to learn new things.
     
  41. IS has no impact on the quality of bokeh. Bokeh describes the quality of the OOF areas caused by shooting with a wide aperture. Really "smooth" bokeh will display almost no detail, but take on the color of the BG.
    The smoothness of the bokeh has more to do with shallowness of the DOF and the number of leafs in the aperture than anything else.
    Here's smooth bokeh, taken with IS on:

    [​IMG]
     
  42. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Can someone post examples of Bokeh worsening with IS on vs. IS off?
    and
    IS has no impact on the quality of bokeh.
    One nice shot with IS turned on, does not dis-prove that there could be a "difference" in Bokeh, if the IS were turned off.
    The theory of why Bokeh might be DIFFERENT when IS, is turned on compared to the same shot, for when IS is not turned on, is explained quite well, here: http://www.bokehtests.com/Site/Stabilization_and_Bokeh.html
    WW
     
  43. I find that I have absolutely no need for IS because for my needs, larger aperture usually solves the problem.When I owned a 70-200f/4 IS, the IS was necessary because I was trying to shoot at f/4..... YMMV.
     
  44. David, you have nothing in the background for the IS to affect. Your background is so empty that there IS no bokeh; it looks like a Photoshop gradient. Bjorn has several examples on his reviews page of the Nikon 70-200 with VR on and off, and William's link is excellent.
    When there are details in the OOF areas, IS will generally cause the bokeh to appear 'busier' and more geometric. You may also get some weird sharpness on the edges of well-defined areas like tree branches that are out of focus.
    I'm not saying that this always happens with every photo and every IS lens; just that like the shutter speed thing, this is a 'rule of thumb', and will generally work that way.
     
  45. Zack, there are trees behind the bird, in the bottom half of the picture, with blue sky in the top half. That's true bokeh, not some stupid PS effect.
    The link was INDEED excellent and news to me. I don't think it's anything to worry about as a practical matter. If you don't hold the lens steady at all and the IS is working to extremes, then there may be some impact, but compared to what would happen without IS, the IS is probably the better option.
     
  46. I will take a sample - I probably notice it the most with my 100 f2.8 L IS. I find it is the worst if there are bright points in the background that are very out of focus. For example sunlight streaming through the trees in a portrait shot of someone standing in front of them.
     
  47. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    I believe that the "difference" in Bokeh is a Practical Matter, for some Bird Photographers, mainly those who use quite long FL Lenses (> 400mm).
    But as Bokeh is Subjective, whether it is "worse" (or not), is a matter of opinion.
    Also how much emphasis placed on Bokeh, in the first place, is relevant.
    WW
     
  48. David, I didn't say you did it in Photoshop. I said that the detail is so muddled up (on my monitor I can't make out anything but a gradient, hence the anology) that you can't really use it to describe bokeh quality, as there is nothing to describe. Even if you had used an 18-55 IS (which is not known for its stunning bokeh), the background is so out of focus that it would still render smoothly.
    You may have a perfectly valid point; all I'm saying is from that image, we can't really draw any conclusions.

    WW does make a good point about subjectivity too. Certain scenes or types of photography will make bokeh more or less of an issue. Below this text box I'm looking at an excellent photo of a wildflower by Nima Koochek Shooshtari. It has very smooth, although not 'benchmark' bokeh. There are lenses that may be smoother, but I suspect not a lot of them. In this image, a busy bokeh would be much more distracting, as the colours and shapes are similar, and are closer to the subject.
    I'm also looking at a race car image by John Crowe. This image has a dark background, with the only other object behind the car being the track itself. Even if the bokeh on this image was the worst in the world, it probably wouldn't affect the picture quality.
     
  49. Are we really imagining that there is a real and significant (and heretofore unheard of) negative effect on bokeh that
    comes from using IS? Seriously!?

    "One nice shot with IS turned on, dues not disprove that there could be..."

    And one photograph of a clear blue sky with no visible flying objects does not disprove the existence of little green
    men from Mars. Be careful out there!
     
  50. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    . . . no (my quote which was cited used) was discussing the possibility of a “difference” in bokeh and linked to a page which outlines quite clearly the theory as to why there would be such a difference.
    Also I went on to mention that the goodness or badness of Bokeh, is subjective, as indeed is the relevance that each of us places on bokeh in the first place.
    The metaphor and comparison of my statement about dis-proving something, to little green men, is just silly and appears beneath the author’s usual high standard of articulation and thinking.
    WW
     
  51. Dan it appears that there is something related to IS that makes Bokeh slightly harsher. I have only noticed it with the 100 F2.8 LIS and not my 300 or 70-200 4 LIS. THe 100 f2.8 LIS produces amazing Bokeh probably because it has nine rounded blades. I have noticed on some portrait shots that bright out of focus points look harsher with IS on than with it off. It only occurs occasionally and it is probably not significant. That said it is not something that I would worry about and it only occurs with bright points that are very out of focus. Indeed it may just be related to the more complex IS on the 100 as I have not seen it on my other IS lenses.
     
  52. William, it was logical chain in your statement that amused me - sort of a "just because something isn't the case
    doesn't disprove the possibility that maybe something else might or might not be untrue. Perhaps. Maybe. Or not." ;-)
     
  53. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    G Dan, Understood. The words and idea tickled your sense of humour and your comment was not sarcasm. My apologies for misunderstanding the meaning.
    WW
     
  54. I'd say no, it's not absolutely necessary. I own one IS lens, the 300mm f/4L IS, and I can tell you that it is a nice thing to have, but I don't use it all the time. IS, at least my lens' old version, slows down the AF. It does help when hand-holding long lenses, and it does help in low light, but I would still buy non-IS lenses without hesitation.
     
  55. IS has it's place. I would love my 50L to have IS. I have the 24-105 and the 100L, love IS on both of them.
    Those that say primes don't need IS speak for themselves. I would love primes to have an IS option. The 100L is a good example of IS enhancing the diversity of a lens.
     
  56. > Can someone post examples of Bokeh worsening with IS on vs. IS off?


    Agreed. I would like to see a demonstration.
     

Share This Page