To IS or not to IS

<p>I am interested in purchasing a new lens for my collection, this is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8, I've seen there are two models of this particular lens, one with Image Stabilizer an one without. I can afford the price of the IS version of this lens. Normally I shoot my pictures hand held only, so basically my question is it worth it to buy the IS version or should I stay with the non IS version.<br />Regards</p>

<p>No brainer - if you can afford it and given you shoot hand held mostly, get the IS version</p>

<p>I have a lens with IS, and I used it once, and the battery went off after sometime! so, I am not using this IS anymore, cause of the battery duration. And I did not see any particular differences between an IS lens and nonIS lens! But I am sure now, I will never again buy a lens with IS, cause I do not find it practical :) this is my view :)</p>

<p>If you are shooting stationary objects, in low light where you need a slow shutter speed, then IS is useful. If you shoot moving objects in low light where you will be using higher shutter speeds to freeze action, I don't see a benefit.</p>

<p>Biliana, I am not a big fan of IS but I do see how it can be practical. I don't think its the end all and I find it useful only about 10% of the time. Most often I carry a small monopod when I need more stability. </p>

<p>I will never buy a non-IS normal to long lens zoom again if an IS version of it is available. Ultra-wides, not so much.</p>

<p>Of course, we did manage somehow before IS, but the expansion of hand holding is incredibly helpful.</p>

<p>I still use lenses like the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm on my Canons, but with a monopod, the poor man's IS.</p>

<p>I have the 24-105L IS, and I have managed to get shots in low light I could/would never have attempted without IS.<br>

If you have the extra cash, then I say go for it.</p>

<p>This lens is on my wish list for 2010.. Here is hoping nothing breaks down in 2010 and I have get to spend my savings on something i want.. lolo</p>

<p>I too have the 24-105/4L IS. You want to turn it off when you mount on a tripod, but I've been amazed at how good the IS system is. As I've gotten older I carry the tripod less and less, but the 24-105 with IS on allows me to get sharp shots where I couldn't possibly have done it before. Definitely get the IS if you can.</p>

<p>JDMvW says: ".. with a monopod, the poor man's IS."<br>

:-) When I was learning photography, back when dinosaurs roamed the land, a popular bit of wisdom was: "The best lens I own is a tripod." :-) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I was learning photography, back when dinosaurs roamed the land</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And then progress cometh...<br>

:-)</p>

<p>Biliana, you bought and used an IS lens "ONCE" and from that experience decided not to use it again or ever buy one again? Wow forgive me, but thats a little extreme and not at all helpful to the poster who asked a relevant question and your opinion is based on nothing really. If you havent used a piece of equipment extensively and weighed up the pros and cons of said equipment then dont offer advice which wont benefit the person asking the question.</p>

<p>IS is to photography what ABS is to braking. You can get by without it but when you need it you REALLY need it.</p>

<p>IS makes my 100-400 very hand-holdable and I can imagine it would be even better on the 70-200. If you can afford it, then I'd have to agree that you should get it. If you don't want to use it, you can always turn it off. </p>

<p>I've never noticed additional battery drain from using my IS lenses (I also have the 24-105L), but I do have a battery grip.</p>

<p>There is no liability in getting the IS version aside from price.</p>

<p>I'm with John on this one. I'm in the same boat as you Andres. There will be times when it would come in handy. I've used both the 4 L IS and the 2.8 IS, and I'm torn between getting the 4 or the 2.8, both IS. Non-IS is obviously cheaper, but wishing you had IS after you bought the non-IS is an impossibility at that point, aside from selling and spending more.<br>

Like John's analogy, I have a car w/o ABS, and wishing it had ABS is just....a wish.</p>

<p>I must say that after 5 years of IS, I don't find it as useful as I did when I got it first...</p>

<ul>

<li >

<p >It doesn't stabilize your moving subject,</p>

</li>

<li >It doesn't like fast focus recompose (needs one stable second before shooting).</li>

</ul>

<p>Nevertheless, it has its advantages:</p>

<ul>

<li>Stabilizes the viewfinder or LiveView image,</li>

<li>Enables to hand hold when small apertures are needed for deep depth of field.</li>

</ul>

<p>Today, I tend to prefer to use fast primes with the 5D² high ISO and cropping capabilities.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't stabilize your moving subject,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I just can't believe that this can be used as "not as useful as I thought it'd be" argument... Did you really think that lens/image stabilization can affect the movement of subjects..? If so, either Canon is doing a very poor job explaining IS to the masses or you might need to revisit grade school science classes...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a lens with IS, and I used it once, and the battery went off after sometime! so, I am not using this IS anymore, cause of the battery duration.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I suggest you get a new battery, or at the time you battery was in need of being recharged. I have 4 IS lenses and they have minimal impact on battery life. Also in the right situations (which for me is frequently) IS really makes a big difference. </p>

<p>If you can afford it, get the IS version of the lens.</p>

<p><strong>@Michael</strong>: what I ment is that I shoot much less stable subjects than I initially thought of... People at a party have moving hands, birds are flying, tree branches & leaves are moving in my landscapes, children, cars, water, etc.</p>

<p>Biliana. Does it occur to you that with so many people using IS and so many people responding positively to it ( and not just on this thread) that it has to basically work, and work well?. There is something wrong with your experience - either a product problem or user error - that has spoiled your experience with IS . I can understand a degree of frustraion but that doesn't merit "Humph. Tried it once , didn't work, won't ever buy it again, it's junk" I mean you have to know that that's just wrong. </p>

<p>OP. In my opinion IS is very valuable especially with a zoom of this focal range. It makes a big difference to the usability of the lens. I can't think of a single downside , except maybe that you need to remember to turn it off when using a tripod. If I had to , I'd change brands to get IS. </p>

<p>I have become a big fan of IS over the last two years. I first got it with my kit lens for the Canon XSi. I was amazed at how slow a shutter speed I could use and get sharp photos. </p>

<p>When I was shopping for a longer zoom I opted to spend the extra money to get the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I am so glad I did. It has a 4-stop IS system. It also has a mode for panning. It provides sharp photos of race cars and other fast moving objects.</p>

<p>I have taken up to 800 images at sporting events while using IS. I have never had a battery issue.</p>

<p>If given a choice between a lens that offers an option for IS or not, I would spend the extra money.</p>

<p>I use a Nikon 70-200 and with the VR (IS) can hand hold down 1/30 and have snuck usable shots down to 1/15 if I didn't have a 2nd cup o coffee. I would say, generally, if you can afford it, on a long lens IS or VR is a big plus. I don't know what the situation was on the 1 poster that with 1 use drained his battery and had no effect. I imagine he had a defective lens because on a long lens, the effect is obvious. You just have to know it doesn't help for motion blur caused by a moving subject. It does help with blur caused by moving camera.</p>

<p>Take it where you can, particularly if you shoot long (say 200 mm plus) where the effect of camera shake is more pronounced. Shooting concerts is one example where it can be very useful. It will give you a latitude of hand held shots that you would otherwise not get. It was designed to <em>extend</em> a photographer's flexibility in achieving shots free of "camera shake" (up to 3 or 4 stops beyond what <em>you</em> can normally hand hold), and it does this very well. And of course, you can always switch it off to preserve battery power when it is not required.</p>

<p><em>"There is no liability in getting the IS version aside from price."</em></p>

<p>Except a few minor things:<br /> - more moving parts to go wrong<br /> - battery drain<br /> - a heavy lens even heavier!</p>

<p>I have the non I.S. 2.8 and never once, not once! have I pined for the I.S.</p>

<p><em>"... use a Nikon 70-200 and with the VR (IS) can hand hold down 1/30 and have snuck usable shots down to 1/15 if I didn't have a 2nd cup o coffee."</em></p>

<p>THAT is amazing. Quite a testament indeed. What focal length though? 70mm? 200mm?</p>

<p>Given its resale value, you can always buy the IS version, shoot with IS for a week, then shoot without IS for a week; then if you decide you don't need the extra feature, sell it for its value and get the non-IS.</p>

<p>I personally feel that it's a great tool in a wedding photographer's box because of the typically dim locations in which we shoot.</p>

<p>Full disclosure: I shoot the older model, an EF 80-200mm f/2.8L which is non IS. I've used the IS version once, and it did increase my keeper rate, but not in a magic "every frame came out perfect" kind of way.</p>