taner Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 I take it all back - I had said here on numerous occasions, that unless you are a pro, IS was basically a 'gimmick' which could never replace a tripod... Well, I have not changed my mind about the 'never replacing a tripod' part, but it is damn well gimmick. I have been playing around with my new toy, a second hand 300/4L IS, and I regret not having 'discovered' IS before. With long lenses, it is absolutely a no brainer. Thanks for 'convincing' me to go with this lens as opposed to the 400/5.6L Steve (the fellow photo.net member I bought the lens from). If you have been doing tele shooting without IS, you owe it to yourself to give IS a try. Here are some surprising results for me - I have spent no more than 4-5 hours playing around with the lens since I bought it, and I am already nailing 'acceptable' shots (8x10 or smaller) handheld at speeds of 1/50 - 1/60 sec... Imagine what experienced shooters can do with their newer generation IS technology.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Far be it from any of us IS aficianados to say anything remotely like WE TOLD YOU SO, or some such, as we are an understated bunch of folks Wait until you see the keepers you get from, e.g., moving boats, long range crops, and other situations that you'd given up on a shot<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustymadd Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 No sweat bubba. I too took far too long to try IS out as well. And like you, I was blown away with the possibilities. Oh well, live and learn....or is that live to learn? C Painter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve santikarn Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 recently I was taking photos of the Sydney opera House from the Harbour Bridge which vibrates each time a car/train went by. Tripod was useless in that situation and the IS on both my wide and tele lenses allowed me to capture decent photos at dusk. Same goes when I am in a car, boat, train, or when my heart is pounding and legs wobbly from carry all the camera equipments around. IS is the main reason I buy Canon lenses and not the third party ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 Panning will take a long time to master... But my first results with Canada Geese (I am no where near for smaller birds yet!) were not dissappointing.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_kriete Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Wait till you buy a short IS lens and figure out you can hand-hold at 1/8 or 1/4. You can darn near shoot in the dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 <p>I take it, then, that you're pleased with your new toy? :-) I really did like that lens, but when I went from film to 1.6-crop, I found it was getting too long for me. Great for air shows (yes, you should definitely look forward to using this lens at this year's CIAS), but I only shoot zero or one of those a year.</p> <p>Now that you're getting used to handheld IS, try it on a monopod. Still not as good as a tripod, but IS on a monopod is better than IS or a monopod alone, and there's just no comparison between handheld and IS+monopod. Ever since I got a monopod to go with my IS lenses, my tripod has seen very little use, which is fine by me since I don't enjoy setting up and tearing down a tripod.</p> <p>Don't forget to turn IS off if you're using a solid tripod. This lens lacks the tripod mode found on newer IS versions.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Hi, A.: I've always respected your opinions in these threads, so I just wrote off your anti-IS comments as "different strokes for different folks." I got my first IS lens at Christmas: a 24-105. Not so long, but as mentioned above, *great* for low-light shots of static subjects. I'll be hard pressed to buy another lens -- especially a zoom or long prime -- without IS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 The gear fondler in me wants to buy a 300/4L IS, but I use my 70-200 so seldom (on my 20D), I know it'd mostly collect dust. Thanks for the confirmation. Which monopod do you use? Would you recommend it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 Hey Steve, yes I do like my new toy. Thanks again. Although I have not been able to reach a definitive verdict on the sharpness of the lens vis-a-vis other copies or L lenses covering the same focal length, my basement studio shots indicate that it is indeed critically sharp @ f/5.6-8 (eyelashes). Especially given the new possibilities the IS technology presents (and let us face it, I am more of an urban shooter, not a bird fanatic), I am satisfied with its performance wide open. Hi Jon, thanks for your kind words. I guess it is a positive quality to accept one's mistakes (depending on the frequency too!), and I was wrong. I usually try to base my comments on my (admittedly limited) experience; I guess I should stick with my principle more often. Cheers.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Sometimes it does help to know about something before offering advice about it. It's far from standard practice on photo.net, but a good idea nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovcom_photo Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 A. Taner, are you saying, or did you say that only pros need IS? So then only pros want the best quality pictures? Does it take a pro to "deserve" the best equipment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Handheld across an inlet today, with Canon 20D with 70-200 f2.8 IS @ 200mm. About 50% crop:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iori Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Welcome to the club. As they say, better late than never. Like Tivo or car navigation systems, image stabilization is one of those technologies that needs to be tried to be believed; and then you're hooked and wonder how you ever did without it. I could never understand why anyone would spend "L" money to try and squeeze out the best image possible, only to waste it shooting blurry handheld images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Welcome to the club, indeed. We shall never bring up your previous beliefs here again. Now you need to convince yourself that 70-200IS is worth the money. <br><br> <center><img src="http://k41.pbase.com/v3/35/596435/1/49732546.Anhinga.jpg"></center> <center><i>20D + 70-200IS + 1.4x Extender @ 280mm (x1.6 for 20D), 1/160 sec, f/4 (wide open), hand-held.</i></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Yes I just got a 300 f4L IS, it works very well. No shots that I am prepared to show people yet but I have done some systematic tests on the IS performance which support you experience. If you or other may be interested it is here http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/index.htm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jespdj Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I could have told you so! ;-) Altough I sold my 70-300 DO IS and bought a 200 f/2.8 L without IS instead... I especially like the shot with the flying geese, very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 The 300/4 IS was my first IS lens and - like you - I preferred it over the 400/5.6 due to the IS. When I bought it, my longest lens was the 200/2.8 and I got sharp shots with it till 1/180. And suddenly, 1/60 sharp shots with a 300mm lens? Yee Pee Ka Yeahhhhh.... :-) Yes, IS is indeed invaluable in long lenses. I now have the 70-200/2.8 non-IS and will be selling it in a short while to be able to buy the 70-200/2.8 IS. Oh, how I envy Minolta 7D users.... :-( Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terence_mahoney1 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Indeed, the denigration of IS and its users is supported now only by brand-fetishists whose idolized maker has no such technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 Hopefully this post will be 'kept' for those who have their doubts about IS. IS IS IS!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now