The neverending topic 'non-IS vs IS'

[pepe_martinez]

Rivers of ink are flowing on the Internet on this topic, and many threads can

be found in this site as well. I already belong the 70-200mm f/2,8L non-is

canon lense... and I don't know whether I am asking you guys to confirm my

thoughts or just to ease my mind -since the feeling I should have bought the

IS version is nagging me.

 

So my thoughts are:

1.Both lenses are the best canon zooms available in this range.

2. The non-is version is sharper to the peeper

3. The IS version at 200mm is a bit disappointing in comparison to the overall

performance of the lense.

4. that IS REALLY WORKS not only by supplying valid shots at slower speed, but

by increasing the possibilities of getting sharp images in general.

 

 

 

Have I f***ed it up? I think I have...

Sorry for my English (I am not a native speaker) and sorry for my French as

well

[colinsouthern]

I sometimes wonder if people forget that - at the end of the day - real world results are all that ultimately matter.

 

Some might say that the non-IS version is sharper - well then, let's have a competition. Let's both take a bunch of shots hand-held, at 1/15th of a second - I'll use my IS version - let's see who has the sharper shots :)

[PuppyDigs]

Some years ago I owned the EF 70-200 2.8L USM and, indeed, it's a wonderful optic.

However it was too heavy to hand hold for any more than a few shots. I couldn't stand to

carry it for more than an hour. So I ended up mainly using it on a tripod or monopod, I got

plenty of sharp shots at 1/15. So IS wouldn't have made it any lighter. Eventually I sold it and

bought the 70-200 4L USM so I could carry it a few hours longer or take it on trips. Oddly I

found the slower lens easier to hand hold and found less reason to use a tripod.

[William Michael]

>>> Let's both take a bunch of shots hand-held, at 1/15th of a second - I'll use my IS version - let's see who has the sharper shots :) <<<

 

Nice play on words, Colin. :)

 

Seriously, what Colin says is true, what Puppy says is true also it is the bottom line that counts, and that can take into account personal issue and criteria.

 

I am very happy with my 70 to 200F2.8L.

 

I put the extra money (the IS version difference) towards an 85mF1.8 and a x1.4MkII converter.

 

I do not regret not having an IS, essentially I use the lens for sports work where aperture speed is crucial.

 

It is not too heavy (for me), and I hand hold or use a monopod.

 

If you find that you really need the IS, then sell what you have and buy an IS version and be happy, otherwise get out and shot with what you have. The IQ differences . . . et al is for the lab, not for the field.

 

WW

[tim_miller7]

I bought the non-IS, then worried every time I used the lens that I was missing something. My camera shop (Ken-Mar in NY, AAA rating) lent me the IS lens. I spend most of my time taking pictures indoors of gymnastics, 2.8, 170mm-200mm, 1/200-1/320 to stop the action, and 800-1600 ISO.

 

I couldn't tell the difference between the 2 lenses, perhaps someone with alot more experience could, but I couldn't nor could anyone else who looked at the pictures.

 

Perhaps if I were taking pictures at 1/15, I might be able to appreciate the IS, but even with a tripod, unless I was doing portrait work (which I have another lens for) I never shoot that slow. If you do, then you should have the IS version. I would be interested in what the subject matter is that IS users are taking pictures of at that speed.

[elliot1]

I would prefer a monopod and an extra lens or two (per William) than the extra cost of a IS lens. I have several Nikon VR lenses (I am in the processing of making the switch to Canon) and rarely turn the feature on.

 

I am a few days away from buying the 70-200 and will buy the non-IS lens.

[pepe_martinez]

William,

Thanks so much for the offer. I will post a shot at 200mm (320mm on my 30D) ,at 1/20 or 1/40 as soon as possible. When you post yours... I'm afraid I will feel as miserable as hell. We know IS really works (provided that we shoot static subjects)

 

Colin... you are right... we're so fuzzy about lenses, etc... that we forget the reason why we spend so much money on gear. I remember enjoying photography much more than sporting expensive gear...

 

That I was seeking for solace... is growing on me

 

Thank you guys...

[yakim_peled1]

4 is all that matters, at least for me. In my good book it is clearly written: "Thy shell not buy a tele lens without IS" and you probably would not want to be accused of blasphemy, would you? :-)

 

I had all 70-200 variants and the 2.8 IS was the one I kept. When comparing it to the non-IS I was pleasantly surprised to see it handles flare much better. Apart from this minor issue it has never let me down.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[pepe_martinez]

>>> Let's both take a bunch of shots hand-held, at 1/15th of a second - I'll use my IS version - let's see who has the sharper shots :) <<<

 

My goodness me!... It was Colin's words (not William's) and, above all, a little bit of sarcasm.

 

Have a laugh on me, guys

[mike_earussi1]

Depends on what you shoot, if indoor with dim light at slow shutter speeds (1/30-1/60) without a tripod then IS is essential. If you're mostly outside under bright light at 1/1000 then IS is not needed. Anything in between depends upon your handholding skills.

[lauren_macintosh]

Just how many times do we really shoot at 1/15 of a sec and hand hold to get fotos if we are working in low light just kick the ISO up a notch or two, and those of us who work in low light know enough to use a tripod for low level shots! thats about it we who know weather we can hold a lens and camera at what ever slow speed know our limits and know how to employ other things to help out:

[yakim_peled1]

Using a tripod or boosting ISO up is not a good solution in many cases because you can't or don't want to. For example, stage shots. Many times IS enabled me to take shots which would be impossible without it.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>I really don't think it is worth making a decision between the four Canon 70-200mm L telephoto zoom lenses on the basis of "optical quality." While you'll read

differing individual reports, taken as a whole and read in the context of test reports it is clear that <i>all four of these lenses produce excellent optical results.</i>

Any supposed differences in optical quality are probably a) so tiny that you'd not see them in a print, c) much less significant than other factors that affect image

quality, and c) subject to sample variation.

 

<p>The choice to get IS or not is mostly about how and where/when you shoot... and the capacity of your wallet, since IS adds a significant amount to the cost of the

lens.</p>

 

<p>Aside from cost, IS does not have any <i>significant</i> liabilities in terms of lens performance. Sometimes you'll hear people say that an IS lens is not as sharp,

but you can also find test results saying just the opposite, and you can always disable IS if you are concerned. So, if cost is not the main issue just get an IS version

and you'll have the feature for the times you need it.

 

<p>The benefits of IS are apparent when shooting at relatively low shutter speeds, but not only at those slower than 1/focal length - so there are benefits in "normal"

handheld shooting as well as in low light conditions. The main benefit may be to extend the ability to shoot in low light at a given aperture by letting you use slower

shutter speeds while shooting hand held. If you shoot relatively static subjects this can be a great benefit. If your subjects are active IS will not help - in fact, by letting

you shoot at lower shutter speeds your active subjects are <i>more likely to be blurry.</i>

 

<p>Of course, if you <i>always shoot on a tripod</i> there is no value in IS and spending <i>any</i> extra money for the feature is probably not worth it.

 

<p>Bottom line: One needs to look at one's own shooting practices (conditions and subjects) and decide whether IS and/or an extra stop will have benefits that are

worth the higher price (and extra weight/bulk in the case of the f/2.8 version). "Sharpness" or "optical quality" is uniformly excellent on all four of the Canon 70-

200mm L zooms, so the decision must be more about <i>other factors</i>.

[colinsouthern]

Lauren MacIntosh wrote: "Just how many times do we really shoot at 1/15 of a sec and hand hold to get fotos if we are working in low light just kick the ISO up a notch or two, and those of us who work in low light know enough to use a tripod for low level shots!"

 

Hi Lauren - you've never shot a wedding have you ;) 1/15th - ISO ALREADY cranked up several notches - tripod impractical/not allowed.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[William Michael]

>>> Just how many times do we really shoot at 1/15 of a sec and hand hold (. . . ) etc. <<< (LMacI)

 

Hi:

 

Ditto Mr Southern`s comments, that is why the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS and the 70 to 200F2.8LIS are so popular amongst Wedding Professionals using. I have needed to work at 1/8sec.

 

Also, I have found, there are many public (historic) places that allow (or perhaps turn a blind eye) photography inside, but do not allow pods or flash.

 

WW

[dogbert]

I think whether you want IS depends on what you intend to shoot. If you work mostly from a steady tripod you probably don't need it. If you are shooting wide open at high shutter speeds, say 1/500 of a second then you probably don't need it. If you are shooting moving subjects and panning you lens all the time, say for sports, then you probably don't need it.

 

I tend to shoot a lot of travel shots, without a tripod, and typically want to maximise my DOF. For this IS is invaluable, as I can get much sharper shots around the 1/f or a bit slower shutter speed, than I can without it.

[yakim_peled1]

>> If you are shooting moving subjects and panning you lens all the time, say for sports, then you probably don't need it.

 

 

IS is very useful for panning.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.