bradleywalter Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Hi Everyone I continue to see reference too both 3 and 4 stop IS. Which lenses have 4 stop, which have 3, and should I waitfor those with only 3 to jump to 4? i just bought the 17-55 f/2.8 and love it, but I read that it only has the 3-stop IS version. I thought I wouldthrow this out on the board in hopes someone with knowledge on the subject could shed light for the rest of us. Thanks!BW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 It's all very relative. The latest IS is better than the original IS, though whether any of them are really 4 stops it's hard to say. Just get the lens you want. It could be years, decades or never before the IS on any particular lens is upgraded. In fact I'm not sure that it's ever happened. The 28-135 still has the original "2 stop" IS as far as I know and it's been around for about a decade. The expensive, premium, EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is nominally "3 stop". The super cheap, all plastic "dirt cheap IS" EF-S 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS are both nominally "4 stop". Go figure. I think the new EF-S 18-200 IS is "4stop" too. Whether "4 stop" lenses are actually better stabilized than "3 stop" lenses is rather difficult to measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari v Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 "Only" 3 stop IS? ;) There are so many variables that one nominal stop doesn't matter that much and you can't really substitute 17-55/2.8 IS with "4 stop" 18-55 IS anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 I have the 100-400 IS, had the 300/4 IS and the 28-135, all "old" tech, and quite honestly I couldn't tell the diff between them and my 24-105....all excellent IS-wise My point: don't worry about it, it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 IS is a probabalistic thing. My experience with a few different ones is 2 stops is pretty much gauranteed, the 3rd stop is sometimes doable with the 2 stop IS and is about 80 per cent doable with the 3 stop IS. 4 stops is rarely doable with the 2 stop IS, sometimes doable with the 3 stop IS and about 50 per cent doable with the 4 stop IS. Focal length also seems to matter too, with it more effective at the longer end where higher shutter speed are needed. For example 1/16 sec may be doable with a focal lenght of 200 mm, but 1/2 second is rarely achievable at 28 mm. Canon doesn't seem to update old lenses with new IS systems much. This is one of the many disadvanategs of lens based IS comapred to putting IS in the bodies. With the latter you get the latest IS system everytime you upgrade the camera body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Here are extreme examples of what can be done with IS and the right technique. Happy shooting, Yakim.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Are you sitting? Happy shooting, Yakim.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 "2 sec. Handheld" Pretty impressive! You have a very steady hand, even with IS! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greglynch Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Hey, I've got a plan - I'll buy a few "4 stop" 18-55's and trade them straight up for some of those crappy "3 stop" 17- 55 2.8's - any takers? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Sara, one of the major disadvantages of living in Israel is that you are forced to serve in the army for several years. There I learned how to shoot a rifle. What you see is the only advantage which sprouted from this. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 You could Photoshop out the feet and the legs - ``Pegasus Landing`` - (I had the page opened as a smaller window on my laptop - cropped just below the lights) WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 I don't know what you mean by "Pegasus Landing" but there is no PS in these pictures. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Ah - the limitations of not talking face to face: When this thread opened up in the window on my laptop (notebook), your second image was cut at the bottom of the window and it appeared to me to be as below . . . My first response was: ``WOW! That is a Flying Horse``. Hence my comment - that you could, (if you wished to), PS out the feet of the people, and Title the image ``Pegasus Landing`` Sorry for any confusion - and I like both shots. Regards WW<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Got it. I'm glad you liked them. Happy shooting, Yakim. 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