Does IS really Matter

[andrew robertson]

<p>"IS caused me some troubles, I am now more happy with fast primes:"</p>

<p>I think, Xavier, that instead of it causing you problems, you misunderstood what it does.</p>

<p>And, if you have a lens with both mode 1 and 2 IS it will stabilize people to some degree. You just have to be good at panning.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>All IS is not equal. Some lenses have a greater degree of steadiness. Some lenses have a mode available for panning.</p>

<p>This shot was done with a 70-200mm f/4 IS. The shutter speed was 1/125 second. The cars were traveling rather fast.</p><div></div>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>(coming from the Nikon camp) Note: The 70-300 APO is a great cheap lens, but not very useful for macro - I think it only goes macro in the 200-300 mm range where the depth of field is practically zero and the lens is quite soft too at that range. Usually not good for flowers. Focusing is also not fast enough for birds (at least on Nikon).</p>

[andrew robertson]

<p>Maybe get a prime instead?</p>

<p>Do it all zoom lenses were where I was at when I started out with photography. Now I cant stand them for various reasons, and have gone almost entirely to primes.</p>

[pksswat]

<p>I took this shot of the bird about 5/10 minutes before sunset. From the time I saw this bird, while exiting from a bird sanctuary, I had about 5 seconds before the bird flew off, possibly bc of my whipping the camera upto my face, clicking one shot off and then checking the display histogram to see if I got anything. With the camera at ISO 800, aperture at f8 in Av mode, the camera selected a shutter speed of 1/10th of a second. I got an acceptable photo only because of the IS (allthough the focus is a bit off)...my hands aren't that steady.<br>

<a href="../photo/10325086">http://www.photo.net/photo/10325086</a></p>

[subhra_das1]

<p>Thanks every one. I agree with most of your response. However not with those, suggesting me to buy those luxury prime ones. Now I very well understand ‘IS’ is not a mandatory technicalities in a lens. However having that is better in less light condition. <strong>I wish every one a wonderful Christmas and Happy new year.</strong></p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Having owned one for a short while I have to say I would avoid the Sigma 70-300 APO. To say it is soft from 200 to 300 is, in my experience, an understatement! I quickly got rid of mine and got the 70-200 f4 L instead. Reading many reviews since then this seems to be the common complaint with this lens, and I find I can get better results cropping from the Canon lens. I have nothing against Sigma, I use their 105 macro and it's great, just not the 70-300. Keep looking at ebay etc and see if you can find something better.<br>

Good Luck<br>

Tony</p>

[nyphotopro]

<p>I shoot Texas high school football in some really small communities. The stadia in these communities typically don't have very bright lights. IS in my Canon lenses makes all the difference in the world. What I'd like to see is Canon build IS into their advanced amateur, semi- and pro-level bodies, which would give all lenses instant IS. For those lenses that already have IS built-in, Canon could use software to simply turn off the lens or body IS at the photographer's discretion.</p>

[rick_shimonkevitz]

<p>Check this out for a more definitive answer: http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page40.html.</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=688881">Andrew Robertson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 09, 2009; 11:40 p.m. said :</p>

<em></em>

<p><em>"I think, Xavier, that instead of it causing you problems, you misunderstood what it does. <br />And, if you have a lens with both mode 1 and 2 IS it will stabilize people to some degree. You just have to be good at panning."</em></p>

<p>Let's say that I was expecting too much for a while ;-) But I did take hundreds of excellent pictures with IS...<br>

Four years ago, it was a necessary feature for me. Today, with better higher ISO quality things have changed.</p>

 

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with Xavier that the routine ability to shoot at ISO 800, for example, and get superb quality in modern DSLRs has reduced the need for IS, in my opinion. I have it on my 70-200, and although I have it switched on most of the time, I don't think it is doing much as my shutter speeds are 90% of the time 1/500 and up. The IS probably helps in the remaining 10%.</p>

[subhra_das1]

<p>Experts, trust me. I brought the used Sigma lens 70-300mm DG APO 4-5.6f . The lens is superb what I get at that price but it is equally worst in dark cold and dull British weather in Low light. The lens focusing looks confusing in low light. But I was lucky enough to get sun shine for 5 mins. And in sun the images are really nice sharp crisp and clear . Canon rocks …</p>

[photom]

<p>Well you could get one of these and put it on a monopod and avoid most problems without IS.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/CBDPSV.html?searchinfo=custom+brackets">http://www.adorama.com/CBDPSV.html?searchinfo=custom+brackets</a></p>

<p> </p>

[markonestudios]

I think it's a great innovation. I have successfully shot at 1/8 (routinely) with my 24-105 at the long end and got keepers. Something I would have been unlikely to achieve without IS.

[alexander_c1]

<p>I am onboard with all that say IS does make a difference. I too have done a few test shots and notice the difference so yes...IS does make a difference.</p>