To IS or not to IS

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I have owned both the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 2.8, and the non-IS version is noticeably sharper. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>We hear that a lot from individual owners of non-IS lenses. We also hear a similar claim from users of the IS f/4 version. And so on... There are several problems with relying on that sort of anecdotal stuff - and they are at least as problematic as the "cocaine" analogy you complain about:</p>

<ul>

<li>A host of factors can affect perceived sharpness besides whether or not the lens as IS. One of them is sample variation, and there is some thought that the magnitude of individual sample variations may exceed the magnitude of any general differences between IS and non-IS versions of a given lens.</li>

<li>More or less unbiased testing of the lenses doesn't really support your anecdotal conclusion in any consistent way</li>

<li>Any "sharpness" differences among the four uniformly excellent Canon EF 70-200mm zooms are truly trivial - all four are excellent in this regard and among the very best available lenses of this type.</li>

<li>If, for the sake of discussion, we go with the claim that the non-IS version of a lens might be sharper than the IS version... while this could be true on the tripod it likely won't be true when doing handheld shooting since the other factors affecting sharpness will have a much greater impact of final image sharpness than the presence or not of IS.</li>

<li>People become slightly deranged, in my view, when it comes to comparing these four (IS/non-IS and/or f4/f/2.8 70-200mm L) lenses on the basis of sharpness. Of all the things you could compare among these four lenses, <em>sharpness is the very least significant difference among them</em> .</li>

</ul>

<p>To close, I'll repeat my original response to the question that OP asked:</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Who currently uses the non-IS f/4 version of this lens, along with a variety of other IS and non-IS lenses)</p>

[paul_f3]

<p>This <strong>"Handhold for Birding"</strong> thread:<br /> <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00QE7l">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00QE7l</a> <br /> is quite informative regarding the effectiveness of IS.<br /> <br /> A good number of the photos posted there, including a Barred Owl by Mark Bartosek, were shot handheld with a Canon 500mm F4 IS at speeds <em>as slow as 1/30 and 1/60.<br /> </em> <br /> Bartosek's handheld work, impossible without IS, is eye-opening.</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Isn't it nice to have all these problems(choices)?</p>

<p> </p>

[xavier_henri]

<blockquote>

<p>This <strong>"Handhold for Birding"</strong> thread:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="../nature-photography-forum/00QE7l">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00QE7l</a> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I agree with the last post of this thread: shooting moving subjects at slower speeds (without IS, with IS or with a tripod) is pure luck, that's why they talk about taking bursts to statistically get one sharp image...</p>

<p>This doesn't mean that IS is useless with moving subjects though, especially with longer lenses! It just means that it removes the camera shake problem and leaves you with the moving subject problem! The slower the speed, the less the number of keepers...</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Xavier,</p>

<p>That is the point of IS, you get <strong>some</strong> keepers where you couldn't if you didn't have it. Nobody says it is the answer to all photographic problems, it is just a useful tool, like AF, auto exposure (my the arguments about in camera meters back at the camera club) and digital capture.</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p>Scott, I agree with you; I just want to warn people about IS over confidence as I had 4 years ago when I got the lens.<br>

There are other ways to get over camera shake that might be more useful in many cases: fast primes, higher ISO, bursts, etc.<br>

In the case of birding and longer lenses there is no question about IS being very useful though...</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Before IS the argument was sharpness, now sharpness is not as important? If you can afford the IS buy the IS. I myself am waiting for Canon to come out with a DSLR with built in IS, so I keep my old lens for that day;-)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Manuel,</p>

<p>Sharpness is the whole point! What is the point of a lens being able to render 2 lines per millimeter more if you can't hold it steady though? The stability the IS gives you far outweighs any token aditional sharpness the non IS lenses might have. So in practical terms (not shooting test targets) the IS lens, for nearly all users, will give sharper images when hand held at marginal handholdable shutter speeds.</p>

<p>It really is as simple as that.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Double double toil and trouble.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Now you've done it, the Scottish play has been quoted!</p>

<p>I was rather looking forward to turkey, well fake turkey, not dogs tongues and owls wings. Whatever your prefference Geoff.</p>

<p>Seasons Greetings, Scott.</p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>I already have IS lens, so buying it, for me, is a moot question. But it has been stated that using IS results in a) shutter lag, and b) battery drain.<br>

Just how bad is increase in shutter lag? Battery drain? <br>

If shutter lag is significant, I'll switch it off and gorilla glue it down.</p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I have owned both. My non-IS version was ripped off, so I used the insurance money to replace it with the IS version.</p>

<p>The non-IS version is sharper, particularly on the long end. However, the IS version is SO versatile that it more than makes up for it's comparative lack of sharpness. If you shoot hand held, the IS version is the way to go, no question about it.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Somebody mentioned that the difference in sharpness between the IS version and the non-IS version is anecdotal.</p>

<p>That is incorrect. The non-IS version has been proven sharper by www.photozone.de. It's on their website under lens reviews.</p>

<p>I'd still rather have the IS version.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 22, 2009; 11:54 a.m. "<em>I will never buy a non-IS normal to long lens zoom again if an IS version of it is available.</em>"</p>

<p>That pretty much sums it up for me.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The sharpness issue is not as simple as a review or two. For example, there have been reports that the f/4 IS, as wonderful as it is, is not as great at 200mm when focused at minimum focus distance.</p>

<p>But all of that silliness aside, ALL FOUR OF THESE LENSES ARE VERY SHARP!. Sorry for shouting, but it really is nutty to make a decision among these fine lenses on the basis of sharpness when there are other real differences among them that might actually make a difference to your photography. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p><br /> Scott on those days when I do use my 70-200L non IS are days when I am shooting people that are dancing or moving on stage. If I am shooting non moving objects, I use my primes. I have many more primes than zooms. The only prime that I am aware that has IS is the 100mm macro which just came out (which could come in very well when shooting those darn little critters). Which reminds me besides sharpness IQ was often mention as best when done with primes many years ago. I will wait patiently with my non IS lens for the day when Canon comes out with the IS built in on the DSLR? People keep mentioning taking a tripod, while that may me nice, a good mono pod will add about 2 to 3 f stops and they actually make carrying the camera easier, well for me it seems easier.</p>

[xavier_henri]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=485847">John Jennings</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 23, 2009; 10:32 p.m.</p>

 

<p>[...]</p>

 

<p>Just how bad is increase in shutter lag ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no impact on shutter lag, BUT...</p>

<p>When you depress the shutter button halfway, the lens starts measuring your movements, and after a few oscillations places the stabilization lens in an average position. If your movements are large enough, it may decide to change rapidly to a new average position. You'd better not be shooting at that moment !</p>

<p>This means that fast focus recompose is not very effective, and may even give you a very fuzzy image if you fully depressed the shutter at the wrong time.<br>

To use it well in mode 1, you should depress the shutter halfway, be stable for a small second and then fully trigger.<br>

If you are panning, horizontally or vertically, you should be in mode 2, but then your are only half stabilized...</p>

 

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Before I get jumped all over, primes with IS under 200, which is what I use the most. Merry X-Mas to those that believe in X-Mas, happy holidays to all others.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>IMO the only reason to get a non-IS lens is if the price makes it prohibitive. Otherwise get the IS, you will use it and it will help on occasion. The cavet is that f-stops are of higher importance to me. I'd love to get a 24-70 2.8 L, but as I may take video clips every so often I think I'll wait for an IS version. I have the 24-105 f4 L with IS and its OK, happier with the video than with stills. I'd rather have f2.8 and IS, and give up the long end of the focal length. That is assuming they make a 24-70 2.8 L IS any time soon. </p>

[donaldamacmillan]

<p>After reading this post and all the passionate discussion about the usefulness of IS, i really think that i wish that this post had been on Photo.net last week, when i had ordered a 70-200mm f4 L non-IS lens! I was originally considering buying a 55-250mm EF-S f4-5.6 IS lens for portrait and telephoto use, and i was generally thinking in terms of that kind of budget too. Some guys on here recommended the above lens (55-250mm), others recommended the 70-200mm f4 L non-IS, some strongly advised the IS version. I chose the non-IS version mainly due to budget reasons. I am no Pro level photographer. I like to think of myself as a 'serious amatuer', but i do really lack the many years of experience that countless other 'serious amatuers' will have over me (am i worthy of a L lens?). </p>

<p>With the advice that i was offered, and was very grateful for, i'd have loved to have gone out and bought a 70-200mm f4 L IS lens, hell, i'd probably have bought the f2.8 version! But then i'd either have been divorced or murdered or, even worse, all my camera gear would've been trashed when i was out at work! (my other half isn't all that interested in photography!) So, Santa is bringing me the 70-200mm f4 L non-IS kinda lens. Optically i am expecting a cracking lens, and one that i am certain will help me produce some wonderful images. But i am much more aware now, having read all these posts, of the limitations of a non-IS lens. I think i am beginning to feel rather depressed! And i haven't even taken it out of it's damn box yet! <br>

From what has been said a lot throughout this post, i think i can expect much frustration with many of my handheld imaging efforts! </p>

<p>Merry christmas to one and all! <br>

Donaldo<br>

an enthusiastic amatuer</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Donald,</p>

<p>Use your 70-200mm f/4 non-IS in good health. If you decide in a couple of years to go to the IS version you will be able to get a good price for your non-IS version. They are very popular.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Donald, don't despair. If you really do want the IS version, return the non-IS copy unopened and pay the difference for an IS copy. IS really is most useful for handheld telephoto photography.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I'm with JDM and Greg on this - I am so <em>utterly</em> persuaded of the benefits of IS that nothing will me make me own or use a non-IS long lens if there's an IS equivalent to be had.</p>

<p><a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/robin%20crop.jpg">This</a> is a 100% crop, handheld at 1/80 with a 30D and 100-400mm and 1.4x - 896mm equivalent (converted from RAW with only "capture" sharpening applied) - and you can't do this with any real expectation of success without IS.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>[Y]ou can't do this with any real expectation of success without IS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of us really cannot, Keith. I can't, but Doug Herr does it all the time. http://www.wildlightphoto.com/</p>

<p>In reality, however, 200mm is actually quite short for serious birding. You not only had a good lens and skill on that one--which is fantastic. You also had a bit of luck.</p>

<p>As for Donald's plaint, I can only say to use a tripod. You will be getting a very sharp lens, Donald, one that will give you plenty of keepers.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Doug's got excellent technique, without doubt - although many of his images seem to be blessed with relatively plentiful light.</p>

<p>And - while luck surely helps - I took a series of shots of the bird (at <strong>560mm</strong> - or <strong>896mm</strong> including the "crop factor") which were sharp. I attribute this, to a significant extent, to IS.</p>

<p>I've got good handholding technique too (you need that even with IS, and I have put a great deal of effort into developing and practicing good technique) but there's no doubt at all in my experience that in circumstances like this IS comfortably doubles the number of properly sharp images I get.</p>