To IS or not to IS

[philip_wilson]

<p>I bought the 70-200 f2.8 non IS for quality and price reasons - the three IS versions I tested were not as sharp but this could have been an issue with that batch of lenses. The non-IS lens is lighter but still a big lens. If you shoot APS-C I would suggest IS as I like having it on my 300 F2.8. That said even with the 7D I got a few months ago I do not really miss IS as I use the 70-200 f2.8 on that body for ice hockey and ski racing where you need a fast shutter speed not IS. If you plan to shoot indoors a lot go for IS. The 70-200 is really the border line case in my opinion for benefiting a lot from IS. When I went from the 24-105 F4 to the 24-70 f2.8 I did not miss IS (but I gained a stop and not long after a 5DII). On the 300 f2.8 I like having Is - especially on the 7D where it is effectively a 480mm lens. If you were buying the 70-200 F4 then I would suggest getting IS (I understand that the IS version of the F4 lens is optically superior to the non IS version). With the F2.8 it depends what you shoot (action sports no real need, weddings a must have) and what else you plan top do with the money. The $500 buys an 85 f1.8 (with change) or is half way to the 135 f2.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Buy the IS version. Some places will not allow a monopod. That's just how it is.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Andres,</p>

<p>If you can afford it then get it, if not, it will not be a disaster.</p>

<p>A lot of this discussion has been about IS with longer lenses than 200mm, so is not terribly relevant. Personally I have the f4 IS and find that, although I have it switched on most of the time, my shutter speeds are usually high enough for its effects to be minimal. Of course, in theory it might be useful when it gets very dark, but in practice I don't find I need it that much as I just do not seem to be using the 70-200mm then.</p>

<p>As you know, IS is of little use with moving subjects when most people need the faster f2.8 lens. However, having said this, for any lens over 200mm I would definitely try to get an IS version because handholding those lenses is very difficult. Handholding a 70-200mm is not very difficult - I find for example 75% of my shots taken with it are in the 100-135mm range for which 1/500th sec is sufficient. With a 5DmkII the ISO can simply be elevated to keep this speed in 90% of the shots I take (and that is with a stop slower lens that what you are considering).</p>

<p>So make the decision on what you can afford and the weight you are happy with. The 70-200mm f2.8 are heavy lenses so you need to decide whether the extra weight of the IS system will be very useful to you. It surely depends a good deal on how you rate your body's high ISO capabilities.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>Got to respectfully disagree. As soon as the 24-70 f2.8 with IS comes out I will dump my standard 24-70, shots like this need IS, I did get a sharp version but in the two or three seconds I had to frame this image I could have got 5 or 6 keepers, not the one I did. 60mm wide open at 2.8 and 1/8 second.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >"so basically my question is it worth it to buy the IS version [of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8] or should I stay with the non IS version."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes, it is worth buying the IS version. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO, most (more than 95% of) Photographers can NOT categorically state that they will never be in a position where IS would not be of benefit.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This is discussed often and IMO comes down to the simple statement above. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am in the position of having easy access to both and I choose the non IS version to use most of the time, <strong ><em >because of what I use it for</em></strong>. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I own this lens, it is very sharp, arguably sharper than the IS version.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But the point is, I can pick up the IS version after a ten minute drive and use it for as long as I like, almost anytime.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > Have you read the earlier thread Scott Ferris cited?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"IMO, most (more than 95% of) Photographers can NOT categorically state that they will never be in a position where IS would not be of benefit."</p>

<p>Now I am really confused. Is IS a possibly negative yes or is IS a probably positive no? :<}</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >"Now I am really confused."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Sorry, that was not my intention.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em >"IMO, most (more than 95% of) Photographers can NOT categorically state that they will never be in a position where IS would not be of benefit."</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p > . . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is my opinion that when Photographers hand over the cash to purchase a 70 to 200L, that 95% of those Photographers are <strong ><em >NOT</em></strong> in a position to say, </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“I am just about absolutely sure that I will never need to use the IS function whenever I mount this lens on my camera.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Hence, I suggest that <em><strong>buying the IS</strong></em> version is <em><strong>the best solution</strong></em> for the vast <em><strong>majority of purchasers.</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Does that make more sense, Marc?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>I am amazed by the number of posts when the first one things so well. I hope we didn't scare the OP. One question, one thank-you post and he's gone. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I hope we didn't scare the OP"</em></strong><br>

<br>

Well there are certain topics which develop a thread into its own life . . . 24 105 vs. 24 70 . . . To Filter or not to Filter . . . IS or Not IS . . . 100 - 400 vs 70 -200 Plus Extenders . . . <br>

<br>

I think that's worked out by most folk reasonably early on . . . it's only an initiation ceremony and not all that scary . . . once its over. :)<br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>What an important final words...... :-)</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>The botom line one can glean from this thread?</p>

<p>A non-IS lens might be slightly sharper in absolute terms than its IS enabled sibling, but an IS lens will give sharper images in certain circumstances.</p>

<p>However when using either of these lenses and cocaine the results will likely be less sharp with both lenses.</p>

[qnyc]

<p>I have a 75-300mm non-IS lens. Personally, I find it difficult to shoot above the 135mm range hand held (100mm on days when my hands are being completely uncooperative). Mine came as a part of my camera kit and has been a great learning tool but, if I had to go out and buy a lens in that focal range right now, I'd definitely go with IS.</p>