No IS, no worries?

[philip_jacobsen]

<p>Hi guys, hope this will be a nice discussion on image stabilizing systems:</p>

<p>I would love your input of how it is important or negligible to you on midrange zooms (FF= aprox 24-70, APS-C= aprox 16-50)</p>

<p>Do you often think "damn IS would sure be nice right about now" or do you manage without it? (f/2.8)</p>

<p>Phil</p>

[acedigital]

<p>Depends what type of shooting you do, if you do a lot of hand held / and or low light, its a big help.<br>

I have the 28-135mm and it works well there. I WISH I had it on my 70-200 2.8 but I use a mono-pod as needed there. I think the experts say you get an extra stop/lower shutter speed of hand-hold-ability with IS. Again, technique is important (stabilizing the camera to your shoulder etc) so you don't HAVE to have it. Here is the <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_IS">Canon marketing overview on IS</a>....</p>

 

[stp]

<p>I have IS lenses (but at focal lengths of 70-200 and longer primes), but I very seldom use the IS because I'm a tripod shooter. I've used a tripod for so long that it's just second nature to me. As Mark says, it depends on the type of shooting you do.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Do you ever find yourself hand holding the camera in low light and running out of shutter speed to compensate for camera instability? If not, IS is not going to be a big thing for you. If yes, then it is very useful.</p>

<p>For my part, there have been many photographs that would not have been possible without it. I don't use it (obviously) on the tripod, but I most often do use it when shooting hand held.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[bueh]

<p>IS is applied magic. I wish any of my lenses had it. But I am a prime lens shooter, so no IS for me. I value compactness, weight and price of primes more than zoom lenses with Image Stabilization.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>If you shoot handheld between shutterspeeds of 1/10 and 1/200 IS is very useful. Outside that range less so.</p>

<p>(Unless your shooting very long lenses but that wasn't your question.)</p>

<p>Me I'd like IS on all my lenses, even the very wide ones.</p>

<p>But when I haven't got it I'll shoot anyway. (Habitually shoot 1/30 with a FF 50mm and while those aren't pixel sharp they are very usable.)</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Good technique such as gently squeezing th shutter, bracing yourself before you shoot, using the appropriate shutter speed can often compensate for lack of IS, but there is nothing like the IS security blanket. It keeps you from constantly chimping when you in the middle of a busy shoot. I just turn it on and leave it on. </p>

[philip_jacobsen]

<p>Thanks for replies</p>

<p>The reason I ask is because I can't decide between canon 17-55 2.8 IS and the tokina 16-60.<br>

Any thoughts? Has anyone used any of them?</p>

<p>Phil</p>

[bueh]

<p>Trust me, you want IS (and FTM and USM).</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I will always forego IS for better image resolution. I'd prefer one of the many Canon full frame L zooms, used or new, in this range, even though I'd be giving up 20mm at the longer end.</p>

[Former P.N Member]

<p>Think two different situations:</p>

<p>1 - You have an IS lens and don't need it - so you turn it off.<br>

2 - You have a non-IS lens and you do need it - OOPS you can't turn it on.</p>

<p>Personally I would opt for the first.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>My first IS lens was the 28-135/3.5-5.6 on a film body. I found IS very useful. When I went to 1.6-crop and used the 17-40/4L (equivalent to roughly 27-64), which lacks IS, as my standard zoom, I definitely missed IS. Now that I've replaced the 17-40 with the 17-55/2.8, which has IS, I am happy to have IS again.</p>

 

<p>I strongly prefer shooting handheld when possible, with a monopod when I need more stability, and with a tripod only when necessary, so you can see why I find IS so useful.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

And, when it comes to camera shake, however slow you can shoot without IS, you can shoot a slower shutter speeds

with it.

 

Dan

[massimo_foti]

<p>I own Tokina 16-50, I mostly got it to bridge the gap between my Canon 24-105 and Tokina 11-16 and Canon 17-55 was too expensive just for that.<br>

The 16-50 is a good lens, superior build, as usual from Tokina, it doesn't handles flares well (same as the 11-16), IQ is very good in my opinion.<br>

From time to time I wish it has IS. You can't negate the benefits that IS brings to the table, but it's up to you figure out if it's worth the extra money.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I use it virtually all the time when hand-holding. I think its a major advance. I wish it was in the body though so I didn't have to buy it for each lens.</p>