Is "IS" that important?

[philip_wilson]

<p>Dan it appears that there is something related to IS that makes Bokeh slightly harsher. I have only noticed it with the 100 F2.8 LIS and not my 300 or 70-200 4 LIS. THe 100 f2.8 LIS produces amazing Bokeh probably because it has nine rounded blades. I have noticed on some portrait shots that bright out of focus points look harsher with IS on than with it off. It only occurs occasionally and it is probably not significant. That said it is not something that I would worry about and it only occurs with bright points that are very out of focus. Indeed it may just be related to the more complex IS on the 100 as I have not seen it on my other IS lenses.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

William, it was logical chain in your statement that amused me - sort of a "just because something isn't the case

doesn't disprove the possibility that maybe something else might or might not be untrue. Perhaps. Maybe. Or not." ;-)

[William Michael]

<p>G Dan, Understood. The words and idea tickled your sense of humour and your comment was not sarcasm. My apologies for misunderstanding the meaning.<br>

WW</p>

 

[dillan k]

<p>I'd say no, it's not absolutely necessary. I own one IS lens, the 300mm f/4L IS, and I can tell you that it is a nice thing to have, but I don't use it all the time. IS, at least my lens' old version, slows down the AF. It does help when hand-holding long lenses, and it does help in low light, but I would still buy non-IS lenses without hesitation.</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>IS has it's place. I would love my 50L to have IS. I have the 24-105 and the 100L, love IS on both of them.</p>

<p>Those that say primes don't need IS speak for themselves. I would love primes to have an IS option. The 100L is a good example of IS enhancing the diversity of a lens.</p>

[dan_south]

> Can someone post examples of Bokeh worsening with IS on vs. IS off?

 

 

Agreed. I would like to see a demonstration.