Is "IS" really worth it?

[g_lindzey]

Also, I think the weather sealing is on all L lenses including the 70-200 f/2.8L without IS.

[mark_chappell]

<I>For 600 dollars you can get a very good very lightweight tripod. <snip>

The tripod does more than actually hold the camera steady. It tends to make you think more

about the picture and the framing of the picture.</i><P>

 

As long as one is photographing static subjects, where you can lock the tripod head

movements for rigidity, this argument makes some sense (at least as long as the lens in

question isn't a supertele). For situations where you need to track moving subjects,

particularly with a long lens, IS becomes quite useful. With a really big lens, IS helps with

static subjects, even when you've got a very substantial tripod.

[pbizarro]

Only you can decide if you want to pay $600 more for IS.

 

I would pay.

[geoffs1]

> Seems to me all of the pictures I have seen on this thread could<br>

> have been done quite nicely with a tripod.<br>

<br>

Anytime you are looking for motion-blurred effects IS is indespensible. For example, this shot:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4415321"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4415321-md.jpg"></a><br>

<br>

Couldn't have eaisly been made with a tripod, but was fairly straightforward with IS.<br>

<br>

Cheers,<br>

<br>

Geoff S.

[lester_wareham]

IS lets you use a slower shutter speed, this is OK as long as you can still freeze subject motion.

 

A fast lens keeps shutter speeds up, this is OK as long as you have sufficient depth of field.

 

IS often still gives a tradeoff between sharpness and shutter speed, the idea of 2, 3 or 3 stops of advantage is simplistic. http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_24_105mm_f4L_IS/index.htm

 

For example I found the 24-105 @ 24mm f4 at 1/10th handheld with IS is abou equivalent in sharpness to the 28mm/f1.8 wide open at ~1/50th on APS-C. One gives more DOF the other stops motion more. Which is best depends on the subject.

[wolver]

I think that is a pretty useless test of IS for how sharp an image will be.<br><br>

 

For one thing one is a prime and the other is a zoom - no contest. The other thing is they are both wide open, any lens will be sharper when stopped down a bit.<br><br>

 

Test the 24-105 with IS off then turn the IS on and drop the shutter speed a couple stops then compare the images.

[m_barbu1]

So long as it doesn't force you to go with a slower lens. In other words, I'd get an f/2.8 lens with no IS before I'd get an f/4 lens with.

[lester_wareham]

"I think that is a pretty useless test of IS for how sharp an image will be.

 

For one thing one is a prime and the other is a zoom - no contest. The other thing is they are both wide open, any lens will be sharper when stopped down a bit.

 

Test the 24-105 with IS off then turn the IS on and drop the shutter speed a couple stops then compare the images.

"

 

You obviously didn't read the test in the link.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

IS vs. a tripod is not an either/or issue. A tripod is a different animal from IS. Yes, there is a range of exposures in which you could use IS or a tripod. For these exposures, I prefer IS because I can move faster. But a tripod gives you the flexibility to shoot at ANY shutter speed you want. I shoot water falls from time to time, and I could shoot them hand-held with IS, but that doesn't give the effect I'm looking for. Therefore a tripod, to me, is essential.

 

On the other hand, IS will produce sharp images hand-held that would have been blurry otherwise. I have the 20mm f2.8 that is not IS, but generally it is not necessary on that lens. I also have the 28-135 IS, and IS is terrific. It costs about $400, and true, it is not an L lens, but it is very good. I've gotten sharp hand-held shots with this lens at 1/10. I'd post the image, but I can't find it quickly, so you'll have to trust me.

 

I also have the 100-400 IS. I can hand-hold that lens zoomed to 400mm at 1/60 or better.

 

The bottom line is this - for telephoto and zoom lenses IS is very useful - dare I say, a God Send. I will not buy a non-IS lens if an IS version of the lens is available. I'll wait and save my money.

 

Better yet, Canon, PUT IS IN THE CAMERA!.

 

I feel better now, thanks.

 

Phil

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>On the other hand, IS will produce sharp images hand-held that would have been blurry otherwise.</i></p>That's only accurate if the subject is stationary or close to stationary. IS does absolutely nothing for any subject that is moving even just moderately fast. IS will help counter movement of the camera, only.

[bdp]

I rented the Canon 70-200IS for a wedding yesterday and this was shot from the back of the church, hand held about 60ft or so from the B/G. The full size is tack sharp on them.<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

Oh, yes. I am switching from primes to zooms for the sole purpose of having IS.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mcgarity]

I have taken a few thousand photos with a Canon 300mm lens that did not have IS and an equal number with a lens that did. I'll take the IS model any day.

 

But for all its positives IS does have a down side. Higher complexity translates into an increased risk of equipment failure. I experienced the reality of that just recently when the IS in my 300mm failed. The lens was out of warranty and the Canon repair facility in Irvine California charged $173 to repair it.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Higher complexity translates into an increased risk of equipment failure. I experienced

the reality of that just recently when the IS in my 300mm failed. </i><P>

 

You can't really conclude much about failure probabilities from one or two samples. You

definitely can safely conclude that your non-IS 300 mm would not experience IS failure,

but the overall risk of having an IS vs. non-IS lens die isn't clear without robust statistics.

Yes, the IS lens is more complicated -- but it's also a later design and hence may be less

at risk of USM failure, or something else that could kill a lens. You'd have to have stats

from dozens or hundreds of lenses, and use rates, before you could come up with a viable

conclusion (i.e., non-IS lens X has a mean time before failure of XXX exposures but

otherwise simialr IS lens Y has a signficantly different MTBF of YYY exposures). I'll bet

Canon repair facilities may have some relevant data but I've never seen it shown anywhere.

[blackmail882]

Yes...no question. Spend the money for the top of the line.You will be glad you did. I spent it..love the results! IS is great at weddings with "natural" light and no flash.

David Black

[geoffs1]

M Barbu, "That's only accurate if the subject is stationary or close to stationary. IS does absolutely nothing for any subject that is moving even just moderately fast."

 

Not 100% true. I believe all Canon IS lenses have a mode where they only correct for motion in the vertical direction (aka "mode-2"). While not as effective as mode-1 and a stationary subject, I've found mode-2 really increases my keeper ratio on panning shots.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

[m_barbu1]

Geoff, so how about when you're photographing a moving subject, but not panning?

[Stock-Photos]

Lance, it's worth it. You're worth it. Your pictures are worth it. I own a 24-105L IS and a 100-400L IS. Neither lens would be half of what they are without IS.

 

I'm not sure if it was mentioned here but IS often allows shooting at lower ISO equivelant settings. That results in less noise in a digital image.

[geoffs1]

M Barbu, "Geoff, so how about when you're photographing a moving subject, but not panning?"

 

If I'm not moving the camera (ex. a head-on shot of a something coming at me) then I use the two-axis (mode-1) IS.

 

I've actually had quite good luck with using mode-1 even when I'm panning slowly (not scientific A/B tests here, just subjective). I don't know what the lower frequency response of the IS system in my 100-400mm lens is, but it seems to ignore slow steady camera motion.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

[m_barbu1]

Geoff, sorry, I wasn't clear. If you are shooting a stationary object at 1/13 sec, IS will help give you a much sharper photo than not having it would (tripod notwithstanding). If you're photographing a human at the same shutter speed, your photo is going to be blurry, unless said human is standing absolutely still. The IS will only contribute towards cancelling out camera movement, and won't contribute at all towards stabilizing your subject so that your shutter speed of 1/13 sec (for example) will be sufficient.