IS or not to IS

[theflyingkiwi]

Hi,

I am looking at getting a zoom lens to my collection, but one of the factors is cost. (no supprise)

the lens that I am looking at is the 70-200 2.8L USM (note the non IS verson) so I am wondering if the IS is worth the extra $1304 (nz dollars)

I already have the 28-135 IS USM and note that it can give me extra stop. but I don't believe that I will be using this zoom lens in low light. hence perhaps I wont need that extra stop?

at the end of the day I do need an extra zoom.

BTW I was thinking of getting either the 1.4 or 2x extenders

thanks

[DaveG]

I just went through the same process. I wanted that 70-200 and wondered if the IS would be a good idea. I finally made my decision based on the extra cost but also my work flow influenced the decision.

First I use a monopod with this lens. It's large and heavy enough that I want something other than my arms taking the weight. I would use a monopod with either the IS or non IS lens for that reason. With the 1.6 conversion factor with the 10D it gives me a 320 mm ish lens and that requires support.

Secondly what are my subjects? Mostly sports and some journalism. So will my ability to drop down to 1/60 help me photograph hockey? Not even a little. If I can't get at least 1/500 of a second shutterspeed, the subject movement will be a much bigger issue than camera movement.

So with the monopod I have achieved a bit of do-it-yourself IS. And since my subjects generally move I can't drop down to the two shutterspeeds under the shutterspeed/focal length rule.

Would I like to have the IS lens anyway? Yup, but not right now and not at that price.

[perfectpixel]

ditto to DaveG responses.
IS is nice, but......
and don't forget the 70-200L is a pretty heavy lens. You may want a monopod just for that reason alone, and having one with you anyway makes the IS even less necessary.
Funny thing too, if you've read teh amnual on your 28-135 IS, you'll see it says not to use the IS function when using a tripod ??? I wonder why. so there goes teh argument for having IS for still subjects in low light.

[pturton]

....and I thought the Canadian dollar was bad!

Since you may purchase the 1.4x or 2x converters, IS may be a help to you. When I am handholding the 70-200mm lens and using a tele-converter, the image stablization really helps me see a stable image that is easier to compose and less tiring on the eyes. It also works nicely without a converter.

The weight of the 70-200mm L IS has not been a problem for me yet and I have torn ligiments in both arms. Last week I shot a few hundred pictures at our church picnic using this lens and did not notice its weight. I used a hand-strap without my BG-ED3. With the BG-ED3, I start to notice the weight after a couple of hours.

When using a tripod, I always switch the IS off and use mirror lock-up if possible.

The 1.4x converter takes little away from the image quality but the 2x does soften my images considerably.

Cheers,
Paul

http://www.iaw.com/~pturton/

[theflyingkiwi]

... the cost the camera I paided which included the 28-135 IS USM lens is $4500 nzl dollars.

I guess that is the point. With fast moving objects, you need to either have a fast shutter speed or pan with the object, and in both cases the IS wont be any good.

I think at this stage I wont be getting the IS verson of the lens. How fast is the lens?

I would have like to buy the 70-300 IS USM lens but the problem is the image is soft and it's slow. What it has going for ya is the range.