To IS or not to IS

[rick barclay]

I have one lens in my repertoire: the 55mm kit lens that came with
my Digital Rebel. I'm looking for a nice telephoto zoom lens and am intrigued by Canon's 70-200 L USM w/autofocus. I would like to have
Image Stabilization, but I notice that it drives up the price of this lens
by about $500. It seems to me I could just buy myself a good monopod
and save myself the difference. So, I guess my question is: is IS really
worth paying an extra $500 for?

Thanks for your help.

[kahfluie]

YES!!! :D

I don't own one, mind you but I think I have a lens that comes pretty darn close with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. If all I have read is true and Canon glass is better then yes it is very worth the extra dollars.

[IanD]

Rick,
I guess it really depends upon what you are photographing. I do a lot of wild life and have always used a monopod or tripod if I was able to. Sometimes the shot is "right there" and you cannot get set up. You try to brace the camera as well as possible and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If you are shooting at higher speeds then there is not so much of a worry. However I do a lot of early morning/late evening shooting and camera shake due to slow speeds was always an issue. I was lucky enough to aquire a Canon 28-135 IS and was amazed at the difference the IS made. I can get some excellent shots at very low speeds if I do my part. I was so impressed that I just picked up a Canon 100-400 IS to replace my former "wildlife lens".
Is it worth the extra money? For me...definately so. If you shoot a lot of low light/ slow shutter (or get a bad case of the shakes every once in a while :lol: ) then you will love IS.
I will not throw out either of the pods, and will set up properly if time permits.
IS? try it, you will love it.
(The above are the rantings of a new "L" Big White owner and should in no way be confused with the statements of those more sane and learned)

[rick barclay]

Thanks Kahfluie and Ian.

Ian, I wanted the 2.8 specifically for speed stop-action. However, you
caught my attention with your blurb about using your lens at low
shutter speeds. That, I guess, would certainly justify getting IS, but
if I may ask: just what type of photography would you use a telefototo
lens for long exposures? Thanks again.

[IanD]

Thanks Kahfluie and Ian.

Ian, I wanted the 2.8 specifically for speed stop-action. However, you
caught my attention with your blurb about using your lens at low
shutter speeds. That, I guess, would certainly justify getting IS, but
if I may ask: just what type of photography would you use a telefototo
lens for long exposures? Thanks again.
Rick,
A lot of my deer shots are taken in early morning with them feeding. Shutter speed can be quite slow even with the lens wide open. The IS will allow me to hand hold at 1/60th sec and still get a decent sharp picture without having to run the ISO way up. The deer don't move much thank goodness.
As for speed action, somewhere on this forum are some shots that RFM MotorSports took with the 100-400 IS. Do a search for 100-400 IS and take a look. Simply outstand shots.
Ian

[Phil Hall]

I have the 70-200 IS and 100-400 IS, I love them both. If you are shooting wildlife I would look at the 100-400, the 70-200 is more of an all-round lense but does not quit have the reach for wildlife. You can use the 1.4x extender on both. You can use the 2x extender on the 70-200. You will not regret either one.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Rick,. I was able to get the IS version of this lens at the NON-IS price....

Personally I would NOT have spent $600.00 more for the IS version.. not under any circumstances.

The IS is nice,. but the premium for it on this oartucular lens is waaaaaaaaaay out of line.

The difference in cost for a 300mm f/4 IS vs. what we used to pay for the 300mm f/4 without IS is approximately $0.00 a Zero percent difference.

The same is true of the 300mm f/2.8 IS Vs. the older non IS when it was replaced.

So why is IS on the 70-200mm so costly?

Anyway,. as I say it is a nice feature.. but if you have steady hands or a monopod,. it is certainly not worth $600.00 IMHO.

[GenEOS]

If you can't afford it, than a 70-200f2.8L without IS is better than no 70-200 at all. If you can afford the IS version, it will only expand your range. Go for if you can stretch it. I love my ISes.

[rick barclay]

>As for speed action, somewhere on this forum are some shots that RFM MotorSports took with the 100-400 IS. Do a search for 100-400 IS and take a look. Simply outstand shots<

I've seen quite a few impressive Formula I shots posted here and about, one in particular where you could see the driver making eye contact with a
member of his pit crew, heat waves rising from the rear...

I don't know whether they were posted by RFM or not, but they were
mighty, might fine shots, IMO. 100-400 MM is stetching my already stretched budget, but, man, I would really, really like to have one. And I probably would use any lens I buy more for wildlife (aka free) than I would for sports, unless of course I could wangle a press pass out of somebody. I managed to get backstage at a Delbert McClinton concert
in Myrtle Beach, S.C. this past New Year's and got what I thought were some great shots of him in action---all in full auto mode with my Drebel
using the pop-up flash. Lol. You should have seen the look oin his face!
It was great fun, the first pictures I took with that camera.

[ssim]

I have both the 70-200L IS and the 100-400L IS and to me they are worth it. I enjoy car racing and airplanes and to me I get better shots with it.

One has to remember that there are two settings to the IS, one for camera shake and the other is for use when you are doing alot of panning like one would do at a car race.

To echo some of the other posters here, it really depends on what your planning to shoot with it.

I have certainly not regretted the purchase of either of these lenses and the 70-200 is a really sweet piece of work.

[gordeaux]

I find the IS makes a lot of pictures turn out that I wouldn't have been happy with if I hadn't had the IS. A lot of the time it doesn't matter (I have setup time, I'm at TV 1000 or faster, etc.). I think it depends on whether you want to reduce the number of times you wind up saying "I would have gotten that shot if I'd had the right equipment" -- the IS. Personally I hate missing something because I cut a corner on equipment.

"Great images result from the collision of preparation with opportunity."
IS is part of the preparation. :)

[chris.bailey]

I have the 100-400L with IS and the 28-135 with IS. On both I have taken shots wide open at quite low speeds and still got a good picture out of it. To me the noise gets very noticeable above ISO 400 so I would prefer to get the extra couple of stops if usable light from IS rather than pushing up the ISO. Whether that is worth the extra bucks is a very personal thing. I personally thought it was.

[MediaMagic]

In my opinion, the IS is simply a tool for specific conditions, nothing more or less. I have both the 70-200 IS and the 100-400IS. I rarely use the IS on the 100-400 at all as I use it mostly for sports and it's not applicable except for panning mode, which does lend to some interesting results.

On the 70-200, I use IS more often as I am often in lower light conditions which naturally slow down the shutter. I can consistently get sharp (non action) shots at 200mm with a shutter speed of 1/15. I could also do the same with a monopod and if I have time for setup, I do use either a monopod or tripod for proper stabilization in lieu of the IS.

Is the tool worth the $500 difference? I say yes because I can snag some shots that I may not otherwise be able to grab. Is it a *must have*? absolutely not.

Think about the situations you shoot most frequently, and then think of the number of times you've thought "damn, I wish I would have had time to set up that shot with a pod". If there are more than a few of those times, I would say you would fall into the 'it's worth it' category. Otherwise, save your money on IS and use it for something else that you *will* use regularly to improve your craft.

Good luck!
David

[MediaMagic]

So why is IS on the 70-200mm so costly?



Well, because it's the SECOND GENERATION Image Stabilizer, of course! LOL, what the hell does that mean? I'm not really sure except that it most certainly has the magic feature of making several hundred dollars disappear from your bank account. :twisted: