how much would you pay for image stabilization?

[bowlesbe]

How much would YOU pay extra to add image stabilization to the following lenses (all else being equal):

a macro lens
a walk around lens
a telephoto lens

[rhys]

On a macro lens, nothing. Macro has to be done on a tripod as even slight movements are far too big, giving amplified movement of the subject in the frame. I don't feel it would be an advantage.

on a walk-around lens - possibly but only on a cheapie walk-around that's restricted to small apertures.

On a telephoto - useful but only for mid-range telephoto. Long range is too heavy to hand hold anyway.

[René Damkot]

Agree with the above on the Macro lens.
On a walkaround: as long as I don't loose any speed (f/2.8) because of the use of IS: maybe a few hundred $$$ Depending on all kinds of things. I think IS on the 70-200 f/4L is ridiculously overpriced... 24-105L seems a *bit* more reasonable.

On a tele: I'ld like a 1.4x TC with IS. Now that would be nice to have ;)
Apart from that: All tele's I might want allready have IS (70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 300mm)

[Tee Why]

$100, if it's around $400 as Canon has been charging, I'd rather buy a second lens for that money that is a fast prime. Speed is better than IS to me.

[nicksan]

And IS is better than speed to the next person...around and around we go.:)

If you take the 70-200 f4L as an example, The difference is about $500.

For $500 extra you get:
1) Apparently slightly sharper IQ as mentioned in countless reviews.
2) Up to 4 stop I.S.
3) Weather sealing

I think with the 4 stop IS, it's going to make a difference in at least a handful of shots.

IS will NEVER replace speed..
Then again, if IS means either bring a tripod with you or not...hmmmm...

To me the hand-holdability is worth it.

If I am ALWAYS shooting outdoors with plenty of light, then I could care less about IS...but obviously most of us don't limit ourselves to just outdoor daytime shooting!

$100, if it's around $400 as Canon has been charging, I'd rather buy a second lens for that money that is a fast prime. Speed is better than IS to me.

[Tapeman]

For an all around lens IS, like large apatures is useful some of the time. I want both in my bag of tricks.

[JaGWiRE]

$100, if it's around $400 as Canon has been charging, I'd rather buy a second lens for that money that is a fast prime. Speed is better than IS to me.
Quoted for the damn truth. My friends 17-55 IS is nice, but he is now realizing that you can't shoot portraits at 1/8 or people doing anything with movement at 1/15. My 30 1.4 and 85 1.8 however, hmm, give me sweet out of focus backgrounds and bokeh, and let me freeze action!

To me, I only care about it on telephoto / mid telephoto. But I would not pay more then $200 Canadian or so.

[ScottE]

If I just used my macro lens for macro shots, IS would not be worth anything because I use a tripod for that type of shooting.

Since I got my 28-135 IS many years ago I have had no doubt that IS is an important advantage on any general purpose of telephoto lens. Actually it is more important on a general purpose lens because I ususally use a tripod when shooting telephoto, but there are a few situations where a tripod cannot be used.

No matter how fast or short your lens, or how steady you can hold a camera there is a minimum shutter speed at which handholding becomes marginal. IS allows you to use a slower shutter speed or use a lower ISO setting for inanimate subjects.

I do not consider IS to be as good as using a tripod, and the danger of using IS is that it is so good that it encourages you not bother setting up a tripod when you could get slightly better results. To some extent it promotes lazy photography habits, so you have to be careful not to rely on it when you shouldn't.

[JaGWiRE]

Oh, also, after trying out a macro lens, if I have any intent to use one indoors without a tripod (which would be nice), then IS would be worth paying $100-200 extra for too. I have been trying out a variety of the mid range telephoto macro primes (tokina 100, sigma 105, sigma 150), and I can't handhold any of these suckers indoors without bumping the iso way high. That is one of the reasons I am thinking of getting the Canon 60mm EF-S macro.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Approx 25% premium over the Non IS seems about right, though some seem closer to 33% more.

Absolutely love it/ can't without it on Telephoto now.
Handy on walk around lens, especially if it's got the more extreme zoom.

[mbellot]

The way I figure it I paid ~ 100% premium.

If I wanted a 70-200 without IS I would have picked up a Sigma for ~ $750-$800 instead of the $1500 I spent on the Canon.

I'm sure that somewhere there is a group of Japanese men laughing hysterically at this...

[canonshooter4life]

So that means if they added IS to the 400 f5.6 then it would cost roughly around the same as the 1-4??

[Echo63]

i would love to see a teleconverter with IS, or even a IS module that looked like a TC but didnt actually increase the focal length

[JaGWiRE]

I'd pay I think 25% on the 200 2.8 prime if it had IS.