Difference between IS and non IS lens?

[onedownfiveup]

I've tried to search and can't find what the difference is.

[Roy Mathers]

One has image stabilisation, the other doesn't. Other than that, I'm not sure what the question means.

[inthedeck]

What Roy said. Though, for some reason, some people say that the 300 f4L non-is has slightly better image quality than the 300 f4l IS. Beyond me, as the 300 f4L non-is is no longer made.

[D.C.]

About $500!!!

[thekid24]

here is a pretty nice explanation http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/lens/index.html

[onedownfiveup]

About $500!!!

I just noticed that.


Thanks guys!

[shaneotool]

About $500!!!

I guess if they took the IS out of my 70-300IS, it would be worth about as much as a KFC snacker.

[wcl4]

I never quite understood why IS varies in cost on different lenses. On the 70-200 f2.8, the IS makes that lens $600 more than the non IS version, around $450 on the 70-200 f4, and yet the 70-300 IS goes for ~$500. Does that mean the glass is only worth $100? $200? Nothing?

[basroil]

What Roy said. Though, for some reason, some people say that the 300 f4L non-is has slightly better image quality than the 300 f4l IS. Beyond me, as the 300 f4L non-is is no longer made.

not when the IS is off. when IS is off, the two versions have almost identical results. IS version of lenses will have about 2 extra elements unless the IS and non-IS are completely different designs (usually not the case)

I never quite understood why IS varies in cost on different lenses. On the 70-200 f2.8, the IS makes that lens $600 more than the non IS version, around $450 on the 70-200 f4, and yet the 70-300 IS goes for ~$500. Does that mean the glass is only worth $100? $200? Nothing?

the size of the IS elements, gyros, and servos each have very high size to cost ratios, bigger=much more expensive

[wcl4]

Thanks for the answer to the IS cost question. Not knowing anything about the mechanics of the technology, I would think the amount of stabilization a telephoto lens needs would be less than on a shorter length lens since minute amounts of vibrations are amplified by the focal length of the telephoto lens.

[inthedeck]

when IS is off, the two versions have almost identical results.

Almost is not completely. Close, but no cigar.

I may never know, as I don't own the 300 prime with no IS. Maybe when a 400 5.6L IS comes out, if ever, I can compare the current 400 5.6L with one that does have IS. That would be cool...

[runninmann]

Thanks for the answer to the IS cost question. Not knowing anything about the mechanics of the technology, I would think the amount of stabilization a telephoto lens needs would be less than on a shorter length lens since minute amounts of vibrations are amplified by the focal length of the telephoto lens.Is this really what you meant to say? I would expect the opposite to be true.