Just how important is IS?

[Boosting1Bar]

Still making a few last minute decisions on a lens (or lenses maybe). I'm looking at the 75-300 and there's a little over $300 difference between the one with IS and the one without.

Worth that extra $300 or should I put that into a tripod or battery grip or seomthing else?

[Jesper]

Well, the first lens with IS that I got was the 28-135 IS USM and recently I bought the 70-300 DO IS USM. The IS works really well, I wouldn't want a tele lens without it.

[Scottes]

Once you get IS you never want to go back.

But check those lenses out some more. I seem to remember that the non-IS was rated better optically. I may be wrong though.

[Cadwell]

I guess to a large extent it depends on what you are shooting. 99% of my shots are of moving race cars... as such I nearly always want a high shutter speed to prevent blur. If I dropped the shutter speed because of low light IS would not help me - I would just get blurry car pictures. For me, a "fast" lens is far more important than IS - hence my choice of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX as opposed to something like the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L.

[Boosting1Bar]

But check those lenses out some more. I seem to remember that the non-IS was rated better optically. I may be wrong though.

Where might one find this info? Is there a good site that has comparisons like this?

Thanks for all the replies so far guys!

[lomond]

As Cadwell says it depends on what your shooting. For me IS is worth it, the 75-300 however is not. I bought this lens and got some good shots but more bad ( soft ) ones especially at 300 and lets face it for most of us when you buy a long zoom you tend to use the longer end. I ended up biting the bullet and buying the 100-400L.
However if you don't always shoot long and or crop excessively the 75-300 is Ok ish. I'ts much lighter than the 100-400, however the barrel of the lens tends to creep to full length if it's hanging from your neck.

[Pekka]

But check those lenses out some more. I seem to remember that the non-IS was rated better optically. I may be wrong though.

Where might one find this info? Is there a good site that has comparisons like this?

Thanks for all the replies so far guys!

See http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm

[SnJPhoto]

I have to agree about the need for higher shutter speeds. I shoot primarly sports activities, and tend to like high shutter speeds. So I'm not sure the IS is a deal breaker for me. Combined with the fact most my shoooting is from a mono/tripod, not havinf IS wouldn't stop me from buying a great (optical) lens.


I shoot some form of a sport every weekend. I have more throw aways based pon my errors than anything attributable to a camera or piece of equipment. I would say 99% of the issues are not things IS would help with.

Scott

[Mills]

I believe it is well worth the extra $$$$$$.

[ron chappel]

As some have said-there are times when high shutter speeds are ness anyway so the point becomes moot.
However that is only one type of shooting-most other types would possibly benifit.
For some things like shooting nature/wildlife/whatever in low light at long focal lengths,nothing even comes close to IS!! :D
I notice the majority of my tele shots are ruined from camera/lens
movement which would benefit immensly from IS,so i'm definitely getting an IS type tele lens next.I will prob never get a wide IS lens though

[SnJPhoto]

Really, I'm not sure about the lenses you are looking to buy, but for the most part, I believe the long Canon L glass is going to have IS regardless. So by default, i will get IS, but not depend on it for the shots.

Does Canon make a long L without IS anymore? Again, other manufacturers may still make non-IS version.

[Yeager]

Have you guys with the IS lens had any problems with battery consumption?

[leony]

No problems with battery consumtion - and you can always turn IS off.

IS only turns on when you press the shutter button half way, and then after you shoot it turns off after like 1 sec. you can hear the lens make the hissing sounds.

IS only helps with camera shakes, so if you shoot journalistic stuff in low light (like weddings, for example) it's great.

If you're shooting sports from a monopod it's a waste. With sports pix come out blurry because of subject's motion - not camera's. The only way to fix that is shutter speed.

IS is useless in wide-angle lenses and would make it even more difficult to make ultra-wide lenses because of extra ellements involved.

[ijohnson]

Shooting handheld at 1/15th is great. I find it useful when trying to create motion while holding the camera like with water, or perhaps a drummer or guitarist with fast moving hands and a still body. also when shooting completely still subjects in low light.

However, even in the wedding situation, this will not make up for a wider aperture because candid shots or even the blink of an eye will ruin a picture at 1/30th. A slight jerk or a swaying body can soften a subject quite a bit.

It can be useful when shooting at longer focal lenght, say 200mm, while obeying the 1/mm rule and being able to shoot at 1/125 or possibly 1/60th instead of 1/250th. There would not be motion blur due to mild subject movement in this case.

If you are doing low-light indoor phtography, opt for the more expensive f-stop or 2 and who knows maybe it will have IS too!

The 70/200 F/4 will give you the 1 stop advantage over the 5.6 and the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you 2.

Did I forget something? I am sure I did.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

If you're shooting sports from a monopod it's a waste. With sports pix come out blurry because of subject's motion - not camera's. The only way to fix that is shutter speed.

Not entirely, if you have an IS lens with two modes - e.g, 100-400 and 70-200 - Mode 2 provides support for panning by controlling vertical shake, but not horizontal movement.

Regards,