Lose quality with IS?

[retro]

I've read a few times now that the IS feature can come with a slightly less sharp quality. Can somebody step in here and set the record straight? Is this only on certain lenses? I am seriously considering the 70-200mm 2.8is and would like to know. If the claim is true about the quality loss, please explain what the compensation may be that causes it. Thanks for your time in advance.


Cheers.

[kawter2]

tiny tiny tiny electronic vibrations when the IS shifts the optics.... vrey very very minimal

[dr.bear]

Check out this link. It'll answer a lot of your 70-200 non-is vs is questions. In the end I got the IS version for the extra stops even though image quality goes down a fraction, but not enough for me to notice with my 10D body. Have fun choosing. You can't make a mistake, they're both really versatile lenses.

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

[phili1]

I have the CAnon 100-400 L IS zoom and here are my thoughts.

The IS is great under certain conditions, it is not a cure all for long tele lenses. If you are in low light situations it will help you hand hold for stationary subjects, and gain F stops. When the subject is moving it becomes a little more difficult to use. I am finding that I use mode 2 for all moving objects and 1 for stationary. The second your subject moves 1 is no good. there are times when I use it and the picture is sharp and times when I get a blur. Each time you use it it will get better and better.

Anyway thats how I see it, so far.

[poke]

Retro, I just bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS yesterday. My first impression is that if you use the IS feature only at the times when you need it... its great. This is probably a good idea anyway, as the manual for it says that using IS reduces the battery life by 20%.

The slow shutter speeds I have been able to use are amazing... I've taken stuff at 1/6 with the IS enabled, and I don't get movement. Without IS and its all over the place. In this situation, I had no shot without IS, so the quality with IS is HEAPS better.

I say go forth and spend the money :)

[defordphoto]

Retro: There would be some extreme minimal loss of quality because the IS version has more glass in it. However, the IS makes it a much more versatile lens and I'd dare anyone to pick side-by-side pictures between the two.

[retro]

Wow! Great to see so many good responses so quickly. I will save a little longer to get the IS version. I fear after reading the above statements that if I don't get the IS I will sorely regret it. Thanks once again.

[defordphoto]

Wow! Great to see so many good responses so quickly. I will save a little longer to get the IS version. I fear after reading the above statements that if I don't get the IS I will sorely regret it. Thanks once again.

Not necessarily. I have 4 IS lenses and I rarely use the IS. It is absolutely nice to have it when I need it, but I use it maybe 5% of the time. If your budget is tight reconsider it as it is an expensive addition.

[dr.bear]

Although I've only had the 70-200 IS for about a week, I have shot lots of photos with it. I find that most of my shots are with IS disabled. About only 5-10% of the time is the IS enabled. If you tripod shoot then obviously you really don't need the IS. I purchased the IS version only because I know I would kick myself later on if I had gotton the non-IS lens. I have that "have to have it with all the bells and whistles" personality. It's a real burden on my bank account.

[poke]

The sole reason I got IS was so that I could shoot hand held in low light. It does that perfectly, and generaly gives me the option to take photos at times when I would not be able to with a non IS glass. During the day, IS is switched off, and its just an L...