Is IS worth it?

[sbwarner]

I have a Canon 24-85 lens which is used on a 10D. I am thinking about a 28-135 IS but was unsure whether IS would make a significant difference on this lens or whether I would see any real difference with the 24-85 anyway. Any views would be appreciated. Simon

[AjP]

when u shooting a wedding in the early morning after long night in club and your cam is freaking heavy as hell and hands are so shakyyyyyyyyy .... lol... IS is life saver :) (life experience)

[scr7b]

The 2 attached images are 100% crops of photos taken with the 17-85 IS at 85mm, 1/4 sec, f/5.6, handheld...

Can you tell the difference?

[LightRules]

IS is very worth it and a boon to have when you really need it. It is truly the difference between a sharp image and a blurry one in many conditions. That's why it's so popular and effective.

[BearSummer]

In four words, yes.

All the best

BearSummer

[condyk]

I love IS ... bit if it was a choice between a faster, sharper more dynamic lens or the 28-135 then I would take the former at that kind of focal range.

[kawter2]

I love IS ... bit if it was a choice between a faster, sharper more dynamic lens or the 28-135 then I would take the former at that kind of focal range.

IMO it depends on what your shooting. If you are shooting in situations that put a real strain on shutter speed and a tripod just isn't the answer..

HANDS DOWN I would rather have the shot nailed with the 28-135 than have a KILLER SHARP lens that missed the shot!!

[xuxu1]

IS is very worth it and a boon to have when you really need it. It is truly the difference between a sharp image and a blurry one in many conditions. That's why it's so popular and effective.
Very well said!
I second every single word.

ED

[buze]

Anyone else noticed the dead (white) pixel in these two shots ? it must be fairly bad to be visible at f5.6 !?

[kawter2]

Anyone else noticed the dead (white) pixel in these two shots ? it must be fairly bad to be visible at f5.6 !?



eek!!

[condyk]

IMO it depends on what your shooting. If you are shooting in situations that put a real strain on shutter speed and a tripod just isn't the answer..

HANDS DOWN I would rather have the shot nailed with the 28-135 than have a KILLER SHARP lens that missed the shot!!

Sure, I get that. But if you only have a choice between buying one or the other (may or may not apply in this case) then you'd end up with 100% 'Mr Softy but Ok' shots with the 28-135 rather than loads of super shots and just a few you missed in very unfavourable conditions with something like the Tamron or Sigma standard zooms. Mr Softy isn't my friend I'm afraid so I'd rather take the risk of missing a few shots.

No right answer ... let the buyer decide his or her priorities :) IS for longer focal length is a no brainer if you can afford it. Love it!

[Michaelmjc]

IS is not very useful on shorter focal lengths in sunlight... I was messing around with a 17-85 IS and I couldn't tell the difference when it was turned on. Although it makes a HUGE difference inside or in low light.

[Curtis N]

The 2 attached images are 100% crops of photos taken with the 17-85 IS at 85mm, 1/4 sec, f/5.6, handheld...Can you tell the difference?Sure, I can tell the difference.

I can also tell the difference when I use a tripod.
I can also tell the difference when I use a flash or a fast prime lens instead of 1/4 sec. shutter.

Either of these options are usually available when shooting stationary objects at close range, and either of these options would be one heluvalot cheaper than the cost of an IS lens.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I appreciate scr7b posting the images. I would, however, love to see some "real world" examples showing the advantages of a relatively short IS lens.

[foxbat]

Anyone else noticed the dead (white) pixel in these two shots ? it must be fairly bad to be visible at f5.6 !?f-stop doesn't matter when a pixel is dead. At 100% crop each pixel seen on screen is literally 1:1 against the sensor array. f-stop only matters when you've got boogers (love that word!) sitting above the sensor.

[xuxu1]

... IS for longer focal length is a no brainer if you can afford it. Love it!

Exactly... and if i can´t afford it, then i save $$$ until i can afford it instead of being unhappy with something i did´nt really want in the first place.

ED

[Curtis N]

f-stop only matters when you've got boogers (love that word!) sitting above the sensor.I thought the official technical term was "goobers."

Unless you sneeze while changing lenses.

[Glyyde]

IS helps for a long zoom lens as well.....

[Medic1]

IS is perfect for long zooms, as well as shorter focal lengths........no telling when you might get a little twitch in your hand, even on the short end that may ruin an otherwise spectacular shot.

[grego]

Lets put it this way. The photographer makes the shot, but IS just helps ensure you get the shot in the way intended. :)

Good luck with whatever you purchase.

[scr7b]

Sure, I can tell the difference.

I can also tell the difference when I use a tripod.
I can also tell the difference when I use a flash or a fast prime lens instead of 1/4 sec. shutter.

Either of these options are usually available when shooting stationary objects at close range, and either of these options would be one heluvalot cheaper than the cost of an IS lens.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I appreciate scr7b posting the images. I would, however, love to see some "real world" examples showing the advantages of a relatively short IS lens.

I think you've misinterpreted my post. I was in a hurry, so I kept the wording to a minimum. I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass.

If you think it will always be convenient for you to set up a tripod or use flash, then you'll never be convinced IS is for you.

I don't think "real world" examples will help either. In "real world" shooting you would never take the same shot with and without IS, so you would never see the difference IS made to the shot.

[Curtis N]

I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass.Actually, I was the one being a smart-ass.;)

I'm just trying to weigh the cost/benefit ratio. The images you posted are dramatic, and frankly the technology amazes me. The advantages of IS in a 300mm lens are readily apparent. But with shorter focal lengths you have more latitude in terms of camera shake.

I would love to hear from owners of the 28-135 IS. What are some situations in "real life" where it makes a difference?

[huskie]

The advantages of IS in a 300mm lens are readily apparent.

Would it still be an advantage to have IS even for sports or would the non-IS work better?

Sam

[grego]

Would it still be an advantage to have IS even for sports or would the non-IS work better?

Sam

It can help you prevent from losing a picture if you shake the camera the wrong way. From my experiences, I'm happy with it covering sports.

It also has a feature just for panning, which is pretty nice.

[Michaelmjc]

Can you tell which one IS was used?

[Cadwell]

When shooting motorsport I get better results from the 100-400L using a monopod with the IS switched off than I do using it handheld or on a monopod with the IS switched on.

[Ikinaa]

Actually, I was the one being a smart-ass.;)

I'm just trying to weigh the cost/benefit ratio. The images you posted are dramatic, and frankly the technology amazes me. The advantages of IS in a 300mm lens are readily apparent. But with shorter focal lengths you have more latitude in terms of camera shake.

I would love to hear from owners of the 28-135 IS. What are some situations in "real life" where it makes a difference?

One example :

My 7-year old daughter has begun taekwondo, the hall where the training is, is normally dimly lit. So here I have the choice of pushing the ISO to 3200 and get something like 1/250s, or stay at ISO 800 and get 1/60.
at 1/250 : no problem, neither the camera nor the subject is involved in blurring
at 1/60 : problem : the camera is involved in blurring, the subject not necessarily because when performing, the often stand still, or at 1/60 you get the movement of the subject.
so the IS helps at 1/60 (or even lower speed) to prevent camera shaking

[xuxu1]

I would love to hear from owners of the 28-135 IS. What are some situations in "real life" where it makes a difference?

for example under low(er) light conditions might save a shot (up to two f-stops)!

BTW: i have a 28-135 IS. Not really an "L" lens but i´m glad i have it. :D

ED

[sbwarner]

Thanks Guys for some very helpful comments and suggestions.I will start having a look around for either the 17-85 IS or the 28-135 IS lens. Cheers Simon

[Glyyde]

28-135mm IS at 28mm, 0.6s
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/Glyyde/IMG_0549.jpg


at 135mm zoom, 0.3s... manual focus on car rim
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/Glyyde/IMG_0132.jpg

all shots are handheld with hand resting on something

[xuxu1]

all shots are handheld with hand resting on something

??? the lens has IS ! Maybe i misunderstood something ???

ED

[Glyyde]

??? the lens has IS ! Maybe i misunderstood something ???

ED

the lens have IS..... I am just merely stating the possibility of handholding the camera with an IS lens can allow u to shoot at that kind of shutter speed.....

[rklepper]

I have the 28-135 IS USM and I really like it. It takes very nice photographs. I like to take photos while walking or hiking and it seems to work quite well for that.

[ghocking]

I could not hold my 100-400 or 70-200 IS lenses without it, but alot of people can. To me it makes a world of difference and allows me to take IMHO good shots. I would like it on all long and heavy lenses, I have the 24-70 L and would love it on that due to the weight of the lens, but without it I have to find the best settings for my use and can still get good shots.

The IS on my little Powershot S2 IS is fantastic.

[Simon Spiers]

Well Whilst i'm waiting to save for my 100-400L USM I have been using a remote and mirror lockup on a tripod. This gives good improvments in focus at slow shutter speed.

[Salleke]

I could not hold my 100-400 or 70-200 IS lenses without it, but alot of people can. To me it makes a world of difference and allows me to take IMHO good shots. I would like it on all long and heavy lenses, I have the 24-70 L and would love it on that due to the weight of the lens, but without it I have to find the best settings for my use and can still get good shots.

The IS on my little Powershot S2 IS is fantastic.

Indeed, the IS on my little Powershot S2 IS is fantastic to. It always surprise me what it can do in sometimes very difficult situations.
I have shot pictures on max zoom and still the result are very, very good.

What no one mentioned yet is the fact that almost every senior has to giv IS a very good tought. Because once past the 55 years
our hands don't get steadyer, and a tripod for me is almost impossible to take along when shooting.

Sad to admit this but it's happend to me. I had to sell my 24-70 2.8 for the reason that i can not hold this or other heavy lenses still anymore.
:mad: :confused: :evil: :oops: :cry:

[duncanc]

I have a Canon 24-85 lens which is used on a 10D. I am thinking about a 28-135 IS but was unsure whether IS would make a significant difference on this lens or whether I would see any real difference with the 24-85 anyway. Any views would be appreciated. Simon

You would discover a new world of possibilities. Go IS and have more fun

[xuxu1]

What no one mentioned yet is the fact that almost every senior has to giv IS a very good tought. Because once past the 55 years our hands don't get steadyer....

Sad to admit this but it's happend to me. I had to sell my 24-70 2.8 for the reason that i can not hold this or other heavy lenses still anymore.
Hey thanks for the info!!!
I´m somewhere at the age you mentioned above :shock: and have the 24-70L on my shopping list.

Should i delete it from the list ???

ED