Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 Jan 2014 (Sunday) 19:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The "I don't need IS on ..." is getting old

 
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,431 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 1475
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jan 12, 2014 20:30 |  #16

Sure, I share your desire for IS; but, the reason you see people saying the (usually) is because someone has asked the question "do I need IS on <this lens>?". Which is a thoroughly unanswerable question at face value, but is asking for opinions; so, why should offering an opinion that's different than yours cause such a workup?

Besides; in a situation where there's truly an option (the 70-200s being a prime example), I figure it's a self-rectifying issue. If someone goes for the non-IS version and needs it, they'll figure it out quickly enough; and if they pay the extra for IS, will just turn it off if/when they don't need it.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Brain ­ Mechanic
Goldmember
Avatar
3,526 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Apr 2010
     
Jan 12, 2014 20:32 |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

I dont need these threads.....:D


Gear: a toothed wheel :p
"To be of good quality, you have to excuse yourself from the presence of shallow and callow minded individuals" Michael Bassey Johnson
--Oscar--
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbrackjr
Senior Member
481 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Georgia, USA
     
Jan 12, 2014 20:44 |  #18

I share your wish that every Canon and third party lens had IS. With that said they don't. Nice to have when you need it. I have the Canon 35f2 (the old one), which I think is a great lens. Would I like to upgrade to the new IS version? Sure, but I really don't want to spend the money on an upgrade to obtain IS when I know it will be rarely used. It's just not that important to me. And of course, YMMV as always. :D


Jim
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DamianOz
Senior Member
696 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jan 12, 2014 21:39 |  #19

mike325 wrote in post #16600388 (external link)
I do agree with what you are saying. It's like not all cars have AWD. It would be nice but its not always needed. Some like the added peace of mind, some can go there whole driving lives without it.

However, we are on the internet, where we can converse with millions of people in a very short time, so inevitably, someone is going to bring up a point that has been discussed at length thousands of times, and it does get annoying.

My advice is to ignore the posts that you find dumb. Makes the forum and your life a little less hectic.

^^^

I find it ironic that the OP creates a discussion on a topic they are fed up with reading about ;)


Bodies - Canon EOS 5DIII | EOS 6D
Primes - TS-E24 f/3.5L II | Σ 35mm F1.4 DG Art | EF 85 f/1.2L II | EF 135 f/2L
Zooms - EF 16-35 f/2.8L II | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | Σ 24-105mm F/4 DG OS Art | Σ 120-300mm F/2.8 DG OS Sport

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaliWalkabout
Senior Member
Avatar
337 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2010
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
     
Jan 12, 2014 22:30 |  #20

You could always stop reading the forum for a while if it bothers you to read gear opinions that differ from yours. I don't mean this in a snide way, either. Sometimes the internet gets a little too much of our energy.

The reality is always that there's a choice between IS or large apertures. IS definitely expands the potential for hand-held shots, but in the margin where slower shutter speeds and faster apertures are the only way to get the shot, it's faster glass that wins out for me. There's also a pretty wide variation in IS capabilities. The 70-300L's IS is the best IS I've ever experienced, but I've had other lenses that have been pretty "meh" on the IS front.


6D, 17-40L, 24L II, 50L, 100L, 70-300L.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ilumo
Goldmember
1,708 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 12, 2014 22:50 |  #21

I don't need IS on my 24-70 II......
.
.
.

J/K. I wish it had it. then I would be VERY happy.


Body: 5D Mark IV
Glass: 50mm f/1.8 | 35mm f/1.4L USM | 17-40 f/4.0L USM | 24-70 f/2.8L II USM | 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM | 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM | 85mm f/1.2L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS USM
Accessories: 430 EX II, 600 EX, tripods, umbrellas, and other goodies.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grayline
Member
Avatar
247 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Newnan Georgia
     
Jan 12, 2014 22:54 |  #22

mike325 wrote in post #16600388 (external link)
I do agree with what you are saying. It's like not all cars have AWD. It would be nice but its not always needed. Some like the added peace of mind, some can go there whole driving lives without it.

However, we are on the internet, where we can converse with millions of people in a very short time, so inevitably, someone is going to bring up a point that has been discussed at length thousands of times, and it does get annoying.

My advice is to ignore the posts that you find dumb. Makes the forum and your life a little less hectic.

I agree 100%


Gear List :EOS 70D ,Sigma 50mm 1.4,Tamron 18-270, Canon 18-55,Canon HFM31,Canon SX280HS,Olympus E-10 ,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,303 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 512
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jan 12, 2014 23:11 |  #23

ilumo wrote in post #16600850 (external link)
I don't need IS on my 24-70 II......
.
.
.

J/K. I wish it had it. then I would be VERY happy.

But then it would be a $2800 lens. :cry:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,547 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 329
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jan 12, 2014 23:15 |  #24

ilumo wrote in post #16600850 (external link)
I don't need IS on my 24-70 II......
.
.
.

J/K. I wish it had it. then I would be VERY happy.

mike_d wrote in post #16600900 (external link)
But then it would be a $2800 lens. :cry:

So? Is it cheap because it doesn't have IS? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, there are a lot of times that it is needed!.... Badly!...


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
madhatter04
Goldmember
1,930 posts
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Southern California
     
Jan 12, 2014 23:24 |  #25

I just think people need to let each person live and photograph as they'd like without delving into arguments about what's needed, wanted, unneeded, causing them to want to buy Nikon instead, etc. Buy it or don't, but don't turn it into a mindless point over which to bicker.


Designer // Art Director // Photographer
www.alexanderfitch.com (external link) | AlexFitchPhoto on Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,801 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 8859
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jan 12, 2014 23:26 |  #26

I PERSONALLY don't need IS on a 24-70 lens. That's all that matters to me =)

No need to start a thread about it.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blanex1
Senior Member
Avatar
790 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2012
     
Jan 12, 2014 23:32 |  #27

when its needed turn the is on and when not needed leave the dam thing off,i think that's even in lens manual somewhere !used maybe 10% of the time i suppose its better to have then not when buying a new lens.


canon 7d bg-e7 5d-mk3 1d-mk3 24-105-L 17-40 L 35/1.4 85/1.8 yougnuo 565 ex 580 ex and lots of other canon stuff.canon 70-200 2.8 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jack880
Goldmember
Avatar
2,819 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 595
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
     
Jan 13, 2014 00:01 |  #28

OP - I can't comprehend why you're getting yourself worked up into such a state about some people not needing IS. It sounds like you need it all the time, which is fine - no need to get so furious because other people shoot in ways which don't require it.


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/jackhenriques/ (external link)
1DX, 7D, 20D, S110, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 24-70 f/2.8 L, 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 50 f/1.8 II, 50 f/1.4, TS-E 17 f/4 L, 8-15 f/4 L, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6, Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro, x1.4 extender II, Kenko extension tubes, 430 EX II x 2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drive_75
Senior Member
748 posts
Joined Apr 2006
Location: California
     
Jan 13, 2014 00:10 |  #29

Xyclopx wrote in post #16600365 (external link)
I suppose this qualifies as a rant, but I am getting really tired of the:

1. "I never found myself wishing I had IS on ..."
2. "IS isn't needed on ... focal lengths"
3. etc.

Look, to all those who think they don't need IS on ..., fine, but:

1. Not everyone has nerves of steel, and some people's fingers/hands shake more than others.
2. IS is ALWAYS helpful when shooting low shutter speeds, no matter the focal length
3. Not everyone is on a tripod 100% of the time.
4. Not everyone shoots in a studio with good lighting all the time.
5. If you're nervous, or you just got excited after running around or whatever, you will shake more.
6. You can't always brace yourself or stand still--sometimes you gotta hold the camera at an awkward angle or with arms out.

Every time the 24-70 is discussed, no matter the subject, there will always be at least one post about how IS is not needed if the thread runs longer than a page. When extra-wides are discussed, like the 16-35, it is quite likely someone will say IS is not needed. Etc.

ENOUGH ALREADY. We aren't all genetically gifted super-photographers or brain surgeons with completely perfect nerves. I am happy your hands are so perfect they do not shake. But mine do. I have issues keeping my 10-22 or 16-35 shots clean without upping ISO to astronomical levels in low light. Consider yourself very lucky you were gifted.

Why keep repeating that you don't need IS? Is it because you want to note you are better than everyone else who does? Should Canon only make lenses that fit your skill level?

For myself, I wish Canon had IS on EVERY lens. Period. It is always helpful for me. Now, I recognize it would make lenses cost more, but well, Canon can figure out what is and isn't profitable for them. But as part of a discussion thread, whether you need IS or not rarely is helpful to the topic.

Some people are better than others at anything. Some people can run 4min miles. Some people can sleep 4hr a day and be okay. Some people just need to make eye contact to get a girl's number. Great! But, IS is ALWAYS helpful to someone, if not to you.

;)

Ok :rolleyes:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,722 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 193
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jan 13, 2014 01:28 |  #30

CaliWalkabout wrote in post #16600801 (external link)
You could always stop reading the forum for a while if it bothers you to read gear opinions that differ from yours. I don't mean this in a snide way, either. Sometimes the internet gets a little too much of our energy..

I do agree with this point. Sometimes i myself get a little too emotional when I read threads. Thats why I stay out of political and religious threads on other forums unless im in the mood to laugh a bit and am reading the thread for such purpose. But on the same note I have no idea why people vehemently try to defend Canons actions of not putting IS on their lenses. Ive been waiting forever for the 24 70 IS 2.8 and what do we get but an f4 version. For me that persuaded me to go with tamron.


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,085 views & 0 likes for this thread
The "I don't need IS on ..." is getting old
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is HamPhoto
1043 guests, 319 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.