IS versus non IS, Lets talk about it.

So I have a FF now along with the T2i's and a plethora of lenses.
EF-S and EF with the Big Dog and it's little sister the 70-200 F4L IS.
But I also have the 24-105 for the 5D2 and the 15-85 for the crops and because of the lens lust I feel like I need to add wide ahgle to the FF side.

And then I stop!

The 16-35 is not IS and when I consider faster glass (and better IQ) from what I have read, the 24-70 is Not IS either.

I know that the IS gives you help against faster glass but, I guess my questions are many.
Why or better said, is Canon supposed to coming out with IS on the wider glass and the 24-70 or do we just have to deal with what is there?
The IS clearly helps a lot.

It's an open question and meant for you folks to comment on and what your thoughts are.

Thanks.

I have a similar set up, ff and crop, lotsa lenses. I like IS on the longer lenses. I don't feel the need for IS on the wide side where I'm usually in a well lit situation or on a tripod. I enjoy IS on my walk arounds like the 24-105mm and the 70-300mm. I do hope the 24-70mm II has IS.

Here's my take on it: if it's available with IS, get it. If there's a better/faster option without IS, get that instead.

IS can be replaced by a tripod. You of course lose a heck of a lot of mobility, but the point is that there's an alternative. There is no alternative to fast glass in order to achieve shallow depth of field.

You dont need IS on the brick.

jeppoy wrote in post #12532871
You dont need IS on the brick.

Nor on the 16-35.

what's the big dog?

as for IS in wider lenses...they're not that difficult to handhold at slower shutter speeds...

i don't care for IS on my tokina and would comfortably shoot at 1/20 and 1/30th of a second. on the brick i feel that it would be nice at times to have IS but still don't have trouble shooting at lower SS w/o IS. now on the 70-200 i would not have bought it w/o IS even if it costs 2x as less.

jeppoy wrote in post #12532871
You dont need IS on the brick.

I'm in disagreement. I've been in quite a few situations where I wasn't happy with my handholding shots at 1/30 or below.

At 1/30 do you think IS could save the shot?

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12533019
I'm in disagreement. I've been in quite a few situations where I wasn't happy with my handholding shots at 1/30 or below.

maybe your handholding is the problem not the brick

If the lens is offered with it, I get for resale. People seem to expect it. I leave it off.

Canon has recently been revamping most of its long lenses, and adding crop lenses, while ignoring the short end FF lenses entirely. I would not expect this to change any time soon. If the 16-35 or 24-70 is the right lens for you get it and don't worry about IS or the lack thereof.

Besides, IS is nice on any lens and useful at any focal length, but the shorter the focal length the less important it is anyway.

KarlGB77 wrote in post #12532804
So I have a FF now along with the T2i's and a plethora of lenses.
EF-S and EF with the Big Dog and it's little sister the 70-200 F4L IS.
But I also have the 24-105 for the 5D2 and the 15-85 for the crops and because of the lens lust I feel like I need to add wide ahgle to the FF side.

And then I stop!

The 16-35 is not IS and when I consider faster glass (and better IQ) from what I have read, the 24-70 is Not IS either.

I know that the IS gives you help against faster glass but, I guess my questions are many.
Why or better said, is Canon supposed to coming out with IS on the wider glass and the 24-70 or do we just have to deal with what is there?
The IS clearly helps a lot.

It's an open question and meant for you folks to comment on and what your thoughts are.

Thanks.

DreDaze wrote in post #12532978
what's the big dog?

as for IS in wider lenses...they're not that difficult to handhold at slower shutter speeds...

Firstly, ^^^ I'm wondering the same!

Secondly, IS is a bonus - if it's available as an option on a lens (e.g., the 70-200) I'd take the IS over the non-IS...especially on longer focal lengths. For the 16-35 length, I don't even think it needs to be a consideration...even more so on full frame!

Thirdly, only you can say if IS is critical for your shooting style or not. Why not turn OFF the IS on your existing lens and go shooting for the day and see how you fare?

I'd much rather buy a good flash and learn to use it correctly than pay the premium canon puts on its IS lenses. Then again, some of them also have other bonuses like weather sealing and slightly better IQ.

70-200's are such big lenses that it does come in handy on the 2.8 versions. I like my f/4 version fine though, at 1/2 the weight of the 2.8 versions I don't see it as that big of a dealbreaker. I'd rather have the 2.8 without IS than the f/4 with it. The extra stop of light is a more tempting upgrade for me.

I think a good question is how did people get sharp results before IS existed?

Reminds me of the end of threshold breaking when ABS came out, ex the safety concerns.