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

mystik610 wrote in post #16602448
lol you could easily flip the table and say "i'm tired of people saying they need IS", as those types of comments litter up the forum just as frequently.

It's a matter of perspective

not really. If you have IS, you can always turn it off, and not the other way around.

it's like autofocus; I bet you'de get tired of the "I dont need autofocus on my lenses" if it were the case. If you dont need it, turn it off. But you can see how it would get annoying if a new lens were to come out and the brigade of manual focus users asserts a position that AF isnt needed.

DamianOz wrote in post #16600727
^^^

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

hahaha good one

Xyclopx wrote in post #16602166
surely you see the irony...

*LOL* yes I do... You started a small war

scorpio_e wrote in post #16602658
*LOL* yes I do... You started a small war

ah............... sigh, fell for it

Folks; LA, CA is earthquake country; so we need IS around here

Charlie wrote in post #16602552
not really. If you have IS, you can always turn it off, and not the other way around.

it's like autofocus; I bet you'de get tired of the "I dont need autofocus on my lenses" if it were the case. If you dont need it, turn it off. But you can see how it would get annoying if a new lens were to come out and the brigade of manual focus users asserts a position that AF isnt needed.

Every image needs to be focused by something. Only images below the 1/FL rule with motionless subjects require IS. Not exactly the same.

tkbslc wrote in post #16602740
Every image needs to be focused by something. Only images below the 1/FL rule with motionless subjects require IS. Not exactly the same.

You can turn off "Autofocus" and manually focus, just like you can turn off IS and set your camera on a tripod......

Why do we need autofocus? Just turn the focus ring and use your eyes

Charlie wrote in post #16602790
Why do we need autofocus? Just turn the focus ring and use your eyes

There are some people that do just that. Ask the Zeiss Otus folks. Or anyone using adapted lenses on the Sony A7(r).

IS is just one of the main criteria that people look for in a lens. Just as its annoying to hear people say they don't need IS, its just as annoying to hear people blast a lens when it lacks IS.

Again, a matter of perspective.

I never use IS on my 24-70 2.8 mrkII.............

Charlie wrote in post #16602790
Why do we need autofocus? Just turn the focus ring and use your eyes

Why do we need cameras? Can't you remember stuff?

An article in the paper just last week said our memory is not as good as it would be if we did not use cameras so much! I didn't actually read the article, (that would be sacrilegious for a photographer), just saw the headline.

Heya,

It's a feature.
You pay for it.
If you're not willing to pay for it, you clearly don't need it.
If you need it, you will pay for it.
Not everyone needs it. They don't pay for it.
Is it a helpful feature? Yes.
Is it an essential feature? Clearly not.
Not all IS/VC/OS is equivalent. So this is more complex to even consider.
You might as well start a thread about which generation of IS/VC/OS we're talking about.
Eventually it might just be a standard on ALL lenses.

Put IS on all my lenses for the same price, and I'll "upgrade." Double the cost? No thanks. I don't "need" it that bad.

Very best,

mike_d wrote in post #16600585
I have several IS lenses but I just don't often find myself shooting at shutter speeds where it would be a benefit. Its great when that need arises, but its probably less than 5% of my shots.

Agree with you. It's nice to have.

That said, none of my Canon lenses have IS, including a 400 L prime. Maybe on this one IS would be nice, but even so this feature would probably not get used since I always use a tripod. The 70-200 f/4 without IS could benefit from it, but there is so much daylight in Alaska (where I live), that I haven't missed IS at all.

This is the way I see it: with the sensor technological advances that are to come (high ISO/low noise), I could do quite well without lens IS. Meanwhile I buy L non-IS lenses whenever I can afford such, specially lenses with wider apertures.

IS is nice to have and it comes in quite handy especially when you NEED to shoot at slower shutter speeds to achieve a certain effect especially when a tripod isn't available. I enjoyed it on my 17-55 but only used it sparingly (I was worried about the IS failing on me so I only used it when I really needed to).

xhack wrote in post #16602265
I straddle both camps. I'm your averagely-shaky 67-year-old.

On my 200 2.8, I really, really wish I had it. Even on my 100 2.8 macro.

But my 24, 35 and my 17-40 - got to say I don't really miss it. It'd be nice, but there's also the cost-benefit trade-off.

Well, all depends. I imagine that for macro photography you want to use a tripod, although if you were taking close-up photos of a deadly jumping spider…maybe you can shoot offhand with an 100 macro that has IS (?).