Is IS overrated and worth the extra cost ?

I've noticed that when I turn off the IS on my 70-200 and 100-44 L lenses I seem to get many more shots that are in focus. Of course this is in good light and faster shutter speeds usually above 1/500 sec. Just wonder what others might think or have experienced. In the future I don't think I am going to be paying for the additional IS feature.

I have IS on a number of lenses - including the 70-200 f/4 L - and find it really helps. I'm amazed at what low shutter speeds I can shoot handheld with my 15-85 IS. Just got the 35mm f/2 IS and IS was a very big draw for me on it.

good luck with the non-IS version of the 100-400L II haha! I seldom turn IS off. it's a great tool especially if you shoot handheld or from monopod.

I turn off IS on my 100-400L when SS gets over 1/800. Which is not often with an f/5.6 lens. Other stabilized lenses include: 70-200 f/4, 24-70 VC, 35mm, 24-105 STM, and 18-55 STM. I don't think those have ever been shut off.

frayne wrote in post #17933949
I've noticed that when I turn off the IS on my 70-200 and 100-44 L lenses I seem to get many more shots that are in focus. Of course this is in good light and faster shutter speeds usually above 1/500 sec. Just wonder what others might think or have experienced. In the future I don't think I am going to be paying for the additional IS feature.

in the future i'd guess every single new zoom lens released will have IS...so you won't have the option of paying for the feature or not...i'd also say every single telephoto prime introduced from here on out will have it as well...so you're kinda stuck buying IS lenses if you ask me...

Usually the IS equipped lenses have a lot of other upgrades as well which result in better image quality. The good thing about IS is that you can turn it off if you don't need it.

My experience with IS has been really good. I've used it on the 15-85mm and a rented 70-200 f4. Perhaps my shooting style benefits better from image stabilization than yours?

IS works well for me....Wouldn't be without it on my 70_200 II or my 500f4.
Even comes in handy in low light with the 16_35..

If you can manage without it that's fine but there will come a day when you wished you had it....You can always turn it of if you don't feel you need it, but you can't turn it on if you ain't got it.

I like IS, but I too think that there are times when it can have a negative impact on image quality. If I'm shooting fast SS or tripod mounted, I turn it off. And yes, I understand that Canon says that the majority of its lenses are tripod aware.

Since I shoot in a wide variety of conditions, I'm willing to pay for it on tele lenses.

I don't have it on my 70-200mm F/4 and wish I did. Too many missed shots from camera shake even using a monopod. Saw the results of two shots taken side by side with IS and non IS at Downtown Camera in Toronto a few weeks ago. Same lens, same camera, same subject. . . . remarkable difference in image sharpness. Almost wished I hadn't visited the store in the first place. LOL. Now wished I had waited till I had the extra funds and looking to upgrade to IS.

Better to have IS and not need it, than to need IS and not have it.

"micro managing IS is like wearing your seat belt only when you think you will need it" -- me

It's certainly a tool that helps, overall; but, certainly can get in the way when you're shooting higher shutter speeds, if you aren't prepped and have it spun up before hitting the shutter. A lot if action shooters turn it off for the reasons you noted.

Personally, I just leave it on and make sure it's active before I need to shoot.

frayne wrote in post #17933949
I've noticed that when I turn off the IS on my 70-200 and 100-44 L lenses I seem to get many more shots that are in focus. Of course this is in good light and faster shutter speeds usually above 1/500 sec. Just wonder what others might think or have experienced. In the future I don't think I am going to be paying for the additional IS feature.

Heya,

Depends on what you're shooting and the look you want. I shoot a lot without IS and I'm fine with it. But there are times where I really appreciate IS, even if it's just for making the viewfinder more steady with shorter and longer lenses.

Realistically, it's a useful tool, but it's not required, and you can turn it off. Right now you may have options to not have IS, but in the future, few lenses will not have IS in some way. And it's a good thing to have as an option.

Very best,

You tell me. 100-400L @ 400 on a crop body, 1/40th, handheld. Not a fluke - I took 6 different photos of this subject and four of them were equally sharp.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/s8EM​GL

Also, if you mostly use a tripod, you might not see much value in IS, as you have to disable it when shooting with a tripod lest you get... lens vibration!