Canon IBIS Body + non-IS lens, or non-IBIS Body + IS lens?

Been out of the hobby for a few years, coming back. I’m getting old, and my hands are not as steady as they used to be.

My budget is $4k-ish.

Would it be better to go with an IBIS body (R6 II) and the 24-70 2.8L II (non-IS) - roughly $4200
Or
Non-IBIS (R8) paired with the 24-70 2.8L IS glass? - about $3900

Or is there something you think is even better?

My gut is telling me get the better glass, but, as I said, I’ve been out of the hobby for a while.

I’m a Canon guy. Not considering anything else.

Thank you for your time.

Hmm. If you're starting from scratch I don't think it makes sense to buy EF glass unless it's a fantastic deal. But OTOH buying IBIS means that EVERY lens is stabilized.

I think I'd first go for IBIS and then try to stick with RF glass if possible. Unless you happen to know that you want FF+24-70 and nothing else.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19512888
Hmm. If you're starting from scratch I don't think it makes sense to buy EF glass unless it's a fantastic deal. But OTOH buying IBIS means that EVERY lens is stabilized.

I think I'd first go for IBIS and then try to stick with RF glass if possible. Unless you happen to know that you want FF+24-70 and nothing else.

Thank you.

Dynalmadman wrote in post #19512779
Been out of the hobby for a few years, coming back. I’m getting old, and my hands are not as steady as they used to be.

My budget is $4k-ish.

Would it be better to go with an IBIS body (R6 II) and the 24-70 2.8L II (non-IS) - roughly $4200
Or
Non-IBIS (R8) paired with the 24-70 2.8L IS glass? - about $3900

Or is there something you think is even better?

My gut is telling me get the better glass, but, as I said, I’ve been out of the hobby for a while.

I’m a Canon guy. Not considering anything else.

Thank you for your time.

I think you have the IS lenses switched. The EF 70-200 L2.8 vII has IS, the EF 24-70 f2.8 vIIdoes not (I have both lenses). One could make the argument that EF 24-70 being a short lens does not need IS, I don't think I lost any photos to camera shake since 2013 that I own the lens, but the long(er) EF 70-200 might. The IS in this lens worked like magic with my dSLRs, even with the 2X extender on. I just bought the R6MkII and it is a fantastic camera, the AF system is out of this world!... I am fast approaching 70 and suffer from RA, my hands are not what they used to be.

Buying the R6II is a move that I will never regret!

I assumed he meant the RF24-70/2.8 which does have IS.

R6ii + EF24-70 = IS in body
R8 + RF24-70 = IS in lens

IBIS is most effective with shorter focal length lenses, because for the same amount of camera movement, the image details at the sensor plane move less with a short focal length lens than with a long focal length lens, so the IBIS module doesn't have to compensate as much. For longer focal length lenses, lens-based stabilization (OIS) is preferred. But even with OIS, the recent Canon R cameras with IBIS can still use it to provide a little extra stabilization capability versus the OIS alone.

Also, be aware that many of Canon's fast short zooms and primes don't have OIS, so IBIS may be a bigger consideration if you plan to use those lenses frequently.

Thank you for the responses. I am leaning towards the IBIS camera. The simple statement that it makes every lens more stabilized hits home with my aging hands.

Thanks to all that responded.

I guess I will look for the R6 mkII and get a cheaper kit lens until I save up for the nice glass I really want.

Michael

Although the very latest camera models aren't mentioned, here is an article that describes the different versions of stabilization and their benefits pretty well.

apersson850 wrote in post #19515069
Although the very latest camera models aren't mentioned, here is an article that describes the different versions of stabilization and their benefits pretty well.

Thanks for posting that link, Anders. That’s very interesting.

A few years ago, I came across this article regarding an earlier Olympus statement that any more than about 6.5 stops of IS and you’re compensating for the Earth’s rotation. I’m not sure what to make of the article. The math seems simple enough, but I don’t know if the logic behind it is sound.

One thing the article does point out is that the vibration waveforms used in the CIPA test methodology aren’t made public. It’s possible that the cameras are allowed to sit stationary for a long time, in order to integrate out this very small signal from the gyroscopes, before the vibrations begin. CIPA is a marketing organization after all, so it’s in their interest to make the manufacturers look good.

Dynalmadman,

I just went through something similar, trying to sort out the best options for aging photographers (me).

I have an R6 II arriving Wednesday, so take this with a grain of salt, but from what I have read so far, Canon's IBIS works with lens-based IBIS with both RF and EF lenses. I agree: I wouldn't buy EF lenses now.

Re focal length: the IBIS in the R6 II adjusts for focal length. In fact, if you attach a lens it doesn't recognize, it lets you specify the focal length.

You haven't said what the alternative to the R6 II would be for you. I have the 5D mark IV, which lacks IBIS. The R6 II is a big step forward in several respects in addition to IBIS, although not knowing what you photograph, I don't know whether they will be of benefit to you. In particular, the AF is vastly better and more flexible, which will be useful for me.

Re weight: my unsolicited advice is that if you are concerned about weight, don't buy f/2.8 lenses. They are far heavier than f/4, often literally twice as heavy, as well as being far more expensive. All that for one stop. Unless you need the narrower depth of field from the extra stop, the f/4 will do just fine, and Canon makes very high quality f/4 lenses. The R6 II handles low light very well, so in the rare case where the extra stop would be useful because of low light, just bump ISO up by a stop. I made the decision to buy f/4 rather than f/2.8 telephotos years ago, when I could handle weight better, and I virtually never regretted it. With the R6 II, which handles low light better than any camera I've had before, I expect never to regret having f/4 zooms.

Just because of the light you'll frequently get away with f/4. But then there's the looks. I can uaually tell if a picture is taken with for example the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM set att 300 mm or if the EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM has been used, just by looking at the picture. Even when I don't remember, that is.

apersson850 wrote in post #19516105
Just because of the light you'll frequently get away with f/4. But then there's the looks. I can uaually tell if a picture is taken with for example the EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM set att 300 mm or if the EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM has been used, just by looking at the picture. Even when I don't remember, that is.

Sorry, but I don't believe this. I can believe that you can tell the difference between two differently designed lenses, like a zoom and a prime (the example you give), although I generally can't. But I don't believe that you or anyone else could tell the difference between two images shot with similarly designed and equally sharp lenses with different maximum apertures, e.g., the Canon current EF 70-200 f/2.8 L and the current EF 70-200 f/4 L at apertures above f/4.

paddler4 wrote in post #19516446
Sorry, but I don't believe this. I can believe that you can tell the difference between two differently designed lenses, like a zoom and a prime (the example you give)...

Well, then you do believe it, as I wrote it.

However, after having the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM for a while, and then for the first time looking through the viewfinder with my new EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM mounted on the camera, I got a wow moment already before taking the picture.
The difference is smaller, of course.

paddler4 wrote in post #19516446
But I don't believe that you or anyone else could tell the difference between two images shot with similarly designed and equally sharp lenses with different maximum apertures, e.g., the Canon current EF 70-200 f/2.8 L and the current EF 70-200 f/4 L at apertures above f/4.

But one CAN see the difference!

1. While DOF at f/2.8 vs f/4 might be so small in shallowness as to be difficult to assess (e.g. 2' vs. 2.8' DOF at 100' shooting distance),
   
2. if you compare the two images side by side, the greater degree of out-of-focus blur in the shot at the wider aperture can be differentiated. This graph portrays the quantitative difference...
   

apersson850 wrote in post #19516970
Well, then you do believe it, as I wrote it.

However, after having the EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM for a while, and then for the first time looking through the viewfinder with my new EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM mounted on the camera, I got a wow moment already before taking the picture.
The difference is smaller, of course.

Doesn't your camera stay at maximum aperture until the shutter opens? Of course the view through the viewfinder is different with a wider-aperture lens. What it looks like through the viewfinder isn't the issue. The issue is the image on the sensor.