question about the image stabilization lenses

Hey Joe, are those 1DsMkIIIxt cameras from your chart only available in canada?

Myself I would prefer the camera shake control in the Camera, thus making lens cheaper

sqjaw wrote:
Myself I would prefer the camera shake control in the Camera, thus making lens cheaper

That depends on whether in camera shake control works as well is in lens IS. Since in-camera stabilization requires longer and perfectly linear movement instead of the smaller amptitude rotational movement in the lens I suspect that it both less effective and more susceptable to wear and damage.

sqjaw wrote:
Myself I would prefer the camera shake control in the Camera, thus making lens cheaper

Not me. In camera IS does nothing for the image in the viewer, lens IS makes things look nice and calm regardless of how good your Joe Cocker impersonation might be.

And anyone who thinks IS is only good for 300mm+ hasn't shot action in low light.

I just spent the weekend taking shots of my daughters dance/tumbling recital with my 20D + 70-200 IS. Even with ISO cranked to 3200 and under exposing by 2/3 to one full stop I rarely managed to get above 1/125 shutter speed, and usually hovered around 1/80 to 1/100.

And because it was a crowded theatre any kind of 'pod was out of the question, along with a total ban on flash use.

Motion blur? You bet - these kids were moving fast. But there was also a fair bit of static picture that turned out much sharper than if I'd not had the IS. Besides, a little subject motion blur adds to the effect.

Now the ugliness starts. PP on 450+ pictures. All of them require noise reduction, exposure compensation and white balance adjustment.

Thank God for RAW.

My point was that for shorter focal range a wider aperture lens would have been better for the dance recital. You would have been able to freeze all the motion not just some of it. Something like an 85/1.8. I've shot lots of action in low light. Try it with a wider aperture and you will realize the difference.