IS vs non IS

Well it is time to buy a lens for my wife. Yep Xmas is soon to be here. I asked for help in the buy/sell forum on the best deals people have found. Someone suggested the non IS is a sharper lens. Were talking about the 70/200 2.8 here. I have shot with the non IS for many years and it is a awesome lens. I thought I'd get her the IS verson, score some major points with the wife. Anybody owned both? What do you think? She would be happy with either one but IS is a good feature in a pinch.
thanks Bill

Try this link

The following link is a very good comparison between the two.
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/70-200is.shtml

He says it better then I could.

On a personal experience: Although I don't own both, I tried out the non-IS version at a local camera store, before I found out it was not the IS version.

No quality difference I could see although it was not a side-by-side comparison for me. On the other hand, the IS makes a huge difference.

Just my experience,


[Trivia: When I saw he had a 70-200/2.8, I just presumed it was an IS version, why would anyone want anything else? It had not dawned on me that the price difference was actually a factor for a new lens. I can be dense sometimes. I finally had to ask where the IS switch was, only to be told it was the non-IS version. The store owner was puzzled that anyone would pay that much extra for IS. His cost to buy the lens was higher then my price to get it from B+H, I suggested he order from them in the future instead of direct from Canon.]

I use the 70-200 f2.8L non IS lens. It's a great lens but I'd love to have the IS version. Hey you can always turn IS off!

But here are the buts:

With a lens of this weight and focal length you are going to be better served if you use it on a monopod. I don't care how stable IS makes the lens, the IS won't take that weight off of your arms and the monopod will. And a monopod is a form of low tech IS, don't you think?

The other thing is subject movement. Even IF you can handhold this lens 3 stops lower than the non IS version, what is THAT shutterspeed going to do your subject? If it's a bird sitting on a branch, probably nothing; but if it's a kid running, or a car race, then the subject will be just as blurred with the IS as with the non IS lens.

From the outside it looks like the main utility of the IS lens is that you will be able to hand hold the lens under very poor lighting conditions. Get that "It's a slow shutterspeed lens." idea out of your head. My point is that in a lens of this focal length you are (should?) going to suport it with a monopod, and you are also going to use high shutterspeeds. Don't kid yourself otherwise. But if you DO use a monopod and 1/500 with the IS, you will get better images than with a non IS lens.

Thanks all. Just got one for the wife. Now she can stop stealing mine. I have had a non IS for about 10 years. My favorite lens. Now I can steal hers. Yes mono pods are the ticket. Anyone see a nice black nikon mono pod in Havana, thats mine. They can get away from you.
Bill
coronadophoto.com

The following pic is a crop of an untouched full frame image shot recently with a 100-400IS (Resized full frame below). It was shot handheld at 1/90th F5.6 at around 350mm on the lens. IS in mode 2.

The ISO was set at 400, hence the visible noise in the crop of the full size image.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Awesome shot Chris! WOW! I need to try my mode II more often on my IS's.

Yes, we have both IS and NonIS (I would be happy to pay $300+ to upgrade the NonIS lens... I've been able to handhold to 1/6 sec (with mono pod) and IS.

Just can't even think about that with a NonIs Lens...