whats the real score about IS lenses...

nicksan wrote in post #3853330
I think the versatility of IS outweighs any IQ-loss.
That is...provided that you need IS. Some people don't.

Ah, but that is debatable.

Photography is about statistics; keeper rates of images without shake blur are no guarantees. If you take enough shots, you will get a blur free image at 400 mm and 1/60 s at some point in time, after many tries. However, with IS, you are almost guaranteed to get those shots.

And because it is about statistics, even at fast shutterspeeds IS helps...

Kind regards, Wim

AlphaChicken wrote in post #3853645
Ok I now have another question. Why would IS reduce image quality?

It doesn't have to, it only has the potential to do so, no more, no less, due to the extra amount of lens elements required to implement IS. Generally speaking, the more lens elements, the more reflection and refraction surfaces, and the more deterioration of the image through lens aberrations. Every lens element in principle introduces aberrations. By carefully choosing the right combinations, the aberrations of the one may counter the aberrations of the other. And that is what optics has always been about .

However, this will get increasingly more difficult the more lens elements are put into a design. Even so, modern lenses with IS may well outperform slightly older lenses without IS, due to newer and better designs, despite the extra number of lens elements. The 70-200 F/4 L IS is a good example of this.

Kind regards, Wim

Ahh thanks so much for explaining that. 'twas itching my brain. Alright cool that explains alot.

aero145 wrote in post #3852135
About the 70-200s...

I think the sharpness goes like this

1# f/4 with IS
2# f/2.8 with IS
3# f/2.8
4# f/4

If you go to www.the-digital-picture.com and check out 100% crops from the f/4 IS at 135mm f/4 and the 135mm f/2L at f/4 you'll see that the 70-200 f/4L IS is a tiny winy bit softer than the 135, seriously, the differnce is almost none. The 135 is said to be one of the sharpest lenses in Canon's lineup. The 70-200 f/4L IS would probably go into the sharpest Canon lenses lineup too, and it's a freakin' ZOOMlens!

1 -- f4 IS

2 -- f4 & f2.8

3 -- f2.8 IS

ed rader

wimg wrote in post #3853892
Ah, but that is debatable.

Photography is about statistics; keeper rates of images without shake blur are no guarantees. If you take enough shots, you will get a blur free image at 400 mm and 1/60 s at some point in time, after many tries. However, with IS, you are almost guaranteed to get those shots.

And because it is about statistics, even at fast shutterspeeds IS helps...

Kind regards, Wim

it doesn't take much movement to take the edge off of a sharp picture.

ed rader

[QUOTE=nicksan;3853330​]I think the versatility of IS outweighs any IQ-loss.
That is...provided that you need IS. Some people don't.[/quote]

some people just claim they don't need IS too .

ed rader

[QUOTE=NorCalAl;385190​2]I'm trading my brick for a 24-105 (yeah, after I made the opposite trade a few months ago). I don't find the IS on the 24-105 to produce less sharp pictures and in fact, I rely on it for sharpness where a bigger aperture won't do.
Ed's right about bokeh on the brick, but I'll take the f4 and IS over the 2.8 and the better bokeh.[/quote]

when it comes to those two lenses i think the majority would agree with you .

ed rader

wimg wrote in post #3853892
Ah, but that is debatable.

Photography is about statistics; keeper rates of images without shake blur are no guarantees. If you take enough shots, you will get a blur free image at 400 mm and 1/60 s at some point in time, after many tries. However, with IS, you are almost guaranteed to get those shots.

And because it is about statistics, even at fast shutterspeeds IS helps...

Kind regards, Wim

I think I meant to say some people don't b/c what they shoot wouldn't take advantage of I.S...

I could chase around one of my very active cats all day long with my 24-105 and come up with nothing...

nicksan wrote in post #3854279
I think I meant to say some people don't b/c what they shoot wouldn't take advantage of I.S...

I could chase around one of my very active cats all day long with my 24-105 and come up with nothing...

Yeah, I know the feeling. Even inactive cats move quite fast . You really need at least an F/1.8 lens and iso 6400 most of the time.

And I am really impressed by what bird shooters manage....

Kind regards, Wim

Hey ed, it was your statements on the brick and my experience with the bokeh of the Sigma 150/2.8 that convinced me to make the trade in the first place (the original trade that took my beloved 24-105 away!). Prior to making that trade, I wasn't convinced anything could make up for the IS. Then I saw the bokeh of the Sigma and thought "wow, imagine if I could get that from my walkaround!" and made the trade. Well, my original thoughts about just simply capturing a shot turned out to be true (for me!). Not to restate what I said before, but the conclusion I came up with was that IS and f4 will allow for some shots that just 2.8 alone won't capture.
I still like the bokeh better on the brick, however.

NorCalAl wrote in post #3855869
Hey ed, it was your statements on the brick and my experience with the bokeh of the Sigma 150/2.8 that convinced me to make the trade in the first place (the original trade that took my beloved 24-105 away!). Prior to making that trade, I wasn't convinced anything could make up for the IS. Then I saw the bokeh of the Sigma and thought "wow, imagine if I could get that from my walkaround!" and made the trade. Well, my original thoughts about just simply capturing a shot turned out to be true (for me!). Not to restate what I said before, but the conclusion I came up with was that IS and f4 will allow for some shots that just 2.8 alone won't capture.
I still like the bokeh better on the brick, however.

no doubt Al, and vice versa is also true of course .

i've owned two copies of th 24-105L. the second never came out of the box and was exchanged for the 300L f4 IS, and recently i had my FIL's 24-105L for a week.

i tried the FIL's copy with my 5d and was making mental plans to sell the brick and get another copy.

but after a couple hundred pics with the 24-105L i found that the reasons i sold the lens after 8 months of fairly heavy use were still valid, and man i just don't like that lens and i wish i did !

ed rader

does it follow that the more glass the lens have, the lower the image quality MIGHT become?

Hogloff wrote in post #3852636
Take a lens like the 70-200 with and without IS for a day of shooting and you'll come back with many more keepers with the IS lens than without. That is the bottom line. If you want to shoot brick walls in controlled conditions then yes, you might get a sharper photo with the non-IS lens. But when used to take "real" images, the IS lens will provide many more keepers hands down.

Agreed.