Lens IS vs. Camera ISO

While I'm pondering how to acquire the funds to upgrade to the 5D MKII, I started thinking of something. First of which, is to trade my 70-200 2.8IS for the non-IS version.
Why?
Well, aren't we at a point now in which the low light, high ISO capability of today's cameras almost negate the need for IS? Since I got my mark III, I can't think of a time I turned it on.
Thoughts?

mike-

honestly it all depends on what you shoot... when I shoot sports I will have IS off the majority of the time but If I am shooting anything else, IS goes on.. While the ISO will allow you to use a higher shutter to avoid camera shake, IT really all depends on what you are shooting. I would think that wedding photographers could do without IS but it is never a burden to have an IS lens.. so if you find that you dont use it, then i say remove it, but Id rather turn off my IS than not have it.

I actually thought about this.
Mine was downgrade 2.8 IS to 4.0 non IS.
I am going to watch this tread.
^^

You make a good point Dave about just turning it off. I've actually missed candid shots not waiting for the IS to spool up.
As far as what I shoot, everything. Landscapes, senior pics, weddings, families, candids, etc.
I think I just might have to give this a shot...

I say keep the lens and wait for more funds. Only because if you change your mind to re aquire the 2.8 IS it's going to cost you more down the road. Body prices will not hold up in value compared to lenses.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #8885431
Well, aren't we at a point now in which the low light, high ISO capability of today's cameras almost negate the need for IS?
Thoughts?

No. Until there is absolutely no degradation of image quality with increasing ISO, IS will continue to offer another three or more stops of available hand-held shutter-speed at the highest ISO that provides usable images, no matter how high that ISO is.

IS is not to reduce gross movement like you moving the lens around. It's for those micro vibrations too small to see unless your really looking for them. The only way to get rid of them is to put the camera on a rock and pour cement around it, and then, a car passing on the highway a block away will cause some vibration. IS takes care of the little stuff, it won't stop movement from you waving the lens around like the conductor at the philharmonic.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #8885431
Well, aren't we at a point now in which the low light, high ISO capability of today's cameras almost negate the need for IS?

Nope, because it's not ISO or IS it's ISO and IS. With the same camera you'll be able to use the same ISO with your IS lens to get a sharper shot in dimmer light than with the non-IS lens. All that extreme ISO values do is lower that cut-off where IS makes a difference.

I agree with many, however I think each individual knows mostly what they shoot and if they get to the point they don't use IS or don't shoot extremely low light situations, then with newer bodies, they may find they can go to the lighter less expensive equivalent lenses. I have often thought about moving to a 70-200 F4 IS and selling my 2.8 IS.

However, it would take the 1DIV purported performance before I could do that with what I shoot. The 7D isn't quite there, the 5DII probably would be just about there. I think at an individual basis, we are indeed at that point where the cameras allow us to move to other less "speedy" lenses depending on our needs.

hollis_f wrote in post #8889889
Nope, because it's not ISO or IS it's ISO and IS. With the same camera you'll be able to use the same ISO with your IS lens to get a sharper shot in dimmer light than with the non-IS lens. All that extreme ISO values do is lower that cut-off where IS makes a difference.

Hah! That's an obvious point I missed.

The other thing I've been thinking too is about how important I feel it is not to use the IS. One can get fooled into thinking the shot will automatically be sharper because of it with the is on instead of working to get your shutter speed up with IS off...

Mr. Clean wrote in post #8890050
Hah! That's an obvious point I missed.

The other thing I've been thinking too is about how important I feel it is not to use the IS. One can get fooled into thinking the shot will automatically be sharper because of it with the is on instead of working to get your shutter speed up with IS off...

I did a lot of thinking about this at one point, and decided to sell all my IS equipped lenses. I do not regret that decision at all and have had the opportunity to buy IS lenses since and decided I did not need it.

At my age, IS is one of those new fangled crutches that the lens company tells you absolutely need and can't take decent pictures without it. That right there should make the short hairs stand up, but I went about 90% of life with no IS and I figure I can go the rest of the way.

This tradeoff is really simply one of economic hardship. Given a choice anyone would take both - clean high ISO and IS.

So the decision is probably also going to be of a personal nature. One who shoots low light action shots will probably take the clean high ISO. One who's light struggles from from shooting low action scenes stopped down will prefer the IS.

Arguably between the two IS is the more indispensable, as it can usually be replaced by a tripod (where tripods are practical and not banned). Low light action doesn't have a simple workaround once you have fast lenses.

To me, it is so critical with the 7D to nail exposure and focus. Having having IS as an additional tool is a plus for me. I noticed this after shooting my 400 f/5.6 hand held at 3 X focal length and then comparing to 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm at .5 focal length with IS. If it's not raining today, I'm going to do side by side comps of 70-200 with and WO IS.