IS Lens. Worth the money?

Hi all,

I've just bought a 7D. After a weekend of use I can truly say it's a fantastic camera! (I used to have an Olympus E500!!) The Canon came with a EF S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS lens.

I want to add a lens or two to my kit.

My question is: regardless of lens, is an IS USM lens worth the extra money?

For example my local retailer has a 70-300 4-5.6 III for €200

He also has a 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM for €600.

Is the image stabilisation and the ultrasonic motor really worth triple the money?

Regards

G

What you're comparing is the 75-300 f/4-5.6 III and the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. These are two different lenses. The 75-300 is a cheap consumer lens with an all-plastic construction and cheap optics. The 70-300 is a midrange zoom with a mixed metal and plastic construction, decent optics, image stabilization, and silent autofocusing.

Either way, get the 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS. It has the same or similar cheap construction as the 75-300 but its optics are much closer to the 70-300, and it's quite a bit cheaper.

there is a topic already in this section a few topics down asking the same question... ?

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=784513
I asked the same thing more or less here the other day.

Garvan, It really depends on what you will be shooting. It also depends on if you will be using a tripod. The IS really helps for instance if you are shooting hand held at extended ranges. The shutter speed plays a big role in this also. Fast shutter speeds also eliminates the advantage of IS. The last thing is your budget. If you can afford IS might as well pay the extra for it. If not you will still get some excellent shots from the right non IS lenses. As you will find the more you search on here at the photo sharing section. It takes a good photographer not the equipment to capture great photos. Time and time again I see people spending thousands of dollars to take the same crappy looking pictures they did with a point and shoot camera. Your knowledge in photography is the best equipment out there.

Hi all. Thanks for the suggestions! I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to the technicalities of photography even tho I've been snapping away for years. I reckon the more Iearn about the small things the less money I'm likely to waste on poorer pieces of equipment!

I would rather pay for a lens with wider aperture than one with Image Stabilization. The reason being, with a wider aperture I can increase my shutter speed which can negate the effect of IS, my flash will need to work less harder to get the exposure I want, with a low aperture lens I can get some nice depth of field shots, and low aperture number lenses hold their value better. However if I could have it all, I would get IS.

Yes.