Image Stabilisation

Hi Guys

Forgive me if this a dumb question - but - Can any expert out there comment on image stabilisation please -

1. I understand there is some sort of floating element controlled by a gyro - does the gyro contribute vibration to the element and reduce quality?

2. Is an L series lens with IS somewhat degraded to give only the performance of a standard lens with no IS?

3. If the IS is turned OFF - does the sharpness improve to what might be expected of an L series?

4. Does it reduce battery charge by 30% - not really a problem with the 20D as I see it?

5. Is IS reliable or is it a maintenance liability?

6. Any other comments would be greatly appreciated because I haven't got an IS lens and haven't found a need for IS yet - even with my 70-200F4L - but I am plamming to get the 24-105L shortly and I am wondering if its equivalent non L series might give as good results and save about £400.

Thanks for any comments

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Maybe, but I don't notice much with my BG-E2; regardless, IS makes it worth it
5. Reliable and worth the slight chance of mechanical issues all things considered
6. I'll take IS/OS on any lens given the choice

Final comment: If you get any IS lens, get the 70-200.

What he said.
4. I have not noticed a serious degradation in battery life and I do not have the grip.

I love both my IS lenses, would't have it any other way. Next lens will be the 100-400 L IS.

4. Canon says that you can expect a 25% increase in battery usage with an IS lens, as compared to a normal lens.

I've never measured it, but my guess is that it isn't near that bad. I never switch the IS to OFF.

---Bob Gross---

From my experience with my 100-400L

1. Yes, there is a slight degradation in sharpness when the IS is switched on.
2. No, it's still better than a Canon consumer lens.
3. Sharpness is improved with the IS switched off when not needed
4. Haven't seen much of a dip in battery life
5. The IS on my 100-400L has failed and needed to be replaced by Canon after 8 months of relatively light use. It took Canon UK ten and a half weeks to effect a satisfactory repair under their "professional services" scheme including replacing the IS mechanism TWICE - make sure you have a backup lens.
6. IS is useful in certain situations but for what I shoot I get better results with it turned off most of the time.

p.s. Before anyone says "bad copy" my 100-400L is "perfect". I have a letter from Canon stating this' after I sent it back for the fourth time to be calibrated.

I love my 70-200 IS, it takes some amazing shots even wide open, and the IS is a godsend in many, many occasions - it's like having an invisible tripod

Go for IS!

There is nothing you can do wrong. If you need it (and believe me... sooner or later you´ll run in to a situation when you need it) then turn it on. If you don´t need it... well just switch it off. That´s all there´s to it.

ED

I also have IS on the 100-400, and also experienced the IS failing. Canon USA fixed it right within a week; I had it back less than 10 days from when I sent it in (ground) and before they'd even gotten it into the system. I think there was a period when Canon had a batch of bad components, and that's what bit Cadwell and me (as well as some others). But Canon UK's repair service seems, from anecdotal evidence here, to be somewhat less responsive than Canon USA's.
It just works. It doesn't degrade the image (for that matter, even if it did, it'd still be better than trying to hand-hold without it at marginal speeds). I haven't noticed any impact on battery life, but then I don't have matching cameras, one of which always uses IS and one of which never does. Unless you shoot always and only with IS on, you won't notice anything. Reliable? My 75-300 IS hasn't given me any problems in the several years I had it. The 100-400 failed (in warranty), as did several other IS L lenses owned by POTN denizens, but my impression was that this was, as I said above, a bad batch of components since they all seemed to happen about the same time, with similar vintage lenses.

xuxu1 wrote:
Go for IS!

There is nothing you can do wrong. If you need it (and believe me... sooner or later you´ll run in to a situation when you need it) then turn it on. If you don´t need it... well just switch it off. That´s all there´s to it.

ED

I read that people say the non-IS version of 70-200mm is sharper than the IS version. Does the image quality get better when IS is turned off?

not if you're shaking.

Hi Guys
Thanks for comments.
FStopJojo's comments seemed positive, but there is a mixed bag of opinions here. I guess the negative comments represent only a few of the many lenes with IS out there and only a few of those owners are enthusiastic enough to comment and go onto a web forum.
I will try IS on my next lens.
Thanks for replies.
Ray

I just got a 100-400 and a 300mm and IS is superb on both. I had a 28-135 IS and that was good too, but didn't like the lens. Nothing to do with IS.

The 300mm is practically of point and shoot standard in ease of use. Superb. The 100-400 at 400mm and above with TCons (or the 300mm with TCons) still shakes a tad but I can up the shutter speed and it's great. I wouldn't go back to a non IS now unless I had to.

Even if there is a tiny loss in quality over a non IS (dunno if there is or not) I would trade that rather than have to carry tripod around for where I love to shoot.

110% positive for me. I don't care about the scare stories as they seem to be individual cases of bad luck/bad service rather than a general problem.

Jon is right...there were or still are bad batch lens around and unfortunately, my lens was one of them, but fortunately, the canon service center is only 40 min drive where i live and those canon guys are great...they fixed it within a week...