IS or not to IS, that is the question.... Hello all, I'm looking for input into a couple of lenses. I am looking at the "L" series Canon 70-200's. The F2.8 with Image Stab is out of my...

AFD68 Loc: Saugerties, NY

Hello all, I'm looking for input into a couple of lenses. I am looking at the "L" series Canon 70-200's. The F2.8 with Image Stab is out of my price range $2600), however I can afford the 2.8 without IS or the F4 with IS ($1600). Hence, my question....

Do I give up on the higher stop for the IS or give up the IS for the extra light? All input is appreciated.

Al S.

kevinl777

I'd save up and buy the 2.8 with IS. I have the Nikon version of that lens and it is my one of my favorites. The other is the 24-70 2.8. With those lenses I can cover almost any situation.

amehta Loc: Boston

AFD68 wrote:

Hello all, I'm looking for input into a couple of lenses. I am looking at the "L" series Canon 70-200's. The F2.8 with Image Stab is out of my price range $2600), however I can afford the 2.8 without IS or the F4 with IS ($1600). Hence, my question....

Do I give up on the higher stop for the IS or give up the IS for the extra light? All input is appreciated.

Al S.

It depends on your typical subject/use. If you are taking pictures of action (sports, animals, etc), then IS can't help you, but an extra stop of aperture can. If your subjects will not be moving as much, then IS can definitely be worth a stop or two (they spec it out to 3-4, but that seems ideal).

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

AFD68 wrote:

Hello all, I'm looking for input into a couple of lenses. I am looking at the "L" series Canon 70-200's. The F2.8 with Image Stab is out of my price range $2600), however I can afford the 2.8 without IS or the F4 with IS ($1600). Hence, my question....

Do I give up on the higher stop for the IS or give up the IS for the extra light? All input is appreciated.

Al S.

If you plan to use a tripod you won't need IS, but in general the longer the lens the more you will see the benefits of IS for anything handheld. The newer Canon lenses, such as my 70-300L have two axis stabilization. Vertical and horizontal. You can switch to single axis (vertical) for panning shots such as sports, etc. It all depends on what you are shooting and in what conditions. In general I would say go with the IS.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I have the 70-200mm f/4L IS and could not be more pleased with it. I also debated between the f/2.8 without IS and the f/4 with IS. The loss of a stop of light has not been an issue for me. I use it on a 5D MK III and the AF is quick even when using a 1.4x teleconverter.

Most of my shooting with this lens is outdoors. I did use it to take pictures at the local school's one-act play presentation. I pushed the ISO to 1600 (I rarely go over ISO 400- just a mental thing from the old film days) and still got some great photos.

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

Sigma & Tamron both have 70-200mm f2.8 lenses with image stabilization. These are excellent lenses without the huge price tag. I personally use the Sigma version. Might be worth a look. :-)

AFD68 Loc: Saugerties, NY

Thanks everyone for your 2 cents. I will continue to research and make a decision soon.

Al

olcoach Loc: Oregon

I have the 2.8 w/o IS as I shoot sports often. With or without IS it is a great piece of glass.

Terra Australis Loc: Australia

AFD68 wrote:

Do I give up on the higher stop for the IS or give up the IS for the extra light? All input is appreciated.

Al S.

Just about all of the most stunning photographs from the last hundred years were taken without IS.

Going for the lens capable of the best image quality would be my prime goal.

Oliver.

amehta Loc: Boston

Terra Australis wrote:

Just about all of the most stunning photographs from the last hundred years were taken without IS.

What about the photographs from the past 100 years which would have made the "most stunning" list, but the camera shake dropped them just off the list? If IS had been available for the past 100 years, wouldn't the stats be different?

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

AFD68 wrote:

Hello all, I'm looking for input into a couple of lenses. I am looking at the "L" series Canon 70-200's. The F2.8 with Image Stab is out of my price range $2600), however I can afford the 2.8 without IS or the F4 with IS ($1600). Hence, my question....

Do I give up on the higher stop for the IS or give up the IS for the extra light? All input is appreciated.

Al S.

Over the holidays the 70-200 L IS2 2.8 was available for a short while for $1799 new from reputable vendors. That is about the best price ever for that lens. So if you are not in a terrible hurry you will find a decent price on it, though not the $1799 price probably any time soon.

Terra Australis Loc: Australia

amehta wrote:

What about the photographs from the past 100 years which would have made the "most stunning" list, but the camera shake dropped them just off the list? If IS had been available for the past 100 years, wouldn't the stats be different?

Unlikely. You would be hard pressed to compile a large list of stunning photos that are stunning BECAUSE of IS.

IS is a software solution to a hardware problem. Nothing more.

amehta Loc: Boston

Terra Australis wrote:

Unlikely. You would be hard pressed to compile a large list of stunning photos that are stunning BECAUSE of IS.

IS is a software solution to a hardware problem. Nothing more.

I didn't say any photo is stunning because of IS. I'm saying that IS could prevent some camera shake, and that vibration could otherwise prevent it from being stunning. Essentially, IS could allow the photo to be stunning, while other aspects of the image actually make it stunning.

Since IS involves physically moving something, either the sensor or a lens element, I would also characterize it as a hardware solution for a hardware problem. In the end, it is a tool just like everything else in the camera and lens, to make the photograph. Depending on the situation, this tool can be useless, unnecessary, or effective.

Terra Australis Loc: Australia

amehta wrote:

I didn't say any photo is stunning because of IS. I'm saying that IS could prevent some camera shake, and that vibration could otherwise prevent it from being stunning. Essentially, IS could allow the photo to be stunning, while other aspects of the image actually make it stunning.

Hey. All I said was that it is better going for lens quality over IS. This suggestion was made to the OP. Why are you getting all excited and going Texas Ranger over the thread?

amehta Loc: Boston

Terra Australis wrote:

Hey. All I said was that it is better going for lens quality over IS. This suggestion was made to the OP. Why are you getting all excited and going Texas Ranger over the thread?

You implied that making a stunning photograph has nothing to do with IS, and I disagreed. Since you said it in the room with all of us there, expressed my opinion in reaction to yours, and the OP can decide if what I said is useful to him.

I will have to look into what "going Texas Ranger" means, especially to an Aussie. :-)