Image Stabilization?
Apr 26, 2012 20:18:11 #
imagemeister wrote:
quote=pdwoodswood quote=MT Shooter I purposly bo... (show quote)
A rock or fencepost or tree works and it is free. Also have a monopod. The more I understand IS, seems to be for pilgrims. Never had a problem with non-IS stuff....
Apr 26, 2012 21:30:06 #
Even breath and heartbeat can make a camera unstable so if you are alive use some sort of image stabilization. It can hurt but it sure can help. lol
Apr 27, 2012 03:11:03 #
dame_wolf wrote:
How important do you think the IS (or OS) is on a 70-200mm 2.8? Will be mostly used with a monopod.
You won't believe the difference a good IS system will make until you try it. I love the IS on my 70-200mm f/4L and can usually get very clear hand held shots with it all the way out at 200mm; which is more like 320mm on my 7D. I like to shoot a lot of moving subjects, so a tripod is often not a good option for me. I also have what Sigma calls OS, on a 18-250mm lens that works quite well. Even my 100mm Macro has a hybrid IS system that has allowed me to take some macro shots I couldn't have gotten, if I had to use a tripod, although I use a tripod when I can.
Apr 27, 2012 03:30:27 #
Swamp Gator wrote:
I have the older (non IS) Canon 70-200 2.8 and would not spend the extra cash just to get IS. I'd say maybe one time in a hundred using this lens I've thought IS would have been helpful.
Living at sea level, like you do, maybe makes it easier to hold everything steady at 200mm. Hiking around above 10,000 feet (a common thing in Colorado) tends to get you winded, and my IS comes in really handy. So I would guess it depends on where the person asking the question is going to be shooting most of his/her pictures.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.