How necessary is IS?

[Unhygenixcg95]

Looking at the price difference between the EF 70-200 f/4 IS and the EF 70-200 f/4 (no IS), I'm wondering how important it is to have IS. I know that IS allows me to take pictures at faster shutter speeds, and reduces blurring caused by camera shake. Would like to ask the more experienced camera gurus out there, how important is IS for normal day-light photography using the EF 70-200mm f/4? Not doing any fanciful panning or that kinda stuff..

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Unhygenixcg95 Looking at the price difference between the EF 70-200 f/4 IS and the EF 70-200 f/4 (no IS), I'm wondering how important it is to have IS. I know that IS allows me to take pictures at faster shutter speeds, and reduces blurring caused by camera shake. Would like to ask the more experienced camera gurus out there, how important is IS for normal day-light photography using the EF 70-200mm f/4? Not doing any fanciful panning or that kinda stuff..

IS does not allow you to take pictures at faster shutter speeds. A lens with a larger aperture allows you to do so. In fact, IS allows you to do the contrary, by reducing cmaera shake so you can take photos at slower shutter speeds.

Application-wise, I find no need for IS in broad daylight. IS only comes in when shooting still subjects (or slow moving subjects) in dimly-lit conditions. Remember also that IS cannot help you to freeze subject motion; it will only reduce motion blur at the photographer's end.

[janshim]

Originally Posted by Unhygenixcg95 Looking at the price difference between the EF 70-200 f/4 IS and the EF 70-200 f/4 (no IS), I'm wondering how important it is to have IS. I know that IS allows me to take pictures at faster shutter speeds, and reduces blurring caused by camera shake. Would like to ask the more experienced camera gurus out there, how important is IS for normal day-light photography using the EF 70-200mm f/4? Not doing any fanciful panning or that kinda stuff..

I swear by Image Stabilizer because it works. I find that people often make misinformed buying decisions when they let prices dictate what they buy instead of what makes sense. And here's what makes sense: You can argue that you are getting the 70-200 f/4 lens for daylight. Have you considered that with a tele lens you may also use it for indoor at low-light shooting opportunities?

IS does not "allow you to take pictures at faster shutter speeds". With IS turned ON, you can hand-hold at lower shutter speeds (this varies also depending on how stable you are too. IS alone isn't magic).

Take a look at the images below esp in the recent TOYOTA CLASSICS Orchestra where flash was strictly prohibited. As official photographer, I wanted to capture as many of the guests as possible in a very low light venue, subjects in most cases lit only by overhead spot lighting. I used two lenses on my 5D–the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and 100-400 IS @ ISO 1600 and 3200. I could not use my 20D inside the theatre as the mirror slapping noise was too loud.

http://shimworld.wordpress.com/2007/...classics-2007/

And also a recent SHELL Emblem event also a very low light venue. Though flash was clearly used, I was pointing the bare 580EX everywhere to bounce off pillars and parts of the venue to get directional lighting. This means a lot of light is lost and most times I shot at ISo 1600 wide opened to 2.8 .. here IS proved again its effectiveness. The 70-200mm f2.8 IS and 5D focus and locks with accuracy very fast.

http://shimworld.wordpress.com/2007/...i-shell-event/

[Photo Nuts]

Necessary? No.

Useful? Definitely yes, especially for telephoto lenses.

The weight difference between 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 is huge.

It does not freeze action. But under low light, when the photos turn out blurry, you wonder if it's because of handshake or subject movement. Janshim's shots demonstrate the usefulness of IS beyond a shadow of doubt.

If the price of the 70-200 f/4 IS is prohibitive, I suggest waiting for the 55-250 IS.

[Unhygenixcg95]

Oops, sorry, I meant to say that IS allows me to take pictures at slower shutter speeds...

Thanks much for your opinions!! Just another question then... would the EF 70-300mm IS be a good alternative to the 70-200mm f/4 lens? Of course, taking into account that the former isn't an L lens...

[FilterFunk]

the IQ of the 70-300 IS (or its DO counterpart) is nowhere near the 70-200 F4..

[calebk]

Originally Posted by FilterFunk the IQ of the 70-300 IS (or its DO counterpart) is nowhere near the 70-200 F4..

Not to mention that the 70-300 IS does not have a constant aperture.

[thw]

I strongly advise you to steer away from the 70-300 IS lens. Optically, it is awesome. But the zoom creep, portrait issue and horrible AF accuracy at 300 mm practically renders the lens worthless.

If the new 55-250 IS is as good as the new 18-55 IS (see http://www.photozone.de/active/forum...2232146391338A) it may be a very worthwhile first lens.

[unseenshadows]

IS on a standard zoom lens like my 28-135 has proved itself extremely useful, especially when I shoot fully extended at 135mm. I've handled a 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS before (both extremes of the four 70-200 L variants). Not taking into account the different constant aperture, I must say that IS really played a crucial role in giving sharp photos when I used these lenses handheld.

[Snoweagle]

IS is gd for low lighting which makes your pics more susceptible to handshakes at very low shutter speed. For me i don't need IS at 200mm, unless it's over 300mm, so the $800 savings difference can be of a great help. But then, it's a matter of prefs.

[calebk]

It is largely also dependent on the situations you shoot in. If you're generally shooting fast-moving objects, then IS will do nothing for you.

If you're shooting still-life in low-light setting, then it may come in useful.

[Unhygenixcg95]

Thanks much, everyone, for sharing your experiences with the various lens. Greatly appreciated!!

Shall wait for the 55-250mm lens then.. any idea when it will be available in Singapore? Understand from another thread that the price would be around S$600? Please correct me if I'm wrong... =P

Thanks again, everyone!

[Draccoyap]

Originally Posted by Unhygenixcg95 Thanks much, everyone, for sharing your experiences with the various lens. Greatly appreciated!! Shall wait for the 55-250mm lens then.. any idea when it will be available in Singapore? Understand from another thread that the price would be around S$600? Please correct me if I'm wrong... =P Thanks again, everyone!

you can't compare the the non-L lens over and canon L lens, I think. it is different grade of lens you are talking about. for me, as a beginner, a non-L lens may be good enough, but i am sure that i will eventually need L lens not only it is better quality and built, but also it is white

I think the IS is worth paying for, though I never used one. I have a tamron 18-250, but at 250, i can hardly get a sharp picture in most time. So I would really love to have one with IS. A sharp picture is always better than a blurry one. If you think you are steady enough not to have it, save the money.

so, I rather save up enough for just go for the 70-200 IS. but that just me.

[Frijj]

In many cases it's good to have.

Any focal above 200mm, you will really find it useful. Even more so for the slower consumer zooms (18-200 VR/OS (Nikon/Sigma), 70-300 IS and the upcoming 50-250 IS), especially when you want to step down the lenses a bit.

The 18-250 tamron and the 70-200 f/2.8 L are completely different beasts... so really depend what you want to use the lenses for.

[JamesW]

Personally, I like IS.

With my 70-200mm F4 IS, I am consistently able to get sharp pictures at 1/25 200mm. But I think proper breathing technique is probably more important than IS ultimately.