How critical IS?

gazkw · 27th February 2009

hey guys... by chance, i suddenly got an opportunity to acquire a 24-70mm f/2.8 at a very low price from a friend who's a professional.

i just bought a brand new 17-55mm f/2.8. i guess people using FF won't have any issues on this choice, but as i'm using 1.6 FOVCF, i have flexibility of using an EF-S.

one of the main differing factors is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, and i'm not sure how much will this affect my pictures.

is there a point for me to keep the 17-55? it seems rather like no point...

teebs · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by gazkw

hey guys... by chance, i suddenly got an opportunity to acquire a 24-70mm f/2.8 at a very low price from a friend who's a professional.

i just bought a brand new 17-55mm f/2.8. i guess people using FF won't have any issues on this choice, but as i'm using 1.6 FOVCF, i have flexibility of using an EF-S.

one of the main differing factors is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, and i'm not sure how much will this affect my pictures.

is there a point for me to keep the 17-55? it seems rather like no point...

There is a point to keep the 17-55 because the 24-70 does not give you the wide angle lens. Unless you want to get the 10-22 to complement your 24-70.

IS is not necessary for short zoom lenses like the 24-70 unless you have very shaky hands...

bernstein1234 · 27th February 2009

IS will help to reduce handshake and hence reducing the chances of getting a blurred static shot.

But,

IS will not help to freeze motion of a running person or moving birds/animals, that you have to take note.

I would say both lenses are good on your camera and they both serve different purposes. 17-55 will be 27.2-88 but 24-70 will become 38.4-112.

But if for me I'd keep the 17-55.

+evenstar · 27th February 2009

i seldom use IS on my IS lenses. it's all about technique, breathing, and posture..just think back to your army live range days...

mrericlee · 27th February 2009

I would keep the 17-55mm as in collection of lenses for just in case. But going out, I would bring one or the other.

If you dun want your 17-55mm, sell to me!

blusub · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by +evenstar

i seldom use IS on my IS lenses. it's all about technique, breathing, and posture..just think back to your army live range days...

If it is there why not use it? You mean you turn it off?
Even with good technique there will be a point in low light condition when it will come in handy.

gazkw · 27th February 2009

thx for the comments guys, i guess my question is more of is the 24-70mm f/2.8 totally functional without the IS.

i wish i could keep both lens, but i would likely choose one over the other.

jeremyteocx · 27th February 2009

what other lenses do you have now, or are intending to get in the near future? that should help your decision. as someone mentioned, a 10-22 could complement your 24-70 as it is short on the wide range, so do you already have a wide angle lense?

I would say IS is usually a good to have (especially for someone new like me), especially in low light situations ... further with IS, i could stop down my aperture by abit more during good lighting situations to get sharper focus

xiutian · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by gazkw

thx for the comments guys, i guess my question is more of is the 24-70mm f/2.8 totally functional without the IS.

i wish i could keep both lens, but i would likely choose one over the other.

I'm using 24-70 with 40D, no problems at all. Great lens with sharp images. Just get the shutter speed to something you can control and you should have no problems.

twisted illusion · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by gazkw

hey guys... by chance, i suddenly got an opportunity to acquire a 24-70mm f/2.8 at a very low price from a friend who's a professional.

i just bought a brand new 17-55mm f/2.8. i guess people using FF won't have any issues on this choice, but as i'm using 1.6 FOVCF, i have flexibility of using an EF-S.

one of the main differing factors is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, and i'm not sure how much will this affect my pictures.

is there a point for me to keep the 17-55? it seems rather like no point...

with IS depend on how u shoot... if got IS, u cam u set A piority at F22, then the cam select T=1sec, IS oso no use one..

now i living without IS, cos all my lens is without it... hee...

ditikolon · 27th February 2009

To me, IS is like a monopod... won't give you the stable behavior of a tripod, but makes shooting at the tele end of a zoom lens a very handholdable affair. Don't always need it? Turn it off. But there instances where IS will bail you out.

IS is not a magic pill for sharp photos but it does eliminate handshake.

Well, I think you'll be more satisfied with your 17-55 because the focal length range is tailored for your crop camera.

Get the 24-70 only if you get a 10-22 to cover your wide end also because 24mm is simply not enough for group pictures especially indoors. In terms of image quality, you'll probably be very contented with both. No clear winner here.

So at the end of the day it isn't about the IS, it's more about the focal length range. Most people here will tell you that.

gazkw · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by ditikolon

To me, IS is like a monopod... won't give you the handholdability of a tripod, but very useful at the tele end of a zoom lens. Don't always need it? Turn it off. But there instances where IS will bail you out.

Well, I think you'll be more satisfied with your 17-55 because the focal length range is tailored for your crop camera.

Get the 24-70 only if you get a 10-22 to cover your wide end also because 24mm is simply not enough for group pictures especially indoors. In terms of image quality, you'll probably be very contented with both. No clear winner here.

So at the end of the day it isn't about the IS, it's more about the focal length range. Most people here will tell you that.

thx a lot for this excellent advice. will look into a 10-22mm in the event the 17-55 got to go.

m3lv1nh0 · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by gazkw

thx for the comments guys, i guess my question is more of is the 24-70mm f/2.8 totally functional without the IS.

i wish i could keep both lens, but i would likely choose one over the other.

No problem using 24-70 without IS. Bump up the ISO and make sure the shutter speed is at least 1/60. Anything below I will use bounced flash or change to my 35L/85L.

Snoweagle · 27th February 2009

My point is that u won't need IS on mid-zooms or wide-angles.

shahrulesa · 27th February 2009

I've been too used to using the 17-85 is that this week when i put my 28-90 on my 400D, 1/2 of the pics I took showed camera shake.. lol. So for me, definitely I need IS.

CS TAN · 27th February 2009

Decide on which lens will mainly depends on what you normally shoot. If you are doing a lot of landscapes, then perhaps 24-70 is not wide enough for you in a crop body. But if landscape is not your cup of tea, then perhaps you don't need the extra wide reach that others require.

I came from the film era and a 35mm lens for me is considered wide angle lens in the '80. So, if I look at the 24-70 (38-112 equivalent in 1.6 crop) then I would say the range is already quite a decent walk around lens. Actually, most will consider this lens as the best general purpose lens on a FF body. So, if and when you move to FF, you will already have one of the best walk around lens there is. With the great build of a L and the great image quality that comes with this lens, I would go for this lens instead. Just my 2 cents...

ditikolon · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by gazkw

thx a lot for this excellent advice. will look into a 10-22mm in the event the 17-55 got to go.

^^ You're welcome. Anyway to add on to my previous point, I forgot to mention that 24-70L is a rather handholdable lens. The weight helps.

The 17-55 IS USM is a do-it-all walkaround with everything you probably need - constant f/2.8, IS and USM. It's Canon's flagship EF-S general purpose zoom.

So in response to your thread title "How critical IS", I would say that it isn't very critical considering the 17-55 is a wide angle to moderate tele. You might not be missing out on a lot.

It's the focal length range that might affect you more than anything else (and weight if it's a concern... the 24-70L is a tank). But of course, your friend must be offering you a real sweetener for you to make this consideration.

ditikolon · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by shahrulesa

I've been too used to using the 17-85 is that this week when i put my 28-90 on my 400D, 1/2 of the pics I took showed camera shake.. lol. So for me, definitely I need IS.

You don't need IS, you just need to forget that IS was ever invented ^^ Hehehe.

An drew · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by gazkw

thx for the comments guys, i guess my question is more of is the 24-70mm f/2.8 totally functional without the IS.

i wish i could keep both lens, but i would likely choose one over the other.

how are you going to get a proper wide angle with the 24-70 if you are on 1.6 crop?

xiutian · 27th February 2009

Originally Posted by An drew

how are you going to get a proper wide angle with the 24-70 if you are on 1.6 crop?

It really depends on user requirement. For me, it is already sufficient.

27th February 2009	#1
gazkw Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Coast Posts: 1,026	How critical IS? hey guys... by chance, i suddenly got an opportunity to acquire a 24-70mm f/2.8 at a very low price from a friend who's a professional. i just bought a brand new 17-55mm f/2.8. i guess people using FF won't have any issues on this choice, but as i'm using 1.6 FOVCF, i have flexibility of using an EF-S. one of the main differing factors is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, and i'm not sure how much will this affect my pictures. is there a point for me to keep the 17-55? it seems rather like no point... __________________ garygraphy \| flickr

27th February 2009	#3
bernstein1234 Deregistered Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 571	Re: How critical IS? IS will help to reduce handshake and hence reducing the chances of getting a blurred static shot. But, IS will not help to freeze motion of a running person or moving birds/animals, that you have to take note. I would say both lenses are good on your camera and they both serve different purposes. 17-55 will be 27.2-88 but 24-70 will become 38.4-112. But if for me I'd keep the 17-55.

27th February 2009	#4
+evenstar Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 5,451	Re: How critical IS? i seldom use IS on my IS lenses. it's all about technique, breathing, and posture..just think back to your army live range days... __________________ the SEARCH FUNCTION is there for a reason. USE IT!

27th February 2009	#5
mrericlee Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Singapore Posts: 445	Re: How critical IS? I would keep the 17-55mm as in collection of lenses for just in case. But going out, I would bring one or the other. If you dun want your 17-55mm, sell to me!

27th February 2009	#7
gazkw Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Coast Posts: 1,026	Re: How critical IS? thx for the comments guys, i guess my question is more of is the 24-70mm f/2.8 totally functional without the IS. i wish i could keep both lens, but i would likely choose one over the other. __________________ garygraphy \| flickr

27th February 2009	#8
jeremyteocx Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Singapore Posts: 356	Re: How critical IS? what other lenses do you have now, or are intending to get in the near future? that should help your decision. as someone mentioned, a 10-22 could complement your 24-70 as it is short on the wide range, so do you already have a wide angle lense? I would say IS is usually a good to have (especially for someone new like me), especially in low light situations ... further with IS, i could stop down my aperture by abit more during good lighting situations to get sharper focus

27th February 2009	#11
ditikolon Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 407	Re: How critical IS? To me, IS is like a monopod... won't give you the stable behavior of a tripod, but makes shooting at the tele end of a zoom lens a very handholdable affair. Don't always need it? Turn it off. But there instances where IS will bail you out. IS is not a magic pill for sharp photos but it does eliminate handshake. Well, I think you'll be more satisfied with your 17-55 because the focal length range is tailored for your crop camera. Get the 24-70 only if you get a 10-22 to cover your wide end also because 24mm is simply not enough for group pictures especially indoors. In terms of image quality, you'll probably be very contented with both. No clear winner here. So at the end of the day it isn't about the IS, it's more about the focal length range. Most people here will tell you that. __________________ flickr Last edited by ditikolon; 27th February 2009 at 11:09 AM.

27th February 2009	#14
Snoweagle Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hougang Posts: 11,822	Re: How critical IS? My point is that u won't need IS on mid-zooms or wide-angles. __________________ Canon EOS 5D w/BG-E4, 50 f/1.2 L, 580EX II. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO.

27th February 2009	#15
shahrulesa Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 619	Re: How critical IS? I've been too used to using the 17-85 is that this week when i put my 28-90 on my 400D, 1/2 of the pics I took showed camera shake.. lol. So for me, definitely I need IS. __________________ Shahrul Esa

27th February 2009	#16
CS TAN Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: West Posts: 2,123	Re: How critical IS? Decide on which lens will mainly depends on what you normally shoot. If you are doing a lot of landscapes, then perhaps 24-70 is not wide enough for you in a crop body. But if landscape is not your cup of tea, then perhaps you don't need the extra wide reach that others require. I came from the film era and a 35mm lens for me is considered wide angle lens in the '80. So, if I look at the 24-70 (38-112 equivalent in 1.6 crop) then I would say the range is already quite a decent walk around lens. Actually, most will consider this lens as the best general purpose lens on a FF body. So, if and when you move to FF, you will already have one of the best walk around lens there is. With the great build of a L and the great image quality that comes with this lens, I would go for this lens instead. Just my 2 cents...