Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: is IS really that important ?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Singapore;Tampines
    Posts
    43

    Default is IS really that important ?

    I've read many reviews on the net and seen youtube.
    I'm intending to get a 70-200mm lens
    BUT, regarding the IS problem. because 70-200mm IS II is way out of my budget and im looking at 70-200 now.
    If i really do need IS, Is Sigma 70-200 or Tamron 70-200 a good choice given the price?
    I know that the quality of those is not as crisp as the Mark II.
    Need help here
    Every Click Counts

  2. #2

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    It is better to get the IS. Especially when you are hand holding it on 200mm or at a low light situation. Everything will be quite shaky and cause image blur. Unless you are shooting at a very high shutter speed. Or you know you will be mounting on a tripod at most of your shoot.

    Yeah I understand the 70-200 IS MKII is very expensive. Maybe you can try searching a used 70-200 IS MKI at CS BNS section. Can get it below $2K. If you don't want used ones than another alternatives will be the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM. The review for it are quite impressive for it's price. Although the performance will not be as good as the White Canon L but the difference is not very significant. So you must weigh it yourself whether the price and lens performance difference which is more feasible. Cheers!
    | 5D Mark III | 24-70mm F2.8L MK II | 70-200mm F2.8L IS MK II | 600 EX-RT | Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG (A) |

  3. #3

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Get the second hand Mk I in good condition.

    Your clients will never know the difference, ..... really.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelT View Post
    I've read many reviews on the net and seen youtube.
    I'm intending to get a 70-200mm lens
    BUT, regarding the IS problem. because 70-200mm IS II is way out of my budget and im looking at 70-200 now.
    If i really do need IS, Is Sigma 70-200 or Tamron 70-200 a good choice given the price?
    I know that the quality of those is not as crisp as the Mark II.
    Need help here

  4. #4
    Deregistered allenleonhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,656
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBaby View Post
    It is better to get the IS. Especially when you are hand holding it on 200mm or at a low light situation. Everything will be quite shaky and cause image blur. Unless you are shooting at a very high shutter speed. Or you know you will be mounting on a tripod at most of your shoot.

    Yeah I understand the 70-200 IS MKII is very expensive. Maybe you can try searching a used 70-200 IS MKI at CS BNS section. Can get it below $2K. If you don't want used ones than another alternatives will be the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM. The review for it are quite impressive for it's price. Although the performance will not be as good as the White Canon L but the difference is not very significant. So you must weigh it yourself whether the price and lens performance difference which is more feasible. Cheers!
    well u realise if in lowlight, u handhold at 1/30, its still gonna blur...cause of subject blur.

    then if ur gonna shoot at 1/200 ++ to reduce subject blur......... aint it 1/focal length? shld be handholdable already...
    at least when i shoot footballs, i go up till 1/500

    at least i find IS kinda overrated... a good to have, but certainly not a must have.

  5. #5

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by allenleonhart View Post
    well u realise if in lowlight, u handhold at 1/30, its still gonna blur...cause of subject blur.

    then if ur gonna shoot at 1/200 ++ to reduce subject blur......... aint it 1/focal length? shld be handholdable already...
    at least when i shoot footballs, i go up till 1/500

    at least i find IS kinda overrated... a good to have, but certainly not a must have.
    TS mentioned low light situation, highly unlikely for him to get shutter speeds of 1/focal length unless his ISO is like 12800?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    393

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    For me, IS is important coz it's really difficult for me to hold the camera very still.

  7. #7
    Senior Member yyD70S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,454

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    As long as you know it's limitations and when to turn it off, IS is an added bonus.

  8. #8
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelT
    I've read many reviews on the net and seen youtube.
    I'm intending to get a 70-200mm lens
    BUT, regarding the IS problem. because 70-200mm IS II is way out of my budget and im looking at 70-200 now.
    If i really do need IS, Is Sigma 70-200 or Tamron 70-200 a good choice given the price?
    I know that the quality of those is not as crisp as the Mark II.
    Need help here
    In short YES!

  9. #9
    Senior Member UncleFai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    4,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleFai

    In short YES!
    Also, not sure about Canon, but in my opinion (and experience) the third party stabilization by Sigma and Tamron is in fact better than Nikon's.

  10. #10

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleFai View Post
    Also, not sure about Canon, but in my opinion (and experience) the third party stabilization by Sigma and Tamron is in fact better than Nikon's.
    huh? never heard of that leh...

  11. #11

    Default

    Not a must. I survived well with 135mm no IS and 400mm well with aid of monopod. IS system adds on weight and price too.

  12. #12
    Member markyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    On a famous Island
    Posts
    1,632

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    TS. I would vouch for having IS. Unless your object is stationary then I find monopod able to cater for that - I am not refering to stopping action here, cuz I find while recomposing I love the IS there. However, in the case of 70-200 (heavy lens) I'll go for IS. try MK I version 2nd Hand to stay within budget. You wont be that dissappointed with it.
    NIKON f2.8 black GOLD
    Canon pure White

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,093

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    practice you technique to reduce shake. breathing, holding, how you press the shutter release. perhaps get a monopod for low like situations and you ll be fine. i shoot a manual 300 f4 and get away with 1/200 handheld, 1/80 on a monopod even lower when i use mirror up mode.
    F3, FTN, D700, just primes =)
    http://littleredcake.smugmug.com/

  14. #14
    Deregistered allenleonhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,656
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    TS mentioned low light situation, highly unlikely for him to get shutter speeds of 1/focal length unless his ISO is like 12800?
    mm. so u think about it. if u are gonna handhold at 1/30, no matter how good IS is, it will never be able to compensate for the shutter speed required to stop subject blur.

    i mean if subject isnt gonna move, i will just tripod and shoot the subject.

    if it is, i'll need something like 1/200 to just get a good shot.

    and if so... IS shldnt be that impt anymore

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Singapore;Tampines
    Posts
    43

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Thanks everyone for the reply, I shall go try out this sat regarding the 70-200 non IS and the Sigma one.
    Cheers !
    Every Click Counts

  16. #16
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleFai View Post
    Also, not sure about Canon, but in my opinion (and experience) the third party stabilization by Sigma and Tamron is in fact better than Nikon's.
    Actually for the 70-200/2.8 lenses,

    1. Tamron do not offer VC.
    2. Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS claims 4 stops, but is tested to be effective around 3 to 3.1 stops.
    3. Nikon's 70-200VRII claims 4 stops, but is tested to be effective to around 3.7 stops.

    Tested by lenstip.com. So for 70-200/2.8 lenses, Nikon is still king. Not sure about the Canon 70-200 IS m2.

    That said, the VCs from consumer lenses like 18-270VC and 70-300VC from tamron is said to perform better than Nikon's consumer grade lenses.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 11th August 2011 at 02:28 AM.

  17. #17
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by JoelT View Post
    Thanks everyone for the reply, I shall go try out this sat regarding the 70-200 non IS and the Sigma one.
    Cheers !
    In good light, IS is less of an issue. But if you are going to be shooting in low light, IS actually comes in very very very handy.

  18. #18

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    Quote Originally Posted by allenleonhart View Post
    mm. so u think about it. if u are gonna handhold at 1/30, no matter how good IS is, it will never be able to compensate for the shutter speed required to stop subject blur.

    i mean if subject isnt gonna move, i will just tripod and shoot the subject.

    if it is, i'll need something like 1/200 to just get a good shot.

    and if so... IS shldnt be that impt anymore
    If you can't stop subject blur, then use it lol

  19. #19

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    For me IS is important for such focal length. You r going to do fine during the start but by the end of the day you will wish the IS was there.

  20. #20
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: is IS really that important ?

    for me it is better to correct slow shutter speed with good use of the flash

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •