Originally posted by Barrios i know it's gonna burn a damn big hole in my pocket, just to play safe mine is a good choice. A cheaper one would be the non-IS version. But what the heck, wanna get, get a better one right?
Hi Barrios...the quality of the lens has never been questioned however if I am to buy it, I'd consider the following...
If I am rich where money is no object or I can make $$ out of photography, i.e. I'm being paid for my services, I won't hesitate to make such an investment.
Having owned 2 IS lenses, I've learnt that IS does not eliminate camera shake altogether although it does help to 'cheat' the law of natural physics by shooting @ slightly slower shutterspeeds w/o tripod...but don't expect any dramas!
However having said that, it does not necessarily ensure better photography in terms of composition and such...IS doesn't address them at all!
However, given that I only shoot for interest, willing to spend a bit and really need a quality zoom, I'd probably go for a used 70-200 f/2.8 which is roughly half the price of the IS version...
Thanks Adam for your contribution. I believe no one would be stewpig enuf to think that IS can totally eliminate camera shake. It would be a great plus to be able to handhold it and shoot at 1/60s under low-light.
Anyone has hands-on experience with the IS version willing to contribute?
Originally posted by Barrios I believe no one would be stewpig enuf to think that IS can totally eliminate camera shake. It would be a great plus to be able to handhold it and shoot at 1/60s under low-light.