Canon 70-200 IS v non IS

Andytc

Andytc

Messages
740
Edit My Images
No
Looking for honest opinions please on if the IS is as important as people say?

I am split between, having always worked with Nikon and the IS always being with the VR1 never had to question it.

My thoughts are keep it steady and have a faster shutter speed and save £500 :lol: if only that easy hay!

I work within the wedding world if that helps.
 
I found IS on the 70-200 mkI fairly useful (for portrait shooting in my case) though it adds a fair bit of weight. The non-IS is a smidgen sharper. Note this statement is based on just one quick test shoot. So overall not much in it though I went for the IS version.

The IS on the mkII is much better and well-worth getting, plus the mkII is noticeably sharper than the mkI.
 
Same here but don't think the extra cost and weight is really worth it for me. I use my prime lenses in low light so a fast shutter speed on the 200mm won't be a problem for me.
 
I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII. I would have thought that in your line of work the IS would be a real benefit.

The lens is very sharp wide open and the extra bit of weight I actually find helps stabilise the camera and lens.
 
Weddings simple answer - YES to IS

Dark church ISO 3200 SS at 60th f2.8 (or slower) - Any long focal length without IS (or tripod/monopod) will probably end up blurry.

IS is a lifesaver in those situations and is the difference between getting a shot and not)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top