Image stabiliser..?

friesianfan69

friesianfan69

Messages
769
Name
Donna
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking at 70-200 f/2.8 lens, more affordable to me is the one without image stabiliser, does it make a big difference?
And how much?
 
Last edited:
I always think with a long zoom IS is a must have unless you only shoot on a tripod...or the body has it of course. Primes or short zooms not so much as if you can shoot 1/60 or better it shouldn't be a problem depending on how "shaky" you are.
 
It depends on what you're shooting, if it's things that need high shutter speed then you don't really need it but for portraits it is dead handy.
 
Horses mostly, most of the time at speed. I use a sigma 70-200 f/4 at the moment with no IS,
 
Even at high shutter speeds, e.g. birds in flight, there is an argument that IS is still valuable to make it easier to track. If you can afford the version, with the IS, then go for it.
 
Hopefully that means you are happy with your technique at the moment. Get the non IS for sure unless you want to "future proof" any change of subject as johnnypanic suggests. But if you are getting horses at speed with no IS then :clap::clap::clap::)
 
Excellent and they look OK to me. Thing is if you're happy with them as well then stick with your first thought and save some money. This isn't helpful but I would say that if you can add IS in your budget it may well come in handy. You can always turn it off on the lens as well.
 
I would say IS all the way on this range.
It will help your photography I believe.
 
i like is on all my lens if possible, it just gives you more leeway when light levels drop, without needing to up the iso as much
 
just got back from holiday so a bit late in replying to this

iv'e had the 70 - 200 F4 non IS , F2.8 non IS and now own the F2.8 IS and the main difference is the IS allows me to shoot at low shutter speeds that for my abilities was impossible with the non IS version but once you get above 200 - 300th of second shutter speed the IS becomes redundant even in my relatively unsteady hands

there's a fair difference in weight between the F4 and F2.8 versions which might be a consideration but i find the heavier weight improves how steady i can hold the camera and tends to lesson the camera shake ( strange but true ) but this might not be the same for you
the difference in image quality between the non IS and IS ( canon mk1 version ) is negligible but if your thinking of purchasing the mk2 version there is a marked improvement in every way so i'm told and if i was in the same position as you the MK2 IS version would be my choice
 
One other, very important reason to go for the IS is.............................

If you didn't, you'd always be wondering, should I have gone with the IS version.

No sense in driving yourself insane :eek::D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top