IS Lenses

L

Little Man

Messages
1,062
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
Probably a question that's been asked before, but is it worth paying the extra money for an IS lens?

Example - The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L is about £390 new, going off a quick search on google to get a rough price. The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS is about £670, again, looking at a rough search.

You've got an increase of nearly £300 to have the IS lens.
 
Having IS means you can hand hold at a slower shutter speed without causing blur and camera shake than you could get away with without it.

Ie. the rule of thumb indicates you should have a shutter speed of at least equal value to the focal length of the lens ie. 1/200 sec at 200mm, but with IS you can get away with say 1/60 or even slower.

So if you're in poor light and can only get a slow shutter speed, then the IS may mean the difference between getting the shot or now, especially at a lower ISO to preserve IQ.

IMHO, I'd rather have it, knowing I can switch it on than be powerless due to the limitations, so if you have the money, well worth it if you do the kind of photography that may warrant it.
 
in short yes it is worth it.
but it dose depend on what you are going to be doing, if your putting it on a tripod all the time then probably not but if you are doing events were you need to spin or move to get a shot it is very handy to have :D
 
it's a daft answer but it depends upon what you're doing.
handheld zoomed shots will be sharper I think
I have a 70-300 non-L IS which I love for that ability
it all depends how much you use the lens and what you're using it for as to weather it's worth it... but my opinion is that you will notice the difference
if you're just enjoying a bit of photography and non-pro like me then the canon 70-300IS will do everything you need without breaking the bank but it doesn't have the posing factor of L glass. If you need L glass then fair enough
 
Fair play. I'm not thinking of going out and buying the lenses mentioned above by the way, not yet anyway, was just using those as an example as they seem to be a well known lens.

I've always pondered about that rule of thumb, since hearing it. They say you should shoot equal to the focal length, i've managed to shoot at 55mm with a non IS lens at 1/10th of a second and still managed to get spot on shots?
 
markta said:
Ie. the rule of thumb indicates you should have a shutter speed of at least equal value to the focal length of the lens ie. 1/200 sec at 200mm
Click to expand...

I've always wondered though does this rule not apply to full frame and therefore would you not have to also take into account in the crop factor so on a 400D you would actually need a speed of 1/320 sec?

My 70-300 Nikon lens has their second generation stabilisation in it and is brilliant but takes some getting used to in order to maximise its potential. Also read recently that Canon's newer IS is much better than the older in that it can detect panning etc (specifically the IS in the two EF-S lenses 17-55mm and 55-250mm) but not 100% sure and welcome anyone to correct me here. :)
 
Little Man said:
Fair play. I'm not thinking of going out and buying the lenses mentioned above by the way, not yet anyway, was just using those as an example as they seem to be a well known lens.

I've always pondered about that rule of thumb, since hearing it. They say you should shoot equal to the focal length, i've managed to shoot at 55mm with a non IS lens at 1/10th of a second and still managed to get spot on shots?
Click to expand...

You must have an extremely steady hand then if handholding. Mind you, if you did that with a telephoto lens then shake would be a lot more pronounced
 
markta said:
You must have an extremely steady hand then if handholding. Mind you, if you did that with a telephoto lens then shake would be a lot more pronounced
Click to expand...

I've got quite steady hands to be fair, and yeah, when I had my 75-300mm attatched I noticed a big difference, especially when you started getting towards 200mm+
 
Little Man said:
I've got quite steady hands to be fair, and yeah, when I had my 75-300mm attatched I noticed a big difference, especially when you started getting towards 200mm+
Click to expand...

When you say you shot at 1/10 sec, did you do that with the 18-55 IS lens? If so, I believe it has 4 stop IS capabilities so that shutter speed would be very viable
 
It was with the non IS 18-55mm lens fella, I was messing one afternoon after remembering the rule of thumb.
 
No its not a gimmick, yes it can be useful in some applications.

Bear in mind though that it can add a lot of money to a lens price though.

Also Canon have improved it a lot over the years since it came out but each lens has not been upgraded. So the early IS lenses do not have the same IS system as the later ones.

For example the difference between the IS on my 300 F4 vs the 70-300 IS is quite dramatic - the former its ok and helps a bit, the latter its almost rock solid.

According to what I have read, the 70-200 f2.8 IS has an older IS implementation than the 70-200 f4 IS, which you might think strange when one is a "lesser" lens than the other.
 
desantnik said:
No its not a gimmick, yes it can be useful in some applications.

Bear in mind though that it can add a lot of money to a lens price though.

Also Canon have improved it a lot over the years since it came out but each lens has not been upgraded. So the early IS lenses do not have the same IS system as the later ones.

For example the difference between the IS on my 300 F4 vs the 70-300 IS is quite dramatic - the former its ok and helps a bit, the latter its almost rock solid.

According to what I have read, the 70-200 f2.8 IS has an older IS implementation than the 70-200 f4 IS, which you might think strange when one is a "lesser" lens than the other.
Click to expand...

Yep, the 70-200 f4 IS is the most recent in that focal range and also has 4 stops IS, whereas the 2.8 which I have only has 2 stops.

IMHO, IS comes a lot more into play at the longer focal lengths and is effective but not quite as important at the shorter lengths but effective
 
With regard to the "purity" of using IS/VR/OS technology, I say its a technical aid which reduces your chance of messing up, one less thing that can go wrong.

If you can afford it, get it and use it.
 
Gotttcha, some valid points for sure.

What about the 18-55mm IS kit lens that comes on the 450D, is that the later version of the IS system?
 
Little Man said:
Gotttcha, some valid points for sure.

What about the 18-55mm IS kit lens that comes on the 450D, is that the later version of the IS system?
Click to expand...

I believe it is the latest IS version of 4 stops...

I'm sure someone techy like Canon Bob or Pxl8 will be along to assist further. Thats just my opinion that the IS is of more use to me on my 300 than on an 18-55.

As for subsequent replies, I read them with interest on others opinions on this :popcorn:
 
I'm gunna get an 18-55mm kit lens for the moment, so that i've got a little bit of range rather than just having the nifty. I mainly shoot landscape, cars and people/animals. The nifty covers the people & animals, and mostly the static car shots, but for landscapes I want something a bit wider to get more in, obviously.

Can pick an 18-55 up for about £35-40 posted, or the IS version off a 450D for about £60-£70 posted.

Going back to what you said about IS being handy for panning shots, I like taking panning shots of cars aswell as rolling shots, and i'm hoping to sort out a rig at some point in the near future, sothere will be some rig shots on there too.

Would you say it's worth spending the extra money to get an IS version?
 
Little Man said:
Would you say it's worth spending the extra money to get an IS version?
Click to expand...

I would yes, particularly on the longer lenses where you will more often cross the line of shutter speed less than focal length. On the shorter lenses however I wouldn't be so concerned. More often that not, particularly with landscapes, you will be shooting at more than double the reciprocal focal length in which case IS won't really help much.
 
Good point fella, allthough I wont be upgrading lenses for a little while, so I wanted something to cover those wider shots like landscapes, so I figured an 18-55 would have been spot on as cheapish fix....
 
Little Man said:
What about the 18-55mm IS kit lens that comes on the 450D, is that the later version of the IS system?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. But it's not the old version either.

Canon have recently developed a new low-cost IS system for their budget lenses such as this one and the EF-S 55-250mm IS. It uses cheaper components and simpler technology than the IS systems in the "L" lenses.

However, they still claim it's good for 4 stops of added stabilility. Reviewers like Bob Atkins reckon 3 stops is more realistic - but that's still comparable to what the "L" IS system delivers.
 
Gottcha.

So, i'm looking at mostly shooting landscapes & what I call 'randomness' (anything that takes me fancy, where I cant shoot with the nifty) with the 18-55mm kit lens, and some panning/rolling shots of cars/bikes.

Do I settle for the 18-55mm, or do I spend a bit extra and get the IS version?

Need some opinions to help me decide if possible guys, i'm tittering on the middle line between buying one or the other.

Obviously the benifits of the IS version will be, as a few have said, 4 stops of stability, which would be good for panning/rolling shots, espescially in lower light. However, i'm wondering if i'll use it enough in those type of situations to warrent the extra money, or whether to just buy the non IS.

Arrggghh.
 
Most of the time i have the IS switched off on the 70-200mm f2.8, i honestly cant say i noticed any difference other then shorter battery life for what i do.
 
IS is a funny thing for me
with my 17-85 IS I noticed that it was handy for shooting handheld lower light shots.
because the shutter time is longer.
however, for gig shots I found it a bit pointless as nothing can compensate for a moving subject other than ISO or f stop.
However, at 200-300mm on the 70-300IS lens it's an awesome addition.
instead of allowed greater exposure time it compensates a lot for my shakey hands at 300mm (which is of course really about 460mm ish on my 40D).
What happens through the viewfinder is a weird floaty feeling to the image. very helpful in a practical way
 
Think i'm gunna scout for the IS lens, see what price I can pick one up for. If I have no luck there, i'll get a normal one.
 
I have a problem with camera shake with my Tamron 70-300mm lens when hand held.
Perhaps it's just me being a newbie and not really use to it.
I've bought a Canon 50-250mm IS lens and I really enjoy using it hand held and my pictures are better as IS sorts out my issue.
Okay, so it doesn't have the focal length of the Tamron but it's lighter and with IS, it's perfect for a newbie like me.
I am a fan of IS and I will probably be happy to pay the extra cost for IS lenses in the future.

Oops, I forgot to mention that I got the 18-55mm IS kit lens with my 450D.
I don't have any issue with a shorter lens like this with regard to camera shake it is probably is down to the weight of my Tamron that I struggle with.
 
Go for the 18-55IS because it's not just the Image Stabilisation, it's a completely different lens (larger diameter objective) from the kit lens.
I have one and I love it.
Full review at www.photozone.de.
 
Cheers fellas, it's swung it. Gunna get an IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top