To IS or not to IS...

A

a lex

Messages
637
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
Yes
...that is the question.

Im getting myself a canon 70-200 f4 at the weekend and still cannot decide whether or not I really need the IS version.. is the difference that important or is the difference better spent going towards a new flash gun?!

I mainly only shoot outside in fairly decent light conditions so should be able to get fairly fast shutter speeds... will I miss IS?

Thanks.
 
I recently got the non IS version and can't fault it! I guess it depends how much low light stuff you'll be shooting and how good your technique is when holding your camera!

What other lenses do you have? And what do you mostly shoot? :thinking:
 
Thanks for the response Damien.

New to photography so don't have many lenses at the moment. Every day lens is a 17-85 and ive also got the 50 1.4.

Thats whats making me so indecisive at the moment - the low light stuff. I hardly shoot in low light conditions and if I do ill use the 50 1.4 or use a speedlight. As for technique ive got a pretty steady hand and I mainly shoot still objects outside hence im thinking that the non IS will be fine with a fast shutter.

At times though I do shoot moving objects so with that im thinking Ill need the IS...

Ahh decisions!!
 
a lex said:
Thanks for the response Damien.

New to photography so don't have many lenses at the moment. Every day lens is a 17-85 and ive also got the 50 1.4.

Thats whats making me so indecisive at the moment - the low light stuff. I hardly shoot in low light conditions and if I do ill use the 50 1.4 or use a speedlight. As for technique ive got a pretty steady hand and I mainly shoot still objects outside hence im thinking that the non IS will be fine with a fast shutter.

At times though I do shoot moving objects so with that im thinking Ill need the IS...

Ahh decisions!!
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure IS doesn't work so well with moving subjects....I think it's more for an unsteady hand when you need a longer shutter speed in low light situations :thinking: I'f I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct me!!

If you won't be doing much low light stuff, and you already have the 1.4 (which I'd love to have!) then you could well be wasting your money getting the IS lens!
 
IS mode 2 works well with moving subjects. Shooting football, motorsport and athletics you can benefit from 1-2 additional stops on the 70-200mm. In mode 2 the stabilsation is only performed in the vertical plane, allowing you to pan from side to side whilst cutting out the up and down vibrations.
 
Probably a good idea to buy a good used non IS to use. You'll work out for yourself whether you need IS. If you do then you could sell your non IS version for something like the money you paid for it and upgrade.
 
My suggestion would be to see if it is possible to try one out on your camera and fire off a few shots. At the end of the day whilst is does have it`s use`s it will all be down to technique if you use one without it. A sturdy tripod is a good thing to have as it slows you down a bit and gives you time to think about and compose your shots. Here are a couple with the 70-200 F4L non is, all handheld.

gull2.jpg


IMG_1672.jpg


J.jpg


IMG_0122ed2.jpg
 
u8myufo's images make a compelling argument for non IS :)

Several years ago I faced the same decision, and the price difference was almost double for the IS (actually VR in Nikon), as I do Weddings in low light I opted for the IS/VR version - which has been turned off almost constantly since I bought it !!!

So unless you like shooting still or VERY slow moving subjects in poor light, AND don't have chance to use a monopod/tripod instead, I wouldn't bother with the IS/VR of any make - save your pennies for the flash, or just a weekend away or two to take some pics !!! :D

HTH

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top