IS On Long Range Lenses

[kelchew]

Ok, thanks for you guy's advice. Also thinking of getting EFS 17-55 2.8 IS. Any advice to share?

how come you start asking abt long range lens,
bt you getting a 17-55 2.8 lens?

 

[heng79]

Oh... coz I maybe get 2 lens.

 

[alux0417]

I have the non-IS version of 70-200 2.8. I could've gone with the ISmk2 version if budget weren't a constraint. So for now I just have to live through it. So far, I am satisfied. Bottom line: if no money, be content and make the most out of it! :bsmilie:

 

[Bayu Indaro]

Hi Kenneth67C,

Is it true on point number 2? That the IS versions are optically superior than the non-IS ones? Don't get me wrong here, i'm not contesting that fact, i'm just trying to find out more cos i'm also contemplating buying a 70-200 2.8 non-is vs is version.

Get the IS one... After few hours hand held shooting with 70200 2.8 (which is a bit heavy) your hand will get shaky, there's where the IS will come to play

 

[kelchew]

Oh... coz I maybe get 2 lens.

envy...:bigeyes:

 

[Kenneth67C]

Hi Kenneth67C,

Is it true on point number 2? That the IS versions are optically superior than the non-IS ones? Don't get me wrong here, i'm not contesting that fact, i'm just trying to find out more cos i'm also contemplating buying a 70-200 2.8 non-is vs is version.

Numerous tests have been carried out all confirming this point, both on print and on websites.

 

[BraveHart]

Bottom line - IS works. Even if you are not hand holding it helps to offset any vibrations even when mounted on a tripod which you'll encounter at the super-tele range (400mm equivalent and up). As someone pointed out; if you constantly shoot at high shutter speeds IS's usefulness is marginal.

Deciding factor - Is the significantly higher price you pay above the non-IS version worth it? Only you can decide. Can you live without IS? - Certainly. Its a luxury not a necessity.

Other consideration - I have to point out as with all electronic products you'll have to factor in wear and tear. IS gyroscope = more moving parts = more prone to wear and tear. For this reason I suspect that the 1st generation Canon superteles will last much longer than the IS versions by virtue of this (and we have living proof of the 20 year old superteles still functioning well up to today). People seldom mention this but its a real issue if you intend to hold onto your IS lens for the long term and beyond its production cycle.

Personal thoughts on IS on 70-200mm: My thoughts is that its something I can live without (and I have for the last 10 years). Quite frankly with good fundamentals 200mm is very handholdable and unless you really need it for your livelihood, the savings between the current MkII and a used 70-200 non-IS means that you can purchase a 24-70/2.8L to compliment it.

 

[koppite]

Bottom line - IS works. Even if you are not hand holding it helps to offset any vibrations even when mounted on a tripod which you'll encounter at the super-tele range (400mm equivalent and up). As someone pointed out; if you constantly shoot at high shutter speeds IS's usefulness is marginal.

Deciding factor - Is the significantly higher price you pay above the non-IS version worth it? Only you can decide. Can you live without IS? - Certainly. Its a luxury not a necessity.

Other consideration - I have to point out as with all electronic products you'll have to factor in wear and tear. IS gyroscope = more moving parts = more prone to wear and tear. For this reason I suspect that the 1st generation Canon superteles will last much longer than the IS versions by virtue of this (and we have living proof of the 20 year old superteles still functioning well up to today). People seldom mention this but its a real issue if you intend to hold onto your IS lens for the long term and beyond its production cycle.

Personal thoughts on IS on 70-200mm: My thoughts is that its something I can live without (and I have for the last 10 years). Quite frankly with good fundamentals 200mm is very handholdable and unless you really need it for your livelihood, the savings between the current MkII and a used 70-200 non-IS means that you can purchase a 24-70/2.8L to compliment it.

I agree with the last paragraph.

There are many pros I know that use the 70-200 non IS. I still need more practice before I can use it hand held without IS.

 

[tuwinkk]

If u can afford..yes. it's worth it..
for me, i can live without IS...and there is no IS once i used film few years back..