To IS or not to IS.....

[zmikers]

.....That is the question. Here's the deal. I've been doing a bit of travel writing for the local paper here in Taiwan and using my photos along with the article. As of now I am still just a hobbiest more or less. I have decided to take the plunge and upgrade my gear as well as taking some classes. I don't know what my ultimate goal is but definitely to improve and maybe get into a bit of wedding photography or other paid work (if I feel comfortable enough with my skill in the future.

Anyway, here's my question. I'm going to purchase the canon 70-200 f/2.8 in the near future and was wondering if the extra $500 US is worth it for the IS. I know the easy answer here is just to say that IS is better, but will it make an incredibly huge difference in comparison to the price difference. Cheers in advance:)

[griptape]

It depends on whether or not you'll be shooting a lot of still subjects in low light (IS doesn't stop subject motion, it only helps with camera shake).

[TenD]

I think IS is a worthy addition to any lens, but in no way do I think it's a necessary addition. I have the older 80-200 f/2.8L lens in that range with no IS. I guess I can't miss what I don't have. I usually carry a tripod with me.

[DonSchap]

The fact is: You just get more work out of an IS-equipped 70-200 f/2.8. I know, I did. I was able to shoot in rooms where no other camera (w/o IS) could, without a tripod. Handheld ... there is just nothing like it. If I had to have IS on only ONE lens ... it would be this one ... and it WAS! :eek: I've got pictures! (pun intended)

[zmikers]

Fair enough, thanks for the replies guys. I do really think that I would be better off with the IS, who wouldn't? But I'm still finding it hard to swallow the extra 500 dollars. I think it will be worth it though. :)

[cdr116]

Not to offend anyone or kill your thread, but aren't there already like 5+ threads about this exact subject up right now?

[cwphoto]

It ain't just IS, it's also:
1) a lower MFD
2) weather sealing
3) more reliable AF with TCs

I say go for the IS and have no regrets. :)

[zmikers]

CW - I just read a few reports about that and I agree. I think I'm going for the IS. So I guess I need to wait just a wee bit longer for the extra cash:p Cheers for the advice.

CDR - There is a thread about almost every lens you can think of somewhere on this site, but I thought maybe with a little more personal information like what I might be using the lens for, people would be able give out better advice suited for my needs.

[Honest Gaza]

Typical example today. Visited Fitzroy Falls (near Sydney, Australia) and broke out the 70-200mm (non IS). Now as I hadn't intended going to this little spot when I left home, I didn't take a tripod. As a result, any shots I took had to be at pretty quick shutter speeds to eliminate camera movement.

If I had an IS lens, I could have tried for a "little" slower shutter speed to change the appearance of the waterfall. Is that worth the extra $$$ ? Probably not...but if the money ain't an issue, then IS will always be of benefit.

[sneakerpimp]

with SuperCoupon with difference was only $329.

[BBPhoto]

Hey ZK - Just to give you my opinion, I say go for the IS. I've upgraded bodies and flash units and all sorts of other stuff but nothing has improved the quality of my images as much as buying better glass and much of that is attributed to IS. If you tried both versions side by side for a week or two the choice would be crystal clear. Good luck!

[zmikers]

Hey ZK - Just to give you my opinion, I say go for the IS. I've upgraded bodies and flash units and all sorts of other stuff but nothing has improved the quality of my images as much as buying better glass and much of that is attributed to IS. If you tried both versions side by side for a week or two the choice would be crystal clear. Good luck!

Ya, I think you're right. And I've also decided, it's like anything else I've ever bought.It may heard to put down the cash at first, but in a month or two the money is forgotten and all you have left is what you've purchased.

Thanks for all of your advice everybody:)

[adam75south]

1/30s at 200mm makes it WELL worth it.

even at 100mm and 1/50s i doubt i coulda hand held this shot without the IS.
http://www.adammedders.com/photos/236445945_GTdgM-O.jpg

[zmikers]

1/30s at 200mm makes it WELL worth it.

even at 100mm and 1/50s i doubt i coulda hand held this shot without the IS.


Fair enough. Available indoor lighting wide open at f/2.8 should be enough to hand hold at 70mm or less (sometimes), but using the 200mm end would be really difficult. The more and more I think about it the more and more it seems like a no brainer. Now, who wants to convince my girlfriend:p

Nice shot BTW:)

[DonSchap]

Remember, girlfriends come and go ... glass is forever. Nothing like having ol' reliable on your camera.

Okay, seriously though ... demonstrate. Go ahead and have her try to take an 70mm shot (don't want to be too unreasonable) @ f/2.8 (no-IS) @ 1/20 sec.

Then ... let her take the same shot with IS turned on. Keepers, man ... it's all about keepers. Then ask yourself (and be honest): Is she a "keeper?" :eek:

Oh c'mon ... you know I meant the lens ... uh, didn't I? :confused:

I checked the digital clock, to see what time it was ...

33577

Seems pretty obvious! _ _ _ The times, they are a changin'!

[jwhite]

I started off with the non-IS version and while I liked it, the IS is that much better. I went for the non-IS because I didn't have the funds. I say if you can scrap around for the money, then go for it. Prob should have done it when the rebates were still around (or are they still going on?).

On a side note, if you do go w/ the non-IS, you will get most of your money back when you decide to upgrade. It retains its value really well, as do all L glass.

Jason

[cdifoto]

Anyway, here's my question. I'm going to purchase the canon 70-200 f/2.8 in the near future and was wondering if the extra $500 US is worth it for the IS. I know the easy answer here is just to say that IS is better, but will it make an incredibly huge difference in comparison to the price difference. Cheers in advance:)

Upgrading from the non-IS to the IS made that lens usable for me at weddings. I seldom touched the non-IS in that capacity.

[zmikers]

Cool, thanks guys. And DonS, not too subliminal.....LOL!

Jason - I'm sure I would just upgrade sooner or later anyways so I should just do it now.

CDI - That's what I hope to be using it for (in the future) so that answers that question. Cheers

Just to let you fellas know. I slipped in to the dinner conversation with my GF a quick question about the 2 lenses (with prices for her info). She instantly responded with, "Get the better one. You will need it if you want to get serious with photography" Now, tell me she's not a keeper. Who said you can't have your cake and eat it too? Expensive toys and a girl who understands my habbit:p

[cwphoto]

Just to let you fellas know. I slipped in to the dinner conversation with my GF a quick question about the 2 lenses (with prices for her info). She instantly responded with, "Get the better one. You will need it if you want to get serious with photography" Now, tell me she's not a keeper. Who said you can't have your cake and eat it too? Expensive toys and a girl who understands my habbit:p

I have one of those, but she uses it to her advantage when shopping for shoes. :rolleyes:

[zmikers]

I have one of those, but she uses it to her advantage when shopping for shoes. :rolleyes:

LOL, I knew there would be a catch:rolleyes: And yes, I just found out that we are going shopping for a new car. It's not for me if you haven't already guessed.