IS vs non IS

[JohnTrav]

I have done so much research on IS and non IS lenses. I was wondering if it really makes a difference in quality of the lens. Some reviews I have read say the non IS versions are sharper and have better bokeh.

I was wondering if this is true? Does having a non IS model actually produce a sharper image with better bokeh?

The lens I'm looking at is the canon 70-200 L f/4 and f/2.8

[Ads]

[bobandcar]

From a beginner standpoint the IS on longer focal lengths helps alot when handholding. I don't find it very helpful on shorter lengths like my kit lens though.

[Dao]

I do not think you can generalize non-IS lens is sharper than IS lens.

However, you can compare 2 lenses and see which one is better. For 70-200mm f/4L vs 70-200mm f/4L IS, the IS version seems better according to the review site. I think it is more on the optical design difference rather than IS vs Non IS.

[JohnTrav]

I do not think you can generalize non-IS lens is sharper than IS lens.

However, you can compare 2 lenses and see which one is better. For 70-200mm f/4L vs 70-200mm f/4L IS, the IS version seems better according to the review site. I think it is more on the optical design difference rather than IS vs Non IS.

Ok. That's what I figured. I thought IS was just an added feature but doesn't effect the actual sharpness of the lens since its the same lens. I have read a lot of reviews that say the f/4 is sharper than the f/2.8. That's why I'm thinking about going with the f/4 IS.

I'm not sure if people were just saying the non IS is sharper just because they were trying to sell theirs or not. I just want to make sure before I make any purchases.

Only reason I want IS is for those times the lighting isn't working in my favor.

[Schwettylens]

I have been shooting with 135L. This lens does not have IS and it is pretty long. Personally, I rather have a faster lens. If they are both are as fast then it depends on the price. Right now 70-200, you have to pay a lot just to get the IS. If I were to shoot with 70-200 f/2.8 again, I would pick the Non IS one. Most of the time you can prop your camera while shooting... if not.. you probably have enough light to make the shutter really fast.

[sovietdoc]

Hmm, Cannons, IS'es..man

Were all the way back in WWII aren't we

Now how about if Canon call's their mirrorless "Tiger." Then I would have seen everything.

[JohnTrav]

I have been shooting with 135L. This lens does not have IS and it is pretty long. Personally, I rather have a faster lens. If they are both are as fast then it depends on the price. Right now 70-200, you have to pay a lot just to get the IS. If I were to shoot with 70-200 f/2.8 again, I would pick the Non IS one. Most of the time you can prop your camera while shooting... if not.. you probably have enough light to make the shutter really fast.

I am mainly looking at the f/4 IS. Originally I was going to get he 70-200 f/4 non IS, then thought maybe I'll get the f/2.8 non IS. Now I think I might just get the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Then as I was researching I read that the f/4 non IS is sharper but i only heard that from one review and am not sure how true it is.

[Schwettylens]

get the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS man. Tell me what scenario you need the IS on an f/4 ? Dont you rather have a shutter that is twice as fast instead of IS? Plus you can always use a tripod or monopod.

[JohnTrav]

get the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS man. Tell me what scenario you need the IS on an f/4 ? Dont you rather have a shutter that is twice as fast instead of IS? Plus you can always use a tripod or monopod.

I want a sharp image. Usually when I shoot there is a lot of light.

I do have a 50mm f/1.4 for low lighting.

I want to start doing weddings though and want the right lens for that. I know there will be a lot of low lighting situations there. I also plan on investing in a flash too.

Other than that I shoot sports. Mainly paintball an that is in broad daylight.

[Schwettylens]

If there is a lot of light, then you dont need IS? If your object is moving, IS wont help so I rather have a shutter that is twice as fast than shooting at slower shutter at f/4 and IS.

[JohnTrav]

If there is a lot of light, then you dont need IS? If your object is moving, IS wont help so I rather have a shutter that is twice as fast than shooting at slower shutter at f/4 and IS.

What about when it comes to portraits? Many reviews and articles recommend the f/4 for that. I take pictures of my family a lot also at party's just or fun.

Sorry I know I keep giving different scenarios

[SoCalTiger]

If there is a lot of light, then you dont need IS? If your object is moving, IS wont help so I rather have a shutter that is twice as fast than shooting at slower shutter at f/4 and IS.

What about when it comes to portraits? Many reviews and articles recommend the f/4 for that. I take pictures of my family a lot also at party's just or fun.

Sorry I know I keep giving different scenarios

I still think the same advice applies. I agree it'd be better to have a faster shutter than IS in the scenarios you are mentioning. You also have more DOF flexibility with a faster lens. Faster lens wins over IS all around IMO. I normally leave IS turned off on all my lenses that have it.

[JohnTrav]

I still think the same advice applies. I agree it'd be better to have a faster shutter than IS in the scenarios you are mentioning. You also have more DOF flexibility with a faster lens. Faster lens wins over IS all around IMO. I normally leave IS turned off on all my lenses that have it.

Thanks. I think i am going to go with the canon 70-200 f/2.8. I can always find a used one in really good condition to save a couple bucks if I have to. I think that's going to suit me best even though every review says that the f/4 has the sharper image. I think I am going to need the speed though.

Thanks

[JohnTrav]

Thanks for the advise everyone. Just bought the canon 70-200 f/2.8. Should be here Friday. Bought it brand new.

[sovietdoc]

Bawllin'. Btw if you stop that f/2.8 down to f/4, it should be just as sharp. 70-200 f/2.8 is a good lens