Do I really Need IS?

[YoungPic]

Got my canon 40d and can't be happier. Now im trying to find the 70-200 lens that fits me. Ive looked at sigma, and heard really good and extremley bad also, so kinda passed them a side. So now im pretty much locked in with canon, and the 70-200 2.8, dont like the f/4 too much because im probably going to buy the 1.4x converter also. So there's my choice the 70-200 2.8, now my question is do i really need the IS? I have it in my 17-85 and it works but dont really rely on it too much. Ill be using the 70-200 mostly outside for race cars and other stuff. the odd time i would use it inside i would probably use a flash and plus the lens is a 2.8 so its fast. So basically IS or no IS? and will i see a difference between the two in means of picture quality?

p.s. and of course the whole reasoning beind this is that the IS is almost $700 more

 

[Iron Flatline]

It's great for race cars, because the IS has two modes on that lens - one just for panning shots.

 

[YoungPic]

yea, but i think i got a pretty good handle on panning, why do i need a mode for that when the camera it'll be mounted to has servo AF and shoots 6.5 fps?

 

[icassell]

I have the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and love it ... no IS ... and the Sigma 100-300mm f4 ... no IS ... and am perfectly happy without it.

 

[Bifurcator]

I think IS or VR, AS whatever is best for casual walk-about low-light photography in camera bodies where high ISO is less than grand. If you have the right gear for the job in a professional environment (and that includes tri/mono pods, fast lenses, etc.) I wouldn't imagine stabilization would ever be an issue and probably mostly not ever even turned on. For something like panning at a race track to maximize BG blur it can actually ruin an intended effect or make camera operation unintuitive.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

If the extra cash required for it doesn't bother you, then I would always recommend IS for any lens that goes above 50mm. The benefits are just so great, even sometimes for the middle-of-a-sunny-day shooters like yourself. Of course these benefits are only more pronounced the further you are from high-noon.

Sure, you can use your flash indoors, but that's not always something you want to do. Sometimes it causes too much disturbance. For instance, I did a wedding this weekend and flash was something I avoided as much as possible. If I could kiss the Anti-Shake mechanism in my camera, I would have after that day.

 

[Bifurcator]

I get VR in all my lenses too. But I'm not a pro either so... Still $700 for that IS... Ouch! That's a whole 'nother camera with IS built in.

 

[tirediron]

I believe that IS/VR/Whateveryourbrandcallsit is for the most part a needless luxury. There are applications for which it is very useful, but for 95% of the time, it serves no useful function. That aside, how many good tripods & heads can you buy for what you'd save buying non VR lenses vice their more expensive counterparts. As well, given the comparitive delicacy of the components that make up a VR system, it seems something that could easily be damaged when lenses are getting hard use.

 

[Bifurcator]

Yep, yet another reason in-camera IS is superior!

 

[tirediron]

Yep, yet another reason in-camera IS is superior!

I think this quote from my thread on "The next major step" makes a lot of sense:

We may see more in-camera IS because the market demands it, but anyone with a rudimentary sense of physics knows that it's a crap solution. A 600mm lens requires a different solution than a 35mm lens. You would have to write a lot of code to make them marry successfully. It's possible, but it's a market-driven work-around, not a technological solution.

I admit that I hadn't thought of this before, but after reading, it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[LuckyStarPhotography]

If you're like me and hate tripods than I think IS is a must. I won't ever buy a lens without it. But that's me. Congrats on the 40D btw~ I love mine and a 70-200 Canon IS is my next big purchase.

 

[tirediron]

If you're like me and hate tripods than I think IS is a must. I won't ever buy a lens without it. But that's me. Congrats on the 40D btw~ I love mine and a 70-200 Canon IS is my next big purchase.

Is that even legal???

 

[LuckyStarPhotography]

Is that even legal???

Wouldn't it be cool if it was illegal.

 

[LWW]

IS/VR is a good idea with slow glass.

I have a comparable lens to what you want in a Nikkor 80-200 2.8 and it's non VR.

I have hand held it as low as 1/30 with tack sharp results and with a monopod I can shoot at 1/15 and have even used 1/8 on occassion.

I'm not trying to brag, but years of shooting sports and wildlife along with target shooting have helped me refine my hand held skills. That being said, if you have reasonable coordination I would think that shooting at 1/125 or even 1/60 would quickly be within your skills.

Now, if you were going to use say a 55-200 5.6 then IS/VR makes sense. In these instances it allows a beginner to shoot as steady as a more experienced photographer with faster glass.

The devil being in the details, IS/VR also deprives you of the "POP" that a 2.8 shot will give you that a 5.6 can't touch plus you always have 2 stops of higher shutter speed available to stop action. IS/VR can stop vibration and lens shake ... it can't stop motion.

In a perfect world both would be better, but I wouldn't pay much extra for IS/VR on a fast lens like that.

My $0.02. YMMV.

LWW <--- Learned photography in the manual everything days and believes that most new tech is an excuse to learn how to take snapshots instead of photographs ... and that the tech in the hands of someone who has learned the art is a wonderful tool.

 

[LWW]

If you're like me and hate tripods than I think IS is a must. I won't ever buy a lens without it. But that's me. Congrats on the 40D btw~ I love mine and a 70-200 Canon IS is my next big purchase.

I haven't seen anything VR/IS can do that a decent photog can't do with a monopod. Plus, a monopod gives you a great walking stick.

LWW