Is IS a deal breaker?

SNBniko · Apr 21, 2011

So I posted a thread about lenses a while ago, and got the recommendation of the 24-70 f2.8 L lens, along with a zoom lens. Now, I've been really researching this lens, and there are mixed reviews on it, only because of the lack of IS it seems.

Is IS a deal breaker for you? Why or why not? If you had to recommend another lens in that approximate range with that large of an aperture, what suggestions would you give? (Does a lens like that even exist?? haha)

Thank you!

photogincollege · Apr 21, 2011

To me IS (or in my case VR) is NOT a deal breaker, especially for a lens with such a large aperture, IS is nice don't get me wrong, but I find if I am shooting at 2.8 to F4 I dont really need IS as I can usually get hand holdable shutter speeds without it, and if its really dark and I NEED to have a slower shutter speed, use a tripod, or a prime

. Though if you do a lot of low light, with no added lighting equipment, no IS might be a deal breaker for you.

bentcountershaft · Apr 21, 2011

When I bought my 24-70 I was also looking at the 24-105 which has IS. For me, although IS would be nice (not to mention the longer length) the smaller aperture trumped both of those. I didn't really consider a third party alternative because I knew this would be by far my most used lens and didn't want to make any compromises. I don't miss IS since I was never really used to it to begin with. If I had been I might feel differently.

tirediron · Apr 21, 2011

IS/VR/OS is an available option for ANY lens!

SunnyHours · Apr 21, 2011

Well it can definitely be useful but at such a short focal length the IS/VR/OS/whatever won't make such an important difference as with a 200-500mm lens...in other words it's not a necessity in a wide-angle/short telephoto lens IMO...

KmH · Apr 21, 2011

At 200 mm and under focal lengths, I don't worry to much about a lens having IS/VR/OS or not.

At focal lengths longer than 200 mm, the camera/lens needs to be on a monopod or tripod anyway, but some IS/VR/OS systems can now even stabilize the small amount of camera shake caused by mirror movement and shutter actuation.

It's a wonder photographers were able to take photographs at all before all this IS/VR/OS and auto focus technology stuff became available.

Raccoon · Apr 21, 2011

Someone asked my if IS was worth it, and I didn't quite know. I simply decided to try it out myself. This is with the Canon kit lens at 55mm, so it's still short - but it did make a big difference IMO. Article is here:

Erik Moberg's personal homepage - Now with irregular updates! - Canon Image Stabilizer (IS) test

Shortly after doing this, I got a longer lens and paid up to get that sweet IS.

That said, I also have the nifty-fifty (no IS) and I really do feel that the larger aperture (f/1.8) makes up for much of it. You also have more creative possibilities.

SNBniko · Apr 21, 2011

Okay. Thanks everyone for your replies. I wish I could carry a tripod around with me all the time... sadly with what I'd like to take pictures of, it is not an option. Horse shows, you need to be able to move and quickly because that particular horse won't be in the arena for more than a couple minutes. Setting and resetting up a tripod in grandstands won't work well. The pros have 2-3 people assisting them with multiple cameras so they don't have to move. Plus, despite the fact that this lens is heavy, it will be my do-all lens, meaning I will want to be able to carry it around and take general handheld photos with it.

I don't have surgeon hands, but I'm working on it. =)

I understand IS is not a necessity, but the reviews were pretty targeted at the lack of IS so I didn't know if it was a huge problem. Thanks again!

Overread · Apr 21, 2011

The reviews are only picking on the lack of IS because its about all they can really say that is "BAD" about the lens. And even then its hardly a massive thing - heck most of the primes in that lens range dont' have any IS in them and the only lens that really competes with it is the 24-105mm f4 IS L - which whilst having IS only has an f4 aperture (and reviews of that lens are always complaining about the lack of f2.8

)

gsgary · Apr 21, 2011

SNBniko said:
Okay. Thanks everyone for your replies. I wish I could carry a tripod around with me all the time... sadly with what I'd like to take pictures of, it is not an option. Horse shows, you need to be able to move and quickly because that particular horse won't be in the arena for more than a couple minutes. Setting and resetting up a tripod in grandstands won't work well. The pros have 2-3 people assisting them with multiple cameras so they don't have to move. Plus, despite the fact that this lens is heavy, it will be my do-all lens, meaning I will want to be able to carry it around and take general handheld photos with it.

I don't have surgeon hands, but I'm working on it. =)

I understand IS is not a necessity, but the reviews were pretty targeted at the lack of IS so I didn't know if it was a huge problem. Thanks again!

This lens is a fantastic lens and does not need IS if you are shooting horses this lens will not do everything you will need another body and longer lens, when i shoot horses i use my 24-70, 70-200 and 300F2.8
|The only lens i have that is as good as the 24-70 is my 300mmf2.8l

bentcountershaft · Apr 21, 2011

With the new horse show shoot info I tend to agree with Gary. I don't know that 70mm is going to be long enough for you. Remember that's just over half the zoom capabilities you have with your 28-135. For about the same money you could get one wide and one medium telephoto prime and a little extra for a cheaper back up body that may serve your needs better and then keep your current zoom for walk around.

Derrel · Apr 21, 2011

I have been reluctant to buy the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, simply because it doesn't come with the power windows and leather interior option that so,so many fine sedans have...

gsgary · Apr 21, 2011

Mine has got aircon

molested_cow · Apr 21, 2011

IMO IS or VR will be more relevant in pre-digital age.

Current cameras do pretty well under high ISO, which means the same lens will become more useful on a digital body than someone stuck with an ISO400 film. With that, I don't think IS or VR is important for anything 200mm and below like Kmh said.
I used my non VR 70~300mm lens on a 35mm film SLR for all these years. Sure there are times when I wish it has better aperture, but it all comes down to preparation. You should know where you are going to be shooting what and the conditions to prepare for. If I know I will be shooting in low light using my telephoto lens, I will bring my tripod. If I don't, I only have myself to blame.

flea77 · Apr 21, 2011

IS/OS/VR is really only useful for semi stationary objects. Once an object starts moving you need a higher shutter speed to stop that movement and that same higher shutter speed negates the need for the IS/OS/VR. If the horse is trotting or faster, you may want to consider a monopod as that would be much better than nothing and much faster and easier than a tripod.

Allan