Is IS that important to you in a lens?

[Mindy]

I'm looking at a lens, the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM, and the price isn't all that bad compared to some of these other L lenses I've seen. But it doesn't have image stabilization. I don't have steady hands (and I'm not even 50 yet :blushing and I plan on using a monopod when shooting outdoors anyways.

So is IS important to you in a lens? What are your thoughts?

 

[tsaraleksi]

Some people consider it critical, others do not. Depends on what you're shooting. I tend to shoot motion / action, so high ISO performance is more important than IS to me.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

YES !

 

[shaunly]

on Nikon it's call VR and to me it's a VERY useful feature, especially on high zoom.

 

[DemonAstroth]

The IS for the 70-200 f/4 L is amazing. I love it, and would be sorely disappointed if I didn't have it.

However, if my 50 1.4 had IS, I don't think it'd be that important, as it's a pretty fast lens anyway.

 

[Mindy]

The IS for the 70-200 f/4 L is amazing. I love it, and would be sorely disappointed if I didn't have it.

I didn't think that lens had IS? So it appears that you are not missing the IS feature?

 

[Mindy]

If you were considering the Canon 70-200mm f/4L USM lens, would you miss the IS feature? Would it matter that much to you then?

 

[DemonAstroth]

There's 2 versions of the lens, one with IS and the other one without it... same with the 2.8, one has it and another one does not.

However, the IS for the 70-200 f/4 (the lens I own), is really really amazing. It's much better than the IS for my other lens with it (the 28-135). I think they are improving on the system.

 

[Mindy]

However, the IS for the 70-200 f/4 (the lens I own), is really really amazing. It's much better than the IS for my other lens with it (the 28-135). I think they are improving on the system.

On B&H I see the 70-200 f/4L IS USM for $1,100. That's still not too bad. But that is coming from $569 for the 70-200mm f/4L USM. Personally I think I really need the IS and will look into this IS lens for the future. I really want glass that will last.

Okay this is fun.

 

[DemonAstroth]

Yeah, saving up is a good investment.

It's the same thing I did with my first prime. I could have gotten the 50 1.8, but decided to wait and went for the 1.4 I couldn't be happier. One time I met someone with the 1.8, and though it is a very sharp lens, the cheap feeling plastic, and the lack of ftm focusing assured me I made the right choice.

 

[LWW]

I have never owned a VR/IS lens ... but, in most cases it is IMHO a crutch for cheap glass.

On a higher end faster lens I do believe it could be a Godsend and next time I upgrade I will opt for it but am quite happy with my 80-200 2.8.

My crutch comment is based on the lower end glass, and it will allow for sharper shots in low light. It will not however compensate for movement during exposure like a faster shutter speed will nor will it allow for then shallower DOF of a fast lens.

Good hand holding skills will probably vanish as IS/VR becomes more pervasive.

LWW

 

[Overread]

LWW - the counter to your thinking is that IS tends to only be in the higher quality glass in the first place - lower quality glass is made to be cheaper and thus IS (or VR) is generally not added to keep the lens price down.

As for IS in general its a fantastic thing and it can make a big difference to your shooting - especailly if your using a telephoto lens since it means you don't have to have a blindingly fast shutter speed to shoot handheld. As for sports or action photography IS still has its place in those events also - sometimes your going to be shooting in poorer light so boosting your ISO to get that fast shutter speed - then there might be a slow point in the match, a pitstop, an animal taking a short rest - and its then you can lower your ISO - and get that slower shot with a much higher quality of image - then boost up your ISO and continue on with the fast paced action!

 

[CW Jones]

why not this one? under $600 with IS
Canon | 70-300mm f/4-5.6 EF IS USM Autofocus Lens | 0345B002

 

[Jaszek]

why not this one? under $600 with IS
Canon | 70-300mm f/4-5.6 EF IS USM Autofocus Lens | 0345B002

because it has poorer image quality and is not constant aperture.
To the OP: If you mind saving couple of hundreds dollars more I recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. You can probably find it used for about $1500 (only $400 more than f/4 IS).

 

[Iron Flatline]

IS can really help, esp. at the longer focal length.