To Spend Money or To Save More? To IS or Not To IS?

[Gaerek]

Just want to make sure you meant to say "camera shake" and not "motion blur." These are different things, and IS won't help with motion blur at all.

thats partially what im trying to convey here in my posts. To use IS, and low shutter speeds, you need to be shooting subjects that aren't moving or you will get blurry pictures.

The f/4 versions are WAY light, and dont need a monopod for instance tho, easily hand holdable compared to the 2.8

I do agree that IS is getting overrated. Its like one of those megapixel things. Everyone wants IS, because its awesome and it helps hand-hold camera blah blah blah. The truth is probably half of people end up draining their battery and dont know when to properly use it.

Ex: the guy before said motion blur instead of camera shake.

It was a typo, I clearly know the difference is. I also know how to use IS you dipstick. Wrong phrasing, and practical applications are two different things. The reason why I dont make much of a distinction is because while your subject may not be in motion, your hands are. Shake is a form of motion. I agree for instructional purposes, I should have said camera shake being that the term typically refers to subject motion.

EDIT: Realized you weren't referring to me.

I know you know there is a difference. I just wanted to prevent it from confusing people on the Beginners Forum...that is all.

 

[Taylor510ce]

That wasnt against you. we are cool. It was against the guy who quoted you and made his little comment at the end. I am on my phone, so its a pain to paste together precision quotes.:mrgreen:

 

[prodigy2k7]

Just want to make sure you meant to say "camera shake" and not "motion blur." These are different things, and IS won't help with motion blur at all.

thats partially what im trying to convey here in my posts. To use IS, and low shutter speeds, you need to be shooting subjects that aren't moving or you will get blurry pictures.

The f/4 versions are WAY light, and dont need a monopod for instance tho, easily hand holdable compared to the 2.8

I do agree that IS is getting overrated. Its like one of those megapixel things. Everyone wants IS, because its awesome and it helps hand-hold camera blah blah blah. The truth is probably half of people end up draining their battery and dont know when to properly use it.

Ex: the guy before said motion blur instead of camera shake.

It was a typo, I clearly know the difference is. I also know how to use IS you dipstick. Wrong phrasing, and practical applications are two different things. The reason why I dont make much of a distinction is because while your subject may not be in motion, your hands are. Shake is a form of motion. I agree for instructional purposes, I should have said camera shake being that the term typically refers to subject motion.

I was referring to you about the typo, yes.
From here on "I do agree that IS is getting overrated.", I wasn't referring to you.

 

[Neil S.]

OK now lets build a campfire, sing songs, and toast some marshmallows...

Whos in?

 

[Taylor510ce]

Tie die makes me itchy

 

[prodigy2k7]

OK now lets build a campfire, sing songs, and toast some marshmallows...

Whos in?

only if you pass your 7D around the circle

 

[DerekSalem]

It made things a lot easier and I could snap a shot without chimping everytime with a good amount of confidence that I would not see motion blur when I got home and uploaded.

Just want to make sure you meant to say "camera shake" and not "motion blur." These are different things, and IS won't help with motion blur at all.

Actually it will...all 3 of the IS 70-200s feature 2 types of IS. One is specifically designed for panning. It will allow you to pan without worrying about vertical movement.

And to everyone downplaying IS...why? If it's a question of money, then sure there's a reason to have to decide on your own...but most of the people downplaying IS are giving utterly ridiculous and irrelevant reasons. Because it drains battery? Are you serious? Well then it's a good thing it can be turned off anytime you want to and recharging batteries is basically free.

Oh, and the only time the IS is actually functioning is when you're focusing or taking the picture. The 2-3 seconds it's on at a time won't drastically affect the battery life.

I just don't get why so many people are throwing away IS as if it weren't helpful. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. I've had plenty of lenses without IS/VC and have been completely satisfied with them, but there are certain times where it is *immensely* helpful and there's virtually no amount of skill that can suffice in those situations. As I've said, there's no possibility of taking a shot in a crowd at 1/3s with no visible camera shake without IS if you don't have something to lean against...and even then it would be difficult. I've even seen shots taken at 1/2s with no visible shake. Without carrying a tripod around with me at all times there's just no alternative to that.


Synopsis: IS isn't necessary, but virtually anyone with humility will at some point think "I wish I had a tripod or IS right now" and at that point you'll be glad to know you have it. Many times people will end up selling their non-is lenses for the IS versions and that becomes a waste.

Oh, and one last thing for Gaerek (I thin you were the one that said it)...in the world of lenses, $600 *is* "a little bit more".

 

[prodigy2k7]

It made things a lot easier and I could snap a shot without chimping everytime with a good amount of confidence that I would not see motion blur when I got home and uploaded.

Just want to make sure you meant to say "camera shake" and not "motion blur." These are different things, and IS won't help with motion blur at all.

I just don't get why so many people are throwing away IS as if it weren't helpful. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. I've had plenty of lenses without IS/VC and have been completely satisfied with them, but there are certain times where it is *immensely* helpful and there's virtually no amount of skill that can suffice in those situations. As I've said, there's no possibility of taking a shot in a crowd at 1/3s with no visible camera shake without IS if you don't have something to lean against...and even then it would be difficult. I've even seen shots taken at 1/2s with no visible shake. Without carrying a tripod around with me at all times there's just no alternative to that.

Can I see this photo? Surely there will be motion blur at 1/3 unless everyone is sitting down or standing at "attention" etc..? Was flash not allowed? Were you using a smaller aperture, say F/4? instead of F/2.8 or even faster like F/1.4 ? What ISO were you using?

If you were taking a picture at 1/3 and that's the best you could do, either your equipment sucks, or lack certain equipment or taking a picture of blackness in a room. What exactly are you taking a picture of at 1/3 and relying on IS to give you a good result?

And how often do you run into those circumstances?

I am all for IS, I just don't see a personal need for it, and I don't think most others need it except in certain circumstances. A good example when you may need it, wedding photographers, maybe flash isn't allowed during the ceremony.

 

[AlwaysANewbie]

Wow! I wasn't expecting this much of a response.

I just read every post but I think I might have to read them more than once and let it sink in.

It seems like most of you are saying that yes IS is good to have but not always needed, this is understandable. I appreciate the post from someone (sorry can't remember who) that mentions they bought a non-IS and then a IS version then wished he went with the IS in the first place. That comment pushes me more to the decision to save more money and get the IS.

Thanks everyone for your responses!

 

[gsgary]

I'm getting that warm and fuzzy feeling in here! Who needs a hug??

Not me i'm up for a fight now i'm back from work

 

[gsgary]

Just want to make sure you meant to say "camera shake" and not "motion blur." These are different things, and IS won't help with motion blur at all.

I just don't get why so many people are throwing away IS as if it weren't helpful. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. I've had plenty of lenses without IS/VC and have been completely satisfied with them, but there are certain times where it is *immensely* helpful and there's virtually no amount of skill that can suffice in those situations. As I've said, there's no possibility of taking a shot in a crowd at 1/3s with no visible camera shake without IS if you don't have something to lean against...and even then it would be difficult. I've even seen shots taken at 1/2s with no visible shake. Without carrying a tripod around with me at all times there's just no alternative to that.

Can I see this photo? Surely there will be motion blur at 1/3 unless everyone is sitting down or standing at "attention" etc..? Was flash not allowed? Were you using a smaller aperture, say F/4? instead of F/2.8 or even faster like F/1.4 ? What ISO were you using?

If you were taking a picture at 1/3 and that's the best you could do, either your equipment sucks, or lack certain equipment or taking a picture of blackness in a room. What exactly are you taking a picture of at 1/3 and relying on IS to give you a good result?

And how often do you run into those circumstances?

I am all for IS, I just don't see a personal need for it, and I don't think most others need it except in certain circumstances. A good example when you may need it, wedding photographers, maybe flash isn't allowed during the ceremony.

I would like to see also, if you have to use 1/3 i wouldn't even bother taking it

 

[Derrel]

Although I'd say go for the IS version anyway, the optical quality of the non-IS f/4L is *not* that great. It's definitely good, but when paired next to the IS version they are *obviously* 2 different lenses.

The f/4L IS is one of the best 70-200s available (only bested by the 70-200 f/2.8L IS mark II). The IQ is phenomenal on that lens and you won't be disappointed.

Either way, get the IS. It can help in a lot of situations where you don't realize it now. I try to get IS on every lens I can. I'm confident in my hand-holding ability, but there are plenty of times I was glad I could that that 1/3 of a second shot standing in a crowded room with nothing to lean on. Can't do that on a non-IS.

EXACTLY...the "old" 70-200 f/4-L, the one that uses the 67mm filters....it is not that great of a lens...it is an older design, and it's good, but not excellent. The 70-200 f/4-L is excellent. The 70-200 2.8 L non-IS is a bit better than the 70-200 2.8 L IS model, but both would qualify as very good to excellent lenses. The new 70-200 f/2.8 IS-USM Mark II is approaching superb....it's better than just "excellent".

Newer is better, most all of the time, in lenses.

 

[Ryan L]

The new 70-200 f/2.8 IS-USM Mark II is approaching superb....it's better than just "excellent".

Newer is better, most all of the time, in lenses.

I agree, I love my 70-200 2.8 IS, but when a deal on a 2.8II comes around I will snatch it up, simply because of how many raving reviews I keep hearing about it.

 

[DerekSalem]

Although I'd say go for the IS version anyway, the optical quality of the non-IS f/4L is *not* that great. It's definitely good, but when paired next to the IS version they are *obviously* 2 different lenses.

The f/4L IS is one of the best 70-200s available (only bested by the 70-200 f/2.8L IS mark II). The IQ is phenomenal on that lens and you won't be disappointed.

Either way, get the IS. It can help in a lot of situations where you don't realize it now. I try to get IS on every lens I can. I'm confident in my hand-holding ability, but there are plenty of times I was glad I could that that 1/3 of a second shot standing in a crowded room with nothing to lean on. Can't do that on a non-IS.

EXACTLY...the "old" 70-200 f/4-L, the one that uses the 67mm filters....it is not that great of a lens...it is an older design, and it's good, but not excellent. The 70-200 f/4-L is excellent. The 70-200 2.8 L non-IS is a bit better than the 70-200 2.8 L IS model, but both would qualify as very good to excellent lenses. The new 70-200 f/2.8 IS-USM Mark II is approaching superb....it's better than just "excellent".

Newer is better, most all of the time, in lenses.

Definitely agree with all of this.

As for the picture taken at 1/3s I didn't end up keeping it. It was a shot from a local coffee shop of the shop itself. There was nowhere to place the camera, no better lighting (they have lights but it was an event so they didn't want to turn them up - I know the owners), on-camera flash wasn't going to happen (they didn't want flash photography for it - long story), and I really had no other option. Speaking as someone who has been taught NRA and Military steady techniques I can easily say that was the slowest shot I've ever taken without motion being evident and it would have been impossible without IS.

And the reason I didn't keep it was purely because the shots were being taken for a reason and it wasn't chosen as a keeper. That *is* irrelevant though in the "then why get IS" question line. Just because it wasn't kept doesn't mean it is meaningless.

Once again, I just don't understand why there are so many people here that are actually *against* IS. It's only a beneficial thing...there is no con outside of the money.

 

[gsgary]

Although I'd say go for the IS version anyway, the optical quality of the non-IS f/4L is *not* that great. It's definitely good, but when paired next to the IS version they are *obviously* 2 different lenses.

The f/4L IS is one of the best 70-200s available (only bested by the 70-200 f/2.8L IS mark II). The IQ is phenomenal on that lens and you won't be disappointed.

Either way, get the IS. It can help in a lot of situations where you don't realize it now. I try to get IS on every lens I can. I'm confident in my hand-holding ability, but there are plenty of times I was glad I could that that 1/3 of a second shot standing in a crowded room with nothing to lean on. Can't do that on a non-IS.

EXACTLY...the "old" 70-200 f/4-L, the one that uses the 67mm filters....it is not that great of a lens...it is an older design, and it's good, but not excellent. The 70-200 f/4-L is excellent. The 70-200 2.8 L non-IS is a bit better than the 70-200 2.8 L IS model, but both would qualify as very good to excellent lenses. The new 70-200 f/2.8 IS-USM Mark II is approaching superb....it's better than just "excellent".

Newer is better, most all of the time, in lenses.

Definitely agree with all of this.

As for the picture taken at 1/3s I didn't end up keeping it. It was a shot from a local coffee shop of the shop itself. There was nowhere to place the camera, no better lighting (they have lights but it was an event so they didn't want to turn them up - I know the owners), on-camera flash wasn't going to happen (they didn't want flash photography for it - long story), and I really had no other option. Speaking as someone who has been taught NRA and Military steady techniques I can easily say that was the slowest shot I've ever taken without motion being evident and it would have been impossible without IS.

And the reason I didn't keep it was purely because the shots were being taken for a reason and it wasn't chosen as a keeper. That *is* irrelevant though in the "then why get IS" question line. Just because it wasn't kept doesn't mean it is meaningless.

Once again, I just don't understand why there are so many people here that are actually *against* IS. It's only a beneficial thing...there is no con outside of the money.

This shot was taken with a 1Dmk1 + a 1995 300mmF2.8L non IS + kenko 2x at 1/320 600mm F9 handheld