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

[Gaerek]

Let's just break it down, shall we?

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.

That was the point I (and others) were making. It isn't needed. The times when it is useful is fairly few and far between. Would I take an IS lens over a non-IS lens? Most likely, yes, BUT that's because the IS lenses are typically higher quality, even among 'L' glass. Are there times I've used a non-IS lens and wished I had an IS lens? Sure. Was I able to get the shot anyway? Almost 100% of the time. Was that little bit of extra convenience worth the extra cost? For me? Not really, but then again, since this is just a hobby for me, I have a hard time justifying what I consider unneeded costs.

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".

I disagree. Especially since the $600 IS IN FACT a part of the decision for the OP. Is it worth it? Only the OP can answer that. I'd imagine to a lot of people, especially newer photographer (such as the OP here) that $600 is a considerable amount of money to spend.

Since I've been writing my posts with the OP in mind, I made sure to make the point that $600 is a lot. But hey, since this has turned into an IS vs. non-IS debate, the OP's question means nothing anymore, amirite?

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.

Oh, ok, I didn't realize they invented technology that breaks the laws of physics and allows you to stop movement within the frame even at really low shutter speeds. I know how IS works. Try photographing my 17 month old at 1/15sec with IS on and see how many shots turn out. That's what I meant by motion blur...not movement of the camera while holding.

Again, is IS useful? Yes, most definitely. I wouldn't call it a gimmick. You have to understand that I mostly agree with you. I just don't believe it's as useful as most people think. That's all.

 

[DerekSalem]

Actually this is *all* according to the OP's question...he was asking if it would be worth it to save for IS. My opinion is yes. Sure it's up to him...but he's asking what we think...so I was answering him.

If someone came up to you and said I have 2 lenses here. One is IS and one is non-IS. Outside of that, they're identical lenses (in all respects). You get one of these for free. Which would you pick? There should literally be *nobody* in the world that chooses the non-IS. There's no reason to.

As for "breaking the laws of physics" and all that...what are you talking about? I didn't say IS would stop all motion...I said for panning shots (sports mostly but also others) there is an IS mode specifically made for it that will help you get a fairly straight shot as long as you can pan with the target. I didn't say it would let you get shots that no photographer should ever be able to.

I realize we're both fairly similar in our viewpoints...but speaking as someone who regularly takes shots at 1/50s or slower I can say I would definitely not be able to do that without IS.

 

[Derrel]

It seems like in the OP's case, the answer is clear: the "original" 70-200 f/4 L is just not that great a lens. It's simply nowhere near as good as the newer f/4 model that has IS...the new f/4 IS model is sharper than the f/2.8 IS model...it actually is--'cause it is NEWER and designed to be shot on high-resolution, digital sensors.

IS is really quite handy; it improves panning shots tremendously. it allows you to shoot at slow speeds, hand-held, and to stop down to get deep depth of field in scenic or landscape shooting while traveling without a tripod. IS also helps when you are out of breath, or on a moving platform, like a tour bus, a fishing boat, a whale-watching boat, or when there is wind buffeting you, like at the seashore. All-in-all, I think the IS lens wins out over a non-IS lens, all things considered. The IS lens also allows you to push the shutter speeds lower and slower, in order to get deliberate motion blur on moving subjects...to me, the IS is a super-valuable feature. It's also great for doing slow speed + flash shots.

Canon pulled out all the stops when they updated their two f/2.8 models and went to an IS Mark II model; newer is better; the new 2.8 Mark II is as good as Canon can make a zoom. The f/4 IS model is just a tiny notch below that...

 

[prodigy2k7]

It seems like in the OP's case, the answer is clear: the "original" 70-200 f/4 L is just not that great a lens. It's simply nowhere near as good as the newer f/4 model that has IS...the new f/4 IS model is sharper than the f/2.8 IS model...it actually is--'cause it is NEWER and designed to be shot on high-resolution, digital sensors.

IS is really quite handy; it improves panning shots tremendously. it allows you to shoot at slow speeds, hand-held, and to stop down to get deep depth of field in scenic or landscape shooting while traveling without a tripod. IS also helps when you are out of breath, or on a moving platform, like a tour bus, a fishing boat, a whale-watching boat, or when there is wind buffeting you, like at the seashore. All-in-all, I think the IS lens wins out over a non-IS lens, all things considered. The IS lens also allows you to push the shutter speeds lower and slower, in order to get deliberate motion blur on moving subjects...to me, the IS is a super-valuable feature. It's also great for doing slow speed + flash shots.

Canon pulled out all the stops when they updated their two f/2.8 models and went to an IS Mark II model; newer is better; the new 2.8 Mark II is as good as Canon can make a zoom. The f/4 IS model is just a tiny notch below that...

^Agreed

The F/4 IS is friggin insane IQ, I cant believe how sharp it really is, wide open. Its sharper than a lot of L primes, even when stopped down.

 

[gsgary]

Well lets see some shots for the 70-200F4IS so i can compare them to my shots with non IS, because the non IS is very sharp

 

[Neil S.]

Well lets see some shots for the 70-200F4IS so i can compare them to my shots with non IS, because the non IS is very sharp

Why?

Derrel is right that it is newer, better corrected, and has better IQ.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

- Neil

 

[gsgary]

Well lets see some shots for the 70-200F4IS so i can compare them to my shots with non IS, because the non IS is very sharp

Why?

Derrel is right that it is newer, better corrected, and has better IQ.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

- Neil

People keep saying how good it is but they won't back up what they say, let see some insanely sharp photos

 

[Taylor510ce]

Gsgary, Nice shot. how many did you toss that day? One shot doesnt prove or disprove anything. Obviously lenses without IS still work. Noone has said otherwise.

Well lets see some shots for the 70-200F4IS so i can compare them to my shots with non IS, because the non IS is very sharp

Why?



- Neil

Pissing match ( see previous posts )

 

[gsgary]

Gsgary, Nice shot. how many did you toss that day? One shot doesnt prove or disprove anything. Obviously lenses without IS still work. Noone has said otherwise.

Well lets see some shots for the 70-200F4IS so i can compare them to my shots with non IS, because the non IS is very sharp

Why?



- Neil

Pissing match ( see previous posts )

Not many, when i'm shooting events 90% are keepers, i tried about 20 that day handheld and about 50% were good
People have said it is not a great lens, i say they must be doing something wrong the first shot on page one was taken with an old 10D don't think you can get much sharper than that

This is it

 

[Taylor510ce]

Cant really argue with you, nice shot. Then again I am on my phone and cannot zoom in plus the file is low res. I certainly wouldnt throw away a 300mm f/2.8 non-IS.

 

[gsgary]

Cant really argue with you, nice shot. Then again I am on my phone and cannot zoom in plus the file is low res. I certainly wouldnt throw away a 300mm f/2.8 non-IS.

This was taken with my 70-200F4 non IS, not my 300 that is razor sharp

 

[prodigy2k7]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens - Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Play around with different primes and other zooms. This lens is sharper WIDE OPEN, than *most* other lenses, even some L primes, stopped down.

The link I gave you, is comparing the 70-200mm F/4 IS USM, vs the 50mm F/1.2L, the 50mm at F/4 is comparable sharpness to the 70-200 in the center, and the 50mm loses some sharpness near the edges, while the 70-200 basically stays sharp throughout.

Its just an example though...

 

[gsgary]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens - Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Play around with different primes and other zooms. This lens is sharper WIDE OPEN, than *most* other lenses, even some L primes, stopped down.

The link I gave you, is comparing the 70-200mm F/4 IS USM, vs the 50mm F/1.2L, the 50mm at F/4 is comparable sharpness to the 70-200 in the center, and the 50mm loses some sharpness near the edges, while the 70-200 basically stays sharp throughout.

Its just an example though...

The 50F1.2 is not one of the sharpest, i would like to see it up again my 200mmF2.8L

 

[prodigy2k7]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens - Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens Comparison - ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results

Play around with different primes and other zooms. This lens is sharper WIDE OPEN, than *most* other lenses, even some L primes, stopped down.

The link I gave you, is comparing the 70-200mm F/4 IS USM, vs the 50mm F/1.2L, the 50mm at F/4 is comparable sharpness to the 70-200 in the center, and the 50mm loses some sharpness near the edges, while the 70-200 basically stays sharp throughout.

Its just an example though...

The 50F1.2 is not one of the sharpest, i would like to see it up again my 200mmF2.8L

checkout the graphs. The 70-200 at 200mm at F/4 is sharper than the 200mm F/2.8 at F/2.8 and when stopped down to F/4 they are about equal, but it still appears the 70-200 is sharper.

Damn this lens is amazing sharp lol...