To "IS" or not to "IS"?

[KimberlyH]

I've had my dslr for a couple of years now and am wanting to upgrade my lenses from the kit lenses that came with the camera. When I purchased the camera I felt a little pressure from the sales person to purchase the kit that came with lenses that offered Image Stabilization instead of the less expensive kit with lenses that did not offer IS. She told me no one in their right mind would purchase lenses without it. I didn't have a clue at the time so I purchased the more expensive kit. Now that I am looking to buy new lenses I am still a little iffy on my choice. Lenses that offer Image Stabilization (or another brand's equivalent) are twice as expensive as lenses that don't have IS.

My question is:

a) How many of you have the lenses with this feature?

b) Can you really tell much of a difference between using it and not? (I can't but I'd like to know a pro's opinion)

c) If you do reccomend this then how often do you find yourself using it and under what situations? Do you just leave it on full time or pick and choose when you use it?


Thanks in advance for and and all responses.

[Jonbar18]

What lenses are you planning on buying and what do you plan to use it for? IS may or may not be worth the extra cash depending on your answer.

[RichardTaylor]

(1) My three most used lenses have IS.

(2) I am just an amateur. However if you are shooting hand held in low light it can help a lot with static subjects.
It can also help with shooting at slow shutter speeds (but will not freeze subject motion).

(3) Shooting in good light - no.
Shooting hand held in low light, Yes.
Panning, yes. It helps stabilise the image in the viewfinder which makes it slightly easier to capture the image.


(4) I use it in conditions like above.
In good lighting it is usually turned off.

[KimberlyH]

Originally Posted by Jonbar18

What lenses are you planning on buying and what do you plan to use it for? IS may or may not be worth the extra cash depending on your answer.

The lens I am looking at is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM. The regular lens is $636 on B&H while the IS version is $1,210. I mostly use my 50mm f/1.8 for my portraits but want something with a zoom for traveling, taking photos of my kids at the beach (without having to actually be in the ocean with my nice camera) and just general photography. I'm also looking at a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 that is $669.

I understand the concept of why someone would WANT to use IS. I just personally can't tell the difference and am wondering if there are photographers who don't take Image Stabilization into consideration when purchasing a lens.

[RichardTaylor]

I own the Canon 70-200 F4 L and it is an excellent lens.
It is the lens I use to cover events in good light.

However it is not a good lens for hand held low available light shooting.
It will meet your needs for a general purpose, relative small and light , medium tele. zoom.

The Sigma will not give you any more reach than most kit lenses or your 50mm F1.8.

[KimberlyH]

Would it be better to purchase a Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for lower light conditions over the Canon f/4? They are realtively similar in price or should I buy Canon f/4 with IS and just bight the bullet and pay the extra amount?

[RichardTaylor]

"Better" is decision for you.

I havn't used any Sigma lenses.
The I feel the two Tamron lenses I do own do not have the build quality, or focussing speed of my Canon lenses (especially the Ls), however they are more reasonably priced.

However some things you may want to consider.
(1) 70-200 F2.8 lenses tend to be large & heavy.
Do want to carry that around on a vacation?
See this review (of the Sigma lens)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Lens Review

(2) Read the reviews and do a comparison.
There a quite a few on the above site.

For serious (not casual/vacation) hand held, low light shooting I use fast primes (usually F2)

[KimberlyH]

Thanks for the info. I would love to have a few prime lenses, too. But for right now I think I need a lens that will let me take photos from from several different focal lengths without having to change between lenses (I have a hard time convincing my husband and kids to wait while I change lenses). I think I will just go with the Canon f/4 lens without the IS. It's just a matter of $. I can add some faster primes later (this is my 15th wedding anniversary this year...that deserves a good gift, too LOL).

[Elmo]

From another point of view 4/5 of my shooting life there was no such thing as IS. I learned to shoot without it. On the other hand anything that possibly adds to image quality is worth it. If I was buying long L glass I would definitely go IS as this is a near lifetime investment. In your case as funds seem to be an issue have you considered the 70-300 IS? A great lens at a moderate price and it has IS

[kirbinster]

While I am a Nikon shooter, I can tell you IS (VR in my world) is well worth it. I had a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 that I replaced with a Nikon 70-200 VR f/2.8 and it really made a big difference in image quality for handheld shots. It is a big deal when shooting long glass. For shorter glass it is not as important, but it is still very worthwhile. Some non-OEM lenses a good, others are not. I have a few Sigmas, but hated my Sigma 24-70 and replaced it with a Nikon 24-70. The Nikon is much sharper.