IS or not?

bain · 21-06-2008, 15:32

i am looking to another lens, i,m new to digital i have a 40d with a 17/85 and the 50 mm , i have only had this about 2 months.
i have read about the 70/200 L AND THE 70/300 AF F4/5.6 IS. Now both are about the same price £314 and £309 , i would like to ask this question to you guys [ the ones with experience ] does the IS really help ,i don't have a tripod and don't fancy one ,and rather have the L series lens . i want the sharpest photos i can get, and feel that i need the IS [ or do i ?] .
i would hate to think that i bought the L lens to find out that my shots were blurred because of lack of IS, or the other side of the coin, i bought the IS lens to find that i am not getting the sharpness i require,, i hope this is making sense.

thanks for trying to understand what i'm trying to say

spxxxx · 21-06-2008, 15:49

suck it up and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS - or the minimum I would go for is the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Both are extremely sharp and yes IS does help. You pay for good glass but the flip side is it is very slow to depreciate.

silkstone · 21-06-2008, 16:17

Here's a photo taken wide-open (f/5.6) at 300mm with the 70-300 IS - hand-held using IS...

And this is a 100% crop...

Those are as they came out of the RAW converter, with no additional sharpening etc.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go for the L glass, but I am more than satisfied with the 70-300 IS which also, of course, gives greater reach. And yes, the IS makes a tremendous difference.

spxxxx · 21-06-2008, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by silkstone

Here's a photo taken wide-open (f/5.6) at 300mm with the 70-300 IS - hand-held using IS...

And this is a 100% crop...

Those are as they came out of the RAW converter, with no additional sharpening etc.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go for the L glass, but I am more than satisfied with the 70-300 IS which also, of course, gives greater reach. And yes, the IS makes a tremendous difference.

Great shot - but f/5.6 can be quite limiting - it depends on what the main use of the lens will be .....

bain · 21-06-2008, 16:31

ok a challange

any shots at 200 mm without IS and hand held

by the way love the cat i have some good cat shots myself but not entered a gallery yet

**Dabhand16** · 21-06-2008, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by bain

ok a challange

any shots at 200 mm without IS and hand held

by the way love the cat i have some good cat shots myself but not entered a gallery yet

Here are some. They are just test shots in very low light. You might want to read the whole thread to get the context.

bain · 21-06-2008, 16:55

ok read the full text interesting but nothing seemed to allert me to , is ,IS better than none IS , all though the thread was good ,sorry nothing there .

As for your shots ,i know it was just a test but if thats the best quality, sorry i should say sharpness, then i think it's the L lens without IS would be the way to go , but with the lens you have would IS improved the shot? maybe ! any way thanks, if i am talking crap thats down to my inexperience

**Dabhand16** · 21-06-2008, 17:41

I just posted the link in response to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bain

ok a challange

any shots at 200 mm without IS and hand held:thumb

They are 200mm hand-held shots with no IS, as requested. I do not possess any stabilised lenses to try a comparison. I guess they are not so sharp, but in the gloom that they were shot in, I think they are not bad - especially the ones taken at 1/40th and 1/30th - admittedly I was bracing myself, but even so.....

I've got some others taken in better light, but not processed them yet. I'll try to get one or two up later tonight or tomorrow - just going out now.

bain · 21-06-2008, 17:47

have a good night

jake · 21-06-2008, 22:50

I don't have the lenses mentioned and so can only make a general opinion. I now have IS and think it is very useful and would rather have it than not but it is not a panacea for all your camera shake problems.

Geir Andersen · 22-06-2008, 09:07

I don't have any L-glass optics so can't compare to those.
I do have the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG APO Macro and the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM, and the difference between those two is remarkable.

Before I decided on the IS lens, I google'd and found this page: Test Shots
Shows pretty well the differences.

**Dabhand16** · 22-06-2008, 10:14

Right - here are another two also taken at about the same time in the evening, but this time with the last rays of sunlight rather than thick cloud cover.

Both were hand held and taken at about double the 'recommended' shutter speed for 200mm. the first was 1/125 and the second 1/100. Both ISO 200.

Larne · 23-06-2008, 08:38

I would recommend going for the larger aperture lens over the IS if you can get it. At 200mm an f/2.8 lens is already letting in an additional 2 stops of light over and above an f/5.6 lens.

Having said that, the DOF you get from f/2.8 @ 200mm is pretty shallow so you have to ask yourself what you are going to be using the lens for. If you are mainly going to be shooting at f/5.6 or smaller then you may as well go for the IS lens.