IS How much is it worth?

Associate
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
550
Location
Penryn
Hi all,
I'm looking to buy a mid tele zoom, and am pretty much set on Canon's 70-200 2.8, the only thing I'm unsure of is whether IS is actually worth another £400 or so.

I've used the 200 2.8 L prime before now a fair bit, and didn't find not having any kind of IS a problem, but would I be likely to want it on the heavier, larger zoom?

Does anyone have experience with both, or is it worth hiring both for a weekend to see how I get on with them?

The other alternative, though not a zoom, is the 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L and my existing 85 1.8 for a similar price as the IS zoom.

Who's been in a similar quandary and what did you do to resolve it?

Cheers.
 
I have a non IS and it's excellent. I find that because i'm a novice to photography, i'd like to do some of the work myself rather than have the camera do everything for me.

crash.jpg


This was shot with my lens and with practice, they are exactly the same as the shots from my mates F2.8 IS.

+ The lens cost me £300 so bargain :)
 
If I had the money, then I would get the IS lens, but it really depends on what you want the lens for. If you start to take pictures in lower light conditions, I think IS is really handy. If you have IS, you can use it or no, if you don't, you can't. ;)
 
Another thing to consider is, how bad on batteries is IS? I'd be using it with an EOS 5 and don't want to have to change the battery every 10 minutes or so as they're not cheap!
 
Hi all,
I'm looking to buy a mid tele zoom, and am pretty much set on Canon's 70-200 2.8, the only thing I'm unsure of is whether IS is actually worth another £400 or so.
Do you need f/2.8? I've had a play with one of the new 70-200 f/4 IS lenses and it's very nice. You've got all the usual L series toys (build quality, weather proofing, fast focussing) but the size and cost are a fraction of the f/2.8.
 
Do you need f/2.8?

Maybe not need, but would prefer. I generally use fairly slow film (velvia 50, provia 100f or pan f+ (50) and fp4+ (125)) so the quicker the better. Also chances are I'd buy a teleconverter at some point down the line so again the 2.8 would help there.
 
I got the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS a while ago now (from Kerso for under a grand). When I was looking, it was a throw-up between that and the f/4, which is supposed to be slightly sharper - many reviews come up with the 2.8 having a soft spot in the centre.

Anyway, I do lots of work in theatres and things, so the aperture and the IS were clear attractions. I did some work for a school at a prize giving / anniversary celebration recently and couldn't use flash from the back, so I was relying completely on the aperture and the IS. At ISO 1600 and f/2.8, I was getting about 1/100s on average @ 200mm. I doubt I'd have been able to pull that off to anything like a decent standard without IS.

A lot of people say that the weight puts them off, but I personally don't find that lens to be a problem, so I wouldn't necessarily let that put you off. I also use it with a 2x for wildlife at the moment. It's averagely sharp at 400mm @ f/5.6 but nothing in comparison to a 400 prime. The focus isn't too slow, but it's the tracking that it falls down on (a lot).

I can't compare it to either of the primes you mention in the OP, but I doubt you'd be disappointed if you were to get it. Hire would be a good idea, but from here, for example, you'd be looking at over £100 to get both and at that price, you'd have to be pretty indecisive to bother doing it in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Another thing to consider is, how bad on batteries is IS? I'd be using it with an EOS 5 and don't want to have to change the battery every 10 minutes or so as they're not cheap!

i went to BTCC at croft, using the 100-400 with IS on all day, took over 400 photos with IS on on a single battery - so i wouldn't worry ;)
 
Bought a new 450D earlier with the IS 18-55. Its fantastic. Really don't know how I have put up without having IS for so long.
My hands aren't hugely steady so I feel I'll only be buying IS lenses from now on just to give me a better chance of shots worth keeping.
 
On the 40D I charge my battery once a week if I've been shooting. I use IS a lot as many things are below 1/30s and last year my IS motor broke on the 17-55 due to it being used so much but repaired under warranty :p

It's a very useful feature really if you're hand holding slow TV!
 
Hi all,
I'm looking to buy a mid tele zoom, and am pretty much set on Canon's 70-200 2.8, the only thing I'm unsure of is whether IS is actually worth another £400 or so.

I've used the 200 2.8 L prime before now a fair bit, and didn't find not having any kind of IS a problem, but would I be likely to want it on the heavier, larger zoom?

Does anyone have experience with both, or is it worth hiring both for a weekend to see how I get on with them?

The other alternative, though not a zoom, is the 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L and my existing 85 1.8 for a similar price as the IS zoom.

Who's been in a similar quandary and what did you do to resolve it?

Cheers.

Depends entirely on what you are photographing. If there is any motion in the subject then IS/VR will only make things worse (unless the motion is a smooth, like a car and you do some clever panning and you have the clever IS which disable the horizontal correction).
IF you are in low light conditions then you will still need a tripod to get god shots. In full daylight you wont need it.

And it is always better to take the photo with a tripod. IS/VR does cause objective IQ loss when not required. Tripods will still gives the best IQ. And on modern sensors, increasing the ISO is a better option.

So static subjects in fading light but not low light when you were too lazy to bring a tripod. A £30 tripod will give better results than the £400 IS...


Saying that, I do understand when IS may save the day, or if having the flexibility to increase the DoF is useful. But I think it may be more useful on say the F/4 when the lens is light and you don't want to carry a tripod and you've already lost a stop over the 2.8 version. The 2.8 is heavy anyway so adding a tripod doesn't make things much worse.
 
Maybe not need, but would prefer. I generally use fairly slow film (velvia 50, provia 100f or pan f+ (50) and fp4+ (125)) so the quicker the better. Also chances are I'd buy a teleconverter at some point down the line so again the 2.8 would help there.

I'd definitley go with IS, if you're shooting film, you obviously don't have the option of just cranking the ISO up to 800 or 1600 to get the shutter speeds.

I'd say IS is definitley worth it, we can all do without it but it can really help sometimes, especially if you're shooting at any telephoto length.
 
Ive had both, the non IS is on paper meant to be optically better than the IS version but in reality you wouldn't be able to tell them apart, even with the IS version i used to have it turned off a lot but its nice to have it there if you need it.
The question you ask about battery life if very valid though, as your using a standard SLR you haven't got the battery power of a DSLR and Ive no idea how it would stand up to constant use and i think when most have replied to you about battery life haven't appreciated your not using a DSLR camera.
 
Not sure a lens at f2.8 really needs IS. I use VR [im a nikon user] but its the same thing i think, and to be honest on the f4, its nice to have, but on the f2.8 200mm zoom i have, its no use at all as its fast enough as it is.

For me anyways.

ColiN
 
Back
Top Bottom