To IS or not to IS?

Amp34

Amp34

Amp34

Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Opinions?

There is a chance I could get a Canon 300mm f/4 in either IS or non IS version. The IS being about £600 and non IS £400.

I know the older non IS is supposed to be sharper than the newer one, but the IS is very tempting, although it is only 2 stops. My current 300mm lens has IS and I don't know if I could live without it at that range.

The other option is to get a monopod for lower shutter speeds, but that may be a bit more awkward than IS. Also is the older lens as good IQ wise as the new one with a 1.4 TC attached? The newer one is supposed to have been "optimised for TC's yady yada..."?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd definitely take the IS lens, after having it with my kit lens I don't think I could cope without it except with fast primes like the f1.4 I got this morning.

I can't imagine the sharpness being a huge amount different, I'd go hunt down some comparison shots and try and make a judgement on which is more valuable for you.
 
Thanks for the input. From what I have seen there is supposedly a reasonable difference in sharpness, but only if you really pixel peak..

The main issue is the price, I can justify £400 at the moment for a lens but £600 is a real push ( I could even get a 1.4 TC with the change) and was wondering is it worth it for the IS. Your opinions mirror mine it would seem, although i'm thinking get the non IS and if I don't get on without IS resell it and get the IS version. I doubt I'll loose any money so seems a pretty good option atm. :)
 
The 300mm IS is a truly great lens but if i had your decision to make i would go for the non-IS.

With a decent enough shutter speed the IS is not needed (shot quite often with mine turned off) so i would save the £200 and spend it on something like another lens instead.

If i were you i would either get a decent fast prime (50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8) or a nice ultra wide zoom like the sigma 10-20mm.

One last possibility is to pick up a 1.4x tc to get to 420mm. The extra reach is handy and still useable in decent daylight.

gt

Edit: looked like i was reading your mind re: the TC! :D
 
The rest of my range is nicely covered with a Tokina W/A and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 as well as a Canon 75-300IS, the problem is at 300 the Canon is woeful and the focus slow, so I'm hoping the prime will sort that out.

I'm tempted to dump the Sigma though and get 30, 50 and 85mm primes, but I think that wil have to wait 'til I get some more money. :p
 
Without doubt get the "image stablized" version. The main use of the lens is obvious fixed at 300mm. This is the kind of ranges where IS is greatly needed. The fact that you cant zoom back to say 70mm means that your always gonna be viewing your scenes through a shaky viewfinder.
I think any prime over 200mm should be accompanied by a stabilizer drive.

Johnny
 
Amp34 said:
The rest of my range is nicely covered with a Tokina W/A and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 as well as a Canon 75-300IS, the problem is at 300 the Canon is woeful and the focus slow, so I'm hoping the prime will sort that out.
Click to expand...
It should do. The 300's a fast focusing lens that doesn't hunt much at all.

Just decide what you want picture wise and how you'd use it. As i said i never found i needed IS although it was nice to have on the rare occasion it got too dark.

That said, the shaky viewfinder comment from Fstop11 is a good point. :)

gt
 
It'll depend on what you're shooting too. I've just saved £500 by opting the non-VR version of my new lens (70-200 f2.8) because I shoot sports. At the shutter speed I use there's no blur anyway so VR is useless.
 
It really depends on what you are going to use the lens for?

If the things you'll be photographing are moving, eg wildlife, then IS will do nothing for you. It will only counteract lens movement, not subject movement, but then I guess you know that already?

What did photographers do before IS lenses came along? They used suitably fast shutter speeds, and knew how to use long lenses.

What will you be using it for?
 
Cool, thanks for the comments guys. :) I took the plunge in the end and bought the non-IS. Most of what I want to shoot is wildlife, and anything else will probably be shot when I have a tripod so I guess a lot of the time I won't need IS anyway.

I'll also have a look into getting a monopod depending on whether I think I need it or not as well. My experience with my IS lens now is that although I have the IS on almost all the time there are very few time I actually need it, I use it s more of a safety net "just in case".
 
L0rdMike said:
You got a link or info on the lens?
Click to expand...

Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 (£480) compared to Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR (~£1280)

Bit more of a saving than I though :eek:

The Tamron is still excellent quality glass and just seems to lack the VR. It should be with me tomorrow and I've got a game to shoot on Sunday so I'll pop a review up Sunday night :)
 
I'd definitely get the IS version. Without it, there's always going to be the odd shot that's got camera shake that would have been a keeper with the IS lens.

// EDIT // I see you got the non-IS one :p
 
Cyanide said:
Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 (£480) compared to Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR (~£1280)

Bit more of a saving than I though :eek:

The Tamron is still excellent quality glass and just seems to lack the VR. It should be with me tomorrow and I've got a game to shoot on Sunday so I'll pop a review up Sunday night :)
Click to expand...

The way you said it was if you got a Nikon with out VR.
 
A.N.Other said:
I'd definitely get the IS version. Without it, there's always going to be the odd shot that's got camera shake that would have been a keeper with the IS lens.

// EDIT // I see you got the non-IS one :p
Click to expand...

:(

:p

If I decide there are too many of those times I'll sell it on and get the IS version. If one is on the market at the time...

I think now is pretty rare, 300 f/4's are usually almost impossible to get hold of.:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom