Board index Equipment Digital Cameras IS vs. No IS

Digital Cameras

IS vs. No IS

starwrecker
 
Posts: 9

IS vs. No IS

Post Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:05 am


I'm looking for some input as to whether or not IS lenses are worth the extra money.

I currently use a Canon 400D and am looking to buy a lens or two as soon as I can save up the money.

Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated. =)

jestev
 
Posts: 398
Location: Dallas, TX


Post Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:01 am


All depends on what you're using it for. Almost always it's worth buying it. It really helps at slower shutter speeds or even at fastish shutter speeds on really large lenses. Personally, I'd go for a faster lens than one with IS, but usually the more expensive lenses are/have both.
John Stevenson
http://www.pbase.com/jestev
Nikon N70, N6006; D300, D50
Lenses (of 20): Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF, Tokina AT-X 12-24 f/4 AF PRO, Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 AI
Canon S1 IS
Minolta XG-7

gemmf
 
Posts: 903


Post Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:32 am


As John said, it does depend on what you are using it for. But it is a great feature to have in many situations. Which particular lens are you looking at?

bclaypole
 
Posts: 410


Post Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:37 pm


I have IS and swear by it. I have gone shooting with others and got the shot when they couldn't (sorry B-man).

GET the IS version or an assistance, to carry around a tripod for you. lol

Plus - it allows you to play more ie: panning shots

marxz
 
Posts: 282


Post Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:23 pm


I would say that for anything over, say 75mm (or 50mm on a 1.6 crop body) I would go for IS over aperture speed....

IS absolutely rocks for handheld short and medium telephoto (75 up to say 400) best thing since the proverbial individual portioned yeast based food product. Beyond 400 you'll probably need a tripod just because of the weight of the lens.

UNLESS you were a sports photographer (or sports was your primary interest) then I'd go for aperture (for low light action and faster focus speed) AND IS.

Below 75 (50 on 1.6 crop) IS would be nice but I think by 50 (30'ish on 1.6) I'd pick aperture speed (and a tripod when needed) over IS as you'd probably not need IS much unless you plan on doing hand-held evening and night landscapes/architectural (say travel snapshots at evening)
there is no .sig

starwrecker
 
Posts: 9


Post Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:30 pm


Thanks for the responses!

The lens I'm looking at is the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. I'm interested in nature/wildlife photography...but I also have a four year old so I'm always trying to get action shots as well. =) I still have a ton to learn in photography, but I figure if I'm not taking pictures and experimenting with different equipment/setting then I'm not learning. =)

Thanks again!

ericvision
 


Post Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:33 pm


Get the IS one. 300 f5.6 is a pain hand-held if you're trying to use it for wildlife. Problem is, it won't help with blur from the animal/bird moving itself. The only way round that is a faster lens, but then you're talking major expenditure.

marxz
 
Posts: 282


Post Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:34 pm


do they even make a non IS of this model any more? if they do they don't sell it here (Australia) anymore - the non IS model (and I owned 3 of them 1 japanese made and 2 Malaysian made) were crap, worst lenses I ever used.

anyway - I own the IS version of this lens and while it is not an "L series" lens it is a very good lens when used with in it's limits. A vast improvement over the older non IS one in every way - this is my standard "always in the bag" telephoto lens for when I can't be bothered using my Bigma (50-500 sigma) or I can't borrow my friend's Canon 100-400 IS L.

Optically it's quite sharp up to about 240 up to 270 it's fine but a bit to soft at 300.

it's a bit slow for indoor or night use and can hunt a bit on auto focus in so-so light but outdoors from dawn to dusk it's a good lens.

the IS system on this lens is as good as it gets, after you hold focus lock for about 3 or 4 seconds before shooting you can shoot handheld (or at least I can) up to 4 stops faster than non IS (I've taken keeper shot at less than 1/20th sec at 300 mm)
there is no .sig

starwrecker
 
Posts: 9


Post Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:52 am


Okay, have another question related to lenses too:

I was researching the L-series lenses and I assume they are worth every pretty penny on their price tags...

As I've said I'm just starting to learn a lot in photography but I know I plan to upgrade my camera body someday...is it worth considering the L-series lenses for my Rebel, or do I save those for when I have a better body on which to use them?

Thanks again for the input and patience with my newbie questions. =)

marxz
 
Posts: 282


Post Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:46 am


starwrecker wrote:Okay, have another question related to lenses too:

I was researching the L-series lenses and I assume they are worth every pretty penny on their price tags...

As I've said I'm just starting to learn a lot in photography but I know I plan to upgrade my camera body someday...is it worth considering the L-series lenses for my Rebel, or do I save those for when I have a better body on which to use them?

Thanks again for the input and patience with my newbie questions. =)


well... yes and no....
to a professional, a experienced enthusiast or a cashed up collector - yes

if you're just starting out or learning then - no definitely not.
Rather than spend the money on them instead spend time learning your camera, composition skills, post production skills (ie photoshop).
Use this time to work out what sort of photography style/shooting you like. Even your kit lenses will get you through this phase.
No point spending big money on glass that you don't end up using (though at least L's hold their value pretty well in the second hand market)


Once you have your basic chops down then look at replacing your most frequently used lens with higher quality glass L series or otherwise.

as for using an L lens (or any quality glass) on a entry/prosumer camera then the answer that unless you have a specific need for a higher end body then spend money on lenses before you spend money on bodies. An entry/prosumer body with good glass will focus faster, give better image quality, allow lower light shooting than the same camera using kit lenses and makes more sense than sticking cheap glass on high end (5D) and pro bodies (1Dxxx).
back in the film days the adage was that a camera is "just a light proof box you fit with good glass and load with good film" the digital medium skews this adage but the importance of good glass stands.

Note that Sigma make some good lenses that are optically up there with the L series, also many Canon non L primes are first class and even a couple of the EFs non L zooms are L's in all but name.

Be wary buying second hand L's. A good lens is a good lens and there are some savings and even bargains to be found if you do your research but some of the older ones are a bit dated image quality wise - I own a 17-35 2.8 L which is my main walkabout lens, but, truth be told, my Sigma 10-20 is actually a sharper lens (though the L still wins on other factors such as build quality, speed, and usable range). I purchased the L at about 1/5 the street price of the newer and better 16-35 L so to me the price/image quality trade off is acceptable.
there is no .sig

ericvision
 


Post Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:05 pm


I consider myself a beginner, but I still ran up a sizeable debt getting Ls for my main lenses - 100-400 and 17-40. I don't regret it for a second. They're not the most expensive or best performing L lenses there are but are much better than the "budget" lenses I was using.

I think that my photographs are better (look at my PAD gallery - can you see a change?) and I enjoy photography more. Now when I get a bad picture, I know I have to work on my tecnique. I think they help me learn more than I did before.

There is no substitute for skill, practice and artistic ability, but I truly believe that the best lenses you can possibly afford will give you the most enjoyment from your hobby. I tried very hard to get my kit together on a budget, and in the end, just as I was told on this very forum, it turned out better to buy expensive, and it would have been cheaper for me if I had done so in the first place.

That being said, there are bloody good non-L and non-Canon lenses out there - you just need to do careful research before chosing. Just beware the sometimes poor AF performace on non-Canon lenses on cheaper bodies.

dirtyol
 
Posts: 147


Post Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:55 am


Get an L-lens to start with. I bought additional cheap Canon lenses when I bought my 300D a few years back. This to me was a waste of money, :cry: as I was new to photography & couldn't figure out why my photos were soft. Then I stumbled across this forum & discovered L-Lenses & the rest is history :D

marxz
 
Posts: 282


Post Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:32 am


OK I wasn't inferring that a beginner or a learner SHOULDN'T get quality glass just that for the first baby steps of learning (or relearning) then the kit lenses suffice... no point spending several grand on kit if your still working out the basics of what the effect of changing the aperture is or how to balance ISO with shutter speed. I took about 3 months of relearning before I got my first L series lens (work and other stuff not allowing me to get out and do as much shooting and learning as i would have liked).... for others they may get to that point after only a couple of weeks of "intense" 7 day a week shooting and learning, some one with a young family to run around after and working 9-5 to pay bills etc might find they might take months or even years before they get to the point that one of their major blocks in advancing their skills is the quality of their glass.
there is no .sig

starwrecker
 
Posts: 9


Post Tue Jan 15, 2008 4:22 am


Thanks for all the responses, folks. As of now I'll probably go with the 'cheaper' lenses. (Note I use that word cautiously because I know I'll still be able to get good pictures.)

As marxz said about some people taking longer to hone the beginning skills due to family, jobs, etc.....that's me. I'm afraid my photography skills will be advancing slowly (*sigh*) since I have a wee one, 2 part time jobs, and 3.5 years of professional school to go. Sadly my practice time has to wait until school breaks between semesters. *sniffle*

Anywho, enough emotions ;). Again, thanks for the help and I'm sure I'll be around to ask many more questions as I progress in my skills. =D

junglejuice
 
Posts: 49


Post Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:42 am


Before purchasing my now zoom lens I tested the Canon 75-300, Canon 70-300is, Tamron 75-300 and the Sigma 75-300 all in the same conditions, of the same subject and same camera and just for curiosity I included the Canon 35-300L.
The results were interesting but showed that the image quality of the 75-300 vs the 70-300is Canons were chalk and cheese with the is lens quite close to the L lens, the others were quite ordinary.
So if you want a good quality lens which gives good image quality forget the cheaper lenses they are not worth it as you will want to replace it soon enough.....

Next

Board index Equipment Digital Cameras IS vs. No IS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests