IS or no IS?

mushy

I'm hoping someone can shed some light for me...
I can purchase today a 100-300 EF f/4 - 5.6 USM, or can hold out another 4-6 weeks and pay half again for 70-300 EF f/4 - 5.6 USM IS.
Any opinions on which way to go would be appreciated.
or should i be looking outside the Canon range of lenses altogether?

pmccurdy

Is
Suggestion: Go to a dealer in Canon lenses. Put the IS lens on your camera and zoom in all the way on something, holding the camera freehand with IS turned off. Let the camera autofocus, then let off on the shutter.

Now watch the bottom of the viewfinder and see how it bounces around on the subject. Turn IS on. Autofocus again and hold (thus kicking in IS). See the difference?

I've shot pix with my 100-400 IS, with a 2x multiplier (x1.6 for APS sensor = ~1300mm) freehand that, while not crystal clear, were passable.

I'm a big believer in IS, but try it at a camera store and decide for yourself.

Regards,

Patrick

robscomputer

I have used my 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens with the IS turned on and off for about 1000 photos. My personal feeling is that IS allows you to hand hold without a tripod. For example if your using a slow shutter speed without any tripod typically you can still have a sharp photo even 2 or 3 stops below the recommended hand holding limit.

Here's two photos I took when I just received my IS lens.

IS turned off, 1/8 second, hand held, 200mm (320mm with 1.6x).



IS turned on, 1/8 second, hand held, 200mm (320mm 1.6x).



As you can see, it's a huge difference and in some cases will be your only solution since a tripod is not available. Another nice feature with IS is the mode 2, where it will help with panning of a subject. I don't think this feature is as nice as just regular mode 1 but still helpful.

As a side note, with IS you also run the possible chance of more problems with the lens since there is a gyroscope, extra motors in the lens. If you need a lens that will work 99.999% of the time then I would not recommend a IS lens. Just in the few months of light use with mine, I had about 5 lockups (error 99) mostly when using the 1.4x converter. If you do a search you'll find many references to this problem. While it's nothing major, you just needed to remove the lens then connected it back to the camera.

Either way, I like IS or VR lenses. I wish they would offer a 10-22mm lens with IS, that would be great!

Rob

Khaos

That 99 err is more towards the 70-200 2.8 IS than it is to IS.
I have a 300 f4 IS that has never given me an err with IS always on. I've also not heard much of this issue with other IS lenses like the 70-200f4 or 28-135, etc.

The 70-200 2.8 seems to have a comm issue between the lens and the camera sometimes. Simply removing the battery and placing it back resolves it. It is erratic, and overall hasn't really been a problem.

I leave IS on always.

ian408

Depends (doesn't it always?).

If you're shooting high shutter speeds (i.e; bright light), no IS required. But once
you drop below around 1/250, IS becomes invaluable.

I shoot surf with a 500 on a monopod. IS off/IS on. Not much difference because
shutter speeds are almost always above 1/1000. So I say unless you need it, turn
it off (it sure drains the camera battery quick with a 500). Not to mention the cost
it adds to the lens.

I'd get the 70-300. Most people around here seem to like them.

Ian

mushy

Thankyou all heaps for your invaluable input, my heads still spinning but since i plan on lots of outdoor daytime sports and nature photography as long as the lights good it sounds like i can get away without. plus from what i can work out most of the time for what i shot i'd like higher shutter speeds than 1/250 where IS becomes helpful.

ian408

mushy wrote:

plus from what i can work out most of the time for what i shot i'd like higher shutter speeds than 1/250 where IS becomes helpful.

The speed at which IS becomes helpful depend on the lens and amount of
light. Just want to clarify that. My suggestion was based more on the 70-200.

Ian

mushy

ian408 wrote:

The speed at which IS becomes helpful depend on the lens and amount of
light. Just want to clarify that. My suggestion was based more on the 70-200.

Ian

Having just been to a few shops I am getting the gist of it I think. My new lens preference is the 70-300 f4-5.6 USM IS.
Cheers also for the clarification i won't go blaming you or anybody else for trying to do sports shots at dusk and wondering why they didn't come out too good

ian408

mushy wrote:

Having just been to a few shops I am getting the gist of it I think. My new lens preference is the 70-300 f4-5.6 USM IS.
Cheers also for the clarification i won't go blaming you or anybody else for trying to do sports shots at dusk and wondering why they didn't come out too good

No worries. Come on back when you get glass and we'll try and help then
too.

Ian

mushy

ian408 wrote:

No worries. Come on back when you get glass and we'll try and help then
too.

Ian

last question before i go shopping I promise, one store has a 70-300 f4-5.6 USM IS DO (diffractive optics) lens second hand but unused, are they worth the extra dollars for the quality of glass?

Chase

mushy wrote:

last question before i go shopping I promise, one store has a 70-300 f4-5.6 USM IS DO (diffractive optics) lens second hand but unused, are they worth the extra dollars for the quality of glass?

I have heard from people that the DO has worse optics. The only advantage is the smaller and lighter lens that results from using diffractive optics.