Wildlife in action is the IS worth it?

ChadinStPete

I am debating between the 300 f/4 L IS or non? I have read all the reviews of but I want to hear your experiences, especially those who have shot with both. With this lens I will be shooting mostly wildlife in action so is it worth it to spring for the IS?

thanks,
chad

Ric Grupe

ChadinStPete wrote:

is it worth it to spring for the IS?

YES.

kdog

Ric's ultimately right of course; IS is better because it allows you to get decent shots in bad light. It can be shut off, so there's little downside to having it (one extra optical element, I think.)

However, if money is a factor, then the decision becomes more complex. You mentioned your shooting style is "wildlife in action". Pretty much any action requires a decent shutterspeed anyway, so IS doesn't buy you a whole lot there. As long as you're shooting that lens at say 1/800 or faster, you can get away without IS. In fact, you can go a lot slower that this without IS if you have a steady hand or a tripod. No IS means one less thing to break, and at least one less optical element.

However, if you're interested in zoo shooting, then you definitely want IS. You can't believe how bad the light is in zoos, and IS works extremely well in zoos because the animals don't move a whole lot.

Cheers,
-joel

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

if you have a steady hand

Therein lies the rub! Big if.:D

I have a 70-200 f/4 that I never use...because wildlife is the most active in low light. I wish I could because that lens takes wonderful images.

ChadinStPete

Ric Grupe wrote:

Therein lies the rub! Big if.:D

I have a 70-200 f/4 that I never use...because wildlife is the most active in low light. I wish I could because that lens takes wonderful images.

thanks guys, Im still torn- more to break and more money but will get some good shots that would be impossible w/o (vs.) cheaper and will do most of the time?

I have a 70-200 F/4 that I can shoot with in decently low light so I guess i have a pretty steady hand if that helps. I also have a good monopod that I dont mind using. I can even get good shot in crappy light with sig. 170-500 when using that.

Ric Grupe

If you can handle the 70-200 in low light, then the 300 without IS may be useable for you. However, I find that the 300 isn't long enough most of the time...so I use it with the 1.4 tc which works great...but I wouldn't want to do it handheld without IS.

Sounds to me like you should strongly consider the 400 f/5.6. A great lens that lacks IS but has the reach and great tack sharp images if you can avoid motion blur.

Maestro

I suppose it depends. I know that is the cop-out answer. I have the Canon 100-400mm IS that I primarily use for BIFs and it takes awesome shots that I otherwise would not be able to get because of my horribly shaky hands (too much caffeine in the morning ) and in low light it is nice as well.

However, I do have a nice tripod that I pair with my Sigma 500mm prime. The Siggy does not have the IS, but it is not needed with the steady tripod. So if you don't mind lugging around some extra pounds, you might be able to save some money although any extra money I saved when purchasing the lens, I put into the tripod.

ChadinStPete

thanks everyone well b&h made the choice easy for me by putting up the non-is for 499!