Is Image Stabalization worth it?

eichert12eichert12 Registered Users Posts: 100 Major grins
edited January 9, 2008 in Accessories
I recently heard, third hand mind you, from a professional photographer that he doesn't like Image Stabalization (IS) and if the lens he's using has it he turns it off. Since getting IS on something like the 70-200 f2.8L costs several hundred dollars I was very surprised to hear this. Unfortunately, I wasn't the one who talked to him when he said it so I don't know the details of why he feels the way he does, however, it did make me start to wonder if anyone else feels the same way.

Are you a strong believer in IS? How often do you find yourself turning it off? Is it worth the extra dough that you need to put out to get it? And finally, does anyone feel the same way (or know someone who does), and if so can you explain why? :)

Cheers,
Steve

Comments

  • jdryan3jdryan3 Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
    edited January 5, 2008
    IS is used to compensate for camera/hand shake. It does nothing for 'freezing' moving objects - cars, people, etc. So if your Pro is shooting sports, for instance, he is more than likely wanting to freeze the action with no blur. A running football player, race car, whatever will have a shutterspeed at 1/200 or much faster. Fast enough that camera shake isn't an issue.

    IS has an ever so slight delay (1 sec or less). But enough that it could keep him from 'getting the shot' in a quickly changing environment.

    In flash photography, the typical shutter speed is 1/200 sec - again fast enough that IS wouldn't be needed. However, with flash where slow shutter speeds are needed to get the best ambient light, IS can be very helpful. Otherwise you get sharp well lit main subjects (flash) but blurred backgrounds due to the slow shutter speeds.

    If the Pro is shooting in a studio, he more than likely would use different (fill) lights to get the effect he wanted, rather than being dependent on the ambient light, and therefore would probably have no need for IS.

    Sooooo... IS is great if you know what it can and can't do, and when to and when not to use it. rolleyes1.gif The answer is: it depends upon what you shoot (or at least what your Pro shoots). mwink.gif
    "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
    -Fleetwood Mac
  • colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited January 5, 2008
    eichert12 wrote:
    I recently heard, third hand mind you, from a professional photographer that he doesn't like Image Stabalization (IS) and if the lens he's using has it he turns it off.

    Totally depends on how they're shooting. If on a tripod, you're supposed to turn it off. If this pro is like a pro landscape photographer, with the camera always on a tripod, I could see IS being left off all the time. But if he's a low-light handheld shooter, IS should be on, and they're missing out if it's off. I shoot handheld and I never turn it off (though I don't really qualify as a "pro" photographer either).

    There is also a chance that this pro does not understand the types of IS. Some IS has a bad reputation: EIS, or Electronic Image Stabilization, is like digital zoom: The computer steadies the image, and it's not so hot. EIS is found on cheaper video and still cameras. But the IS in high-end lenses is Optical Image Stabilization, which actually stabilizes the lens itself and can produce pro-quality results.
  • SwartzySwartzy Registered Users Posts: 3,293 Major grins
    edited January 5, 2008
    Ok....a realistic perspective
    Disclaimer: One's experience does not equate to fact. Ok, now that's out of the way...allow me to share something that may shed light on this topic.

    I'm a firm believer that IS is important if handholding for obvious reasons....camera shake or lack of it. I have several lenses which are easy to handhold as the camera isn't out of balance...so, with the rules of focal length/shutter speed I thought to do my own personal test. I'm pretty steady and have developed good handholding techniques over the years.

    The test: I put on the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and shot this lens stopped down to f/4 and keeping the shutter speed at 1/250. Should be enough to keep camera shake coming into the equation right? Then took the 28-135 IS, focusing on the exact same subject and focal length, all from 1/250 down to 1/15th. I found frame after frame after frame that the IS was better with less or very difficult to discern camera shake than that of the Tammy.

    So, my question was......so I have this ultra fast lens at f/2.8 for low light but no image stabilzation...so let's open that aperature wide and up the shutter speed...allowing more abient light. For sure one would think that at 1/500 there's no way that shot could have shake right?...wrong...a couple frames did. Ok, back to the 28-135 IS...the shots at 1/40th were by far superior than that of the 1/500 of the Tammy.

    I don't know about anyone else and you need to decide for yourself alone...as in what works for you and your style...but for me, I insist on IS because no matter how cool the light, no matter how cool the composition, no matter how cool the over all effect of the photograph, if its got camera shake, its a throw away in my book...unless I want to do some artsy thing. Better to have it in focus with no camera shake.

    Do a test for yourself and really scrutinize at 100% crop....let us know your findings.
    Swartzy:
    NAPP Member | Canon Shooter
    Weddings/Portraits and anything else that catches my eye.
    www.daveswartz.com
    Model Mayhem site http://www.modelmayhem.com/686552
  • TommyboyTommyboy Registered Users Posts: 590 Major grins
    edited January 6, 2008
    A friend of mine--who works for Canon--describes it as "life changing," and I agree. It's the single most important feature to be introduced in photography since the advent of digital.

    Never mind on a tripod or freezing action. . . . That has nothing to do with IS or why it was designed. Simply put, you can hand hold a camera/lens two or three shutter speeds lower than you used to.

    Before IS a good 20-30% of my images has some degree of motion blur. Today, I get only a handful for every 100. It's well worth the money.
    "Press the shutter when you are sure of success." —Kim Jong-il

    NEW Smugmug Site
  • rwellsrwells Registered Users Posts: 6,084 Major grins
    edited January 6, 2008
    I've shot close to 80k shots this year, and about 75k of those were with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

    I always leave the IS on. My copy does not acquire focus slower than a buddies non-IS version of the same lens, that I can tell. I've used his quite a bit also.

    Testing & real world use between these two particular lenses shows my IS lens to be sharper across the board. YMMV

    I'm a professional rodeo/sports photog, (not that this means anything), and have been exceptionally happy with spending the extra money on the IS. Why? Because not everything I shoot is moving rolleyes1.gif

    Also, when your shooting in low light and YOU are moving around alot to get the shots, or running from bulls, well, you figure it out.

    I hear/read this all the time "...if your shooting sports, it won't help"

    You buy the more expensive f/2.8 for low light shooting, but most folks don't seem to take all this into account when this IS topic is gone over. If your shooting in low light at say f/2.8 - ISO 1600/3200 - 1/200 - 1/60 and lower, your gonna need the extra help unless your on a tripod. (The newer versions sense no movement when on a "good" tripod and automatically turn the IS off anyway)

    Why spend $1200 bucks on a non-IS, then wish you had spent the extra for the IS version. I just wanted/needed to have the most capabilities available no matter what an assignment throws my way.

    I don't discount the reports that I read about the IS "sucking the life" out of your batteries, but on my rigs (30D w/battery grip - 1DMkII), I've shot 2/3 day events where each day I may take +/- 1500 shots a day. NEVER have my batteries come even close to running down. Again YMMV.


    Hope that helps...
    Randy
  • jdryan3jdryan3 Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
    edited January 6, 2008
    rwells wrote:
    Also, when your shooting in low light and YOU are moving around alot to get the shots, or running from bulls, well, you figure it out.

    I hear/read this all the time "...if your shooting sports, it won't help"

    You buy the more expensive f/2.8 for low light shooting, but most folks don't seem to take all this into account when this IS topic is gone over. If your shooting in low light at say f/2.8 - ISO 1600/3200 - 1/200 - 1/60 and lower, your gonna need the extra help unless your on a tripod. (The newer versions sense no movement when on a "good" tripod and automatically turn the IS off anyway)

    Hopefully you didn't take my comments to mean if you are shooting sports, you can't use it. :nono I was trying to explain to the OP why his Pro could be anti-IS, and the general reasons to use it and when it may not effective.

    I got the 200 prime 2 years ago and returned it for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for exactly the reasons you mentioned - my moving. I have a bad (odd?) habit of leaning in all sorts of weird postions to try and grab shots around people. I actually use it almost anytime I am at 1/125 and slower, especially at the long end. I haven't had the non-IS of the zoom or the f/4 zoom. So I can't compare it to those. Only the 200 L prime.
    "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
    -Fleetwood Mac
  • eichert12eichert12 Registered Users Posts: 100 Major grins
    edited January 6, 2008
    jdryan3 wrote:
    IS is used to compensate for camera/hand shake. It does nothing for 'freezing' moving objects - cars, people, etc. So if your Pro is shooting sports, for instance, he is more than likely wanting to freeze the action with no blur. A running football player, race car, whatever will have a shutterspeed at 1/200 or much faster. Fast enough that camera shake isn't an issue.

    I believe the pro shoots a lot of sports, particularly NASCAR, so perhaps that explains why he's not real keen on it.

    Thanks for the responses, that helps clarify things for me and re-confirms my feeling that in the majority of cases it's worth the extra dough to get IS since there are some very real scenarios where it will save a shot for you.

    Cheers,
    Steve
  • navigator72navigator72 Banned Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited January 6, 2008
    IS is great
    I use an IS lens for my aerial photography and I get great results. The vibration from the plane can be quite brutal and it helps take the shake away.
  • georgesgeorges Registered Users Posts: 138 Major grins
    edited January 6, 2008
    I realize you're talking Canon. My reply is based on my experience with Pentax shake reduction built into the K10D body.

    With SR I can reliably shoot as slow as 1/8 sec. This is up to about 200mm. From 200-300mm I get good results down to 1/15th or 1/30th sec.

    It doesn't seem to make any difference in the battery life or focus speed. It can take a fraction of a second to kick in, but the circuit goes live as soon as you half-press the shutter button. So it's active by the time I've brought the camera to my eye.

    It is extremely unlikely that I will ever buy another camera that doesn't have this feature. As I get older my hands are not as steady.

    As I said, I can't speak for the lens-based IS or VR. The Pentax body-based shake reduction works for me.
    See you later, gs

    http://georgesphotos.net
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited January 6, 2008
    The built in IS (anti-shake) was one of the reasons I bought into Konica Minolta {I knew it would be fantastic help for shooting weddings and concerts}....my first was the A2 and I took it out for a test run..hand held at night cold and windy no pod....could hand hold it at down to 2 or 3 seconds with no body move ment showing...yes it isa prosumer P/S.....but that made me move to the 7D's so all my lenses are IS'ed ll the time with out the extra cost of IS......the manuals said to shut it off when on a pod but I had to see if the camera would actually make shake as it was mentioned in the manual.....nope....in the KS winds I use my anti-shake all the time ...it is never turned off.....I have even found it useful when I went out to try and shoot RC boat races on a pod....it worked but my form sucked (forgot to do any exposure compensating for the light around the lake...but the boats were tack sharp.........
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited January 7, 2008
    IS is nice, but I'm finding I can live just fine without it. I tend to shoot is challenging light, and spent 2 years on borrowed or rental 70-200/2.8L IS lenses. Finances and circumstnaces dictated I purchase a non-IS 70-200/2.8. I have found that I really don't miss having it. The price difference paid for my UWA lens. So, now the waters are nice & muddy. :D

    Given the choice, I wouldn't turn down IS in a lens, but I don't make it a priority either. It's a nice tool to have in the box.
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    I think some just believe that if a lens has an IS, that somehow the images will be better but really, IS has mainly two specific benefits.

    It will let you hand hold upto about 3 stops of shutter speed without camera shake. This will work in relatively low light if you can't/don't want to increase the ISO. However, if you are shooting moving subjects, at about 1/60 sec or so, you will start to get softness from subject movements, even if they are moving slowly. If you are shooting non moving objects, then a tripod will surpass IS. So for landscape shooters and for shooters that shoot moving objects, the IS may not help much. However, if you are using a telephoto and shoot at a long focal length, being able to shoot a stop or so slower shutter speed will allow you to shoot at lower ISO for better image quality. IS works at all shutter speeds, but as your shutter speeds go up, it's benefits are decreased.

    The second benefit of IS is in mode 2. When you are panning for sports/moving subjects, using mode 2 allows you to cancel some of the up and down movements, allowing you to pan smoother. This may be of benefit in motorsports where you are constantly panning.

    Ironically, better you are at holding your rig steady, you get less benefit as steady shooters can often shoot at lower shutter speeds than the shutter speed rules recommend. The downsides of IS is cost. Often it's several hundred dollars. For some that's too much or for some, they would save the moeny and get a very fast prime so that they can freeze motion. The lenses with IS tend to be a bit bigger and heavier as well. Antoher thing is the use of battery power to activate the IS gyroscope mechanism. If you pann all the with the AF on, then the IS may drain a significant amount of power. The AF button has to be half pressed for a split second to let the IS settle in. So you cannot just quickly press the shutter speed and get the IS to work.

    Also the IS element makes very small moments to compensate for shakes, so if you are moving a lot, it cannot compensate for that. Some have said that they get benefits when shooting from a vehicle, but reading my Canon 18-55mm IS lens manual states that the IS does not work in compensating shakes for a vibrating vehicles.

    So it's a very personal decision based more on shooting needs. It would be wonderful if it was free but unfortunately it can cost a little like in the case of the new 18-55mm IS kit lens, about$70, to about $500 or so in the case of the 70-200mm zooms.

    So one has to make a decision how much they think the IS is worth for their needs and buy accordingly.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    I tried a 24-105 L IS for the first time in Glacier this year...& ive just bought one. Its that good & i was always quite scepticle of them. I also hand hold a lot of low light stuff.

    My next lens is the 70-200 f4 L IS. Im about 1/3 way saved for it now.
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    Ironically, better you are at holding your rig steady, you get less benefit as steady shooters can often shoot at lower shutter speeds than the shutter speed rules recommend. The downsides of IS is cost. Often it's several hundred dollars. For some that's too much or for some, they would save the moeny and get a very fast prime so that they can freeze motion. The lenses with IS tend to be a bit bigger and heavier as well. Antoher thing is the use of battery power to activate the IS gyroscope mechanism. If you pann all the with the AF on, then the IS may drain a significant amount of power. The AF button has to be half pressed for a split second to let the IS settle in. So you cannot just quickly press the shutter speed and get the IS to work.

    I think that's why I am happy living without it. I've developed pretty good technique over the past couple of years, so IS is of small overall benefit for me. In my use of IS lenses I honestly have not noticed any significant additional power drain on my batteries.

    What this all boils down to is each of us needs to evaluate how much we really need the IS and is the cost & weight worth it. It really isn't as simple as "just get the IS when it's an option" as some seem to believe.
  • ChuckMChuckM Registered Users Posts: 53 Big grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    Not to muddy the waters but I have a somewhat related question...

    What about L vs IS? Say you're somebody like me relatively knew (inexperienced) currently shooting non-L non-IS lenses. What would be the better bang for the buck with an upgrade? (Assuming IS is something that would be useful to my shots... low light, etc.)

    I ask becasue i currently use the kit lens and the 55-200 Canon USM lens. I don't think either would be described as "good" optics.

    Thanks.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    ChuckM wrote:
    Not to muddy the waters but I have a somewhat related question...

    What about L vs IS? Say you're somebody like me relatively knew (inexperienced) currently shooting non-L non-IS lenses. What would be the better bang for the buck with an upgrade? (Assuming IS is something that would be useful to my shots... low light, etc.)

    I ask becasue i currently use the kit lens and the 55-200 Canon USM lens. I don't think either would be described as "good" optics.

    Thanks.

    Honestly without following you about looking at the light you have...distance...subject, no-one can answer that for you. Just hire one & see what it produces for you or if your out with some people with one then give it a try for a few photos. Im sure you will be quite amazed.

    Im a 'dyed in the wool' prime guy with a 135 f2 but after just 2 days with a 24-105 zoom L IS i can see what they are about. If you can afford one then you should have one.
  • ChuckMChuckM Registered Users Posts: 53 Big grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    gus wrote:
    Honestly without following you about looking at the light you have...distance...subject, no-one can answer that for you. Just hire one & see what it produces for you or if your out with some people with one then give it a try for a few photos. Im sure you will be quite amazed.

    Im a 'dyed in the wool' prime guy with a 135 f2 but after just 2 days with a 24-105 zoom L IS i can see what they are about. If you can afford one then you should have one.
    Thanks. I appreciate the honesty. I understand it could have been one of those "it depends" questions.
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    The second benefit of IS is in mode 2. When you are panning for sports/moving subjects, using mode 2 allows you to cancel some of the up and down movements, allowing you to pan smoother. This may be of benefit in motorsports where you are constantly panning.
    Bingo!
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    ChuckM wrote:
    Not to muddy the waters but I have a somewhat related question...

    What about L vs IS? Say you're somebody like me relatively knew (inexperienced) currently shooting non-L non-IS lenses. What would be the better bang for the buck with an upgrade? (Assuming IS is something that would be useful to my shots... low light, etc.)

    I ask becasue i currently use the kit lens and the 55-200 Canon USM lens. I don't think either would be described as "good" optics.

    Thanks.

    L just means "luxury" which is Canon's way to denote professional grade lenses. IS is just IS, a specific feature and really doesn't denote that a lens is good or better or anything.

    L lenses have a very rugged build with USM AF motors that are very quiet and fast. Many have weather seals as well. They are mainly intended for daily use by professionals but are also enjoyed by enthusiasts for it's optics and better build quality.

    If you are going with Canon's, then an upgrades choices I'd consider for the Kit lens is a 18-55mm f1.5-5.6 IS for about $175 or a 17-55mm f2.8 IS for about $950. Canon does not make L lenses for EF-S mount.

    For the 55-200 lens, the new 55-250mm IS may be a good option. Other lens to consider is a 70-200 f4L for just under $600.
  • ChuckMChuckM Registered Users Posts: 53 Big grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    L just means "luxury" which is Canon's way to denote professional grade lenses. IS is just IS, a specific feature and really doesn't denote that a lens is good or better or anything.

    L lenses have a very rugged build with USM AF motors that are very quiet and fast. Many have weather seals as well. They are mainly intended for daily use by professionals but are also enjoyed by enthusiasts for it's optics and better build quality.

    If you are going with Canon's, then an upgrades choices I'd consider for the Kit lens is a 18-55mm f1.5-5.6 IS for about $175 or a 17-55mm f2.8 IS for about $950. Canon does not make L lenses for EF-S mount.

    For the 55-200 lens, the new 55-250mm IS may be a good option. Other lens to consider is a 70-200 f4L for just under $600.
    Thanks Tee Why. I appreciate the info. It's nice to have a starting place as I start to think about upgrading lenses.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited January 8, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    L just means "luxury" which is Canon's way to denote professional grade lenses. IS is just IS, a specific feature and really doesn't denote that a lens is good or better or anything.

    L lenses have a very rugged build with USM AF motors that are very quiet and fast. Many have weather seals as well. They are mainly intended for daily use by professionals but are also enjoyed by enthusiasts for it's optics and better build quality.

    If you are going with Canon's, then an upgrades choices I'd consider for the Kit lens is a 18-55mm f1.5-5.6 IS for about $175 or a 17-55mm f2.8 IS for about $950. Canon does not make L lenses for EF-S mount.

    For the 55-200 lens, the new 55-250mm IS may be a good option. Other lens to consider is a 70-200 f4L for just under $600.

    Actually, any of Canon's L lenses will work just fine on Canon's crop body DSLRs ( EF-S mount ) like the 40D, 30D, xTi, etc. I shoot L lenses on my 40D routinely. The EF-S mount lenses will NOT work on other Canon DSLRs like the 1DMklll or the 1DsMklll or the 1DsMkll or the 5D.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    pathfinder wrote:
    Actually, any of Canon's L lenses will work just fine on Canon's crop body DSLRs ( EF-S mount ) like the 40D, 30D, xTi, etc. I shoot L lenses on my 40D routinely. The EF-S mount lenses will NOT work on other Canon DSLRs like the 1DMklll or the 1DsMklll or the 1DsMkll or the 5D.
    I think what he meant to say was that Canon doesn't make any L lenses that are EF-S mounts. All L-glass is EF mount, which of course works on an EF-S mount as well.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    mercphoto wrote:
    I think what he meant to say was that Canon doesn't make any L lenses that are EF-S mounts. All L-glass is EF mount, which of course works on an EF-S mount as well.
    Exactly.
  • evorywareevoryware Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited January 8, 2008
    I don't have it on my 70-200 and don't find I need it down to about 1/100. But typically I can shoot with it at 1/200 or faster.
    My 28-135, the IS is always on unless it's on a tripod. It kicks in very quick.
    Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358

    dak.smugmug.com
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2008
    Tee Why wrote:
    If you are going with Canon's, then an upgrades choices I'd consider for the Kit lens is a 18-55mm f1.5-5.6 IS for about $175 or a 17-55mm f2.8 IS for about $950. Canon does not make L lenses for EF-S mount.
    FWIW - My EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is, IMO, an "L" in sheep's clothing. I have the 24-105 f/4L and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS to compare against and the 17-55 holds it's own. I've read some people to say that the 17-55 would be an "L" if it were on an EF mount instead of an EF-S. I love my 17-55!
  • rpcrowerpcrowe Registered Users Posts: 733 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2008
    Definitely worth it - especially in longer focal lengths
    IS, especially the newer generation IS is a great addition to a lens, especially a telephoto lens. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens 3-4x more often than I ever used the non-IS model of this lens. That is because the IS allows me to hand hold the lens at much slower shutter speeds than I could effectively hold the non-IS version.

    I can shoot using 200mm at 1/60 second with absolute certainty that camera shake will not spoil my image. I have a smaller percentage (but still a very respectable percentage) of keepers using 1/30 second. I do not hesitate to use this lens at 200mm with a 1/30 second shutter speed. I just shoot some additional images to make up for the few that might be spoiled by camera shake.

    Contrast this with the non-IS model of this lens at 200mm. I have a hard time hand-holding that lens steady at 1/200 second - especially if the day is somewhat windy. At 1/60 second, the images would be nearly unuseable due to camera shake.

    The IS on my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is not quite as critical for steady shots because of the shorter focal lengths involved. However, the IS combined with the f/2.8 aperture (which is pretty darn sharp wide open) makes this lens a very effective available light glass. In fact, I am considering the sale of my 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I lens because I so seldom use it since I got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.
  • SloYerRollSloYerRoll Registered Users Posts: 2,788 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2008
    Bottom line.
    Yes, it's worth it.
Sign In or Register to comment.