Is the IS worth it on 70-200mm f/2.8L

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Since my DSLR body has anti-shake in it ... all my lenses benefit, and I
have no lenses slower than f/2.8.

Cheers,
Alan


My new paradigm will also be no lens slower than f/2.8. I will be selling my
17-85 lens eventually. Its a great lens but I need faster glass. I will
certainly miss the focal length coverage.

FWIW, I dont think Canon will ever put the IS technology in the camera, its
too lucrative to keep it in the lens. They made an extra $500 off me just
for the IS on one lens.

Musty.

Musty wrote:
FWIW, I dont think Canon will ever put the IS technology in the camera, its
too lucrative to keep it in the lens. They made an extra $500 off me just
for the IS on one lens.

Their margin on the add'l $500 is probably near 0 when R&D is
considered. OTOH it helps them sell lenses that already have a high
margin. Kinda like a finsished basement in a house. It helps sell the
house but does not increase the value of the house more than the
material invested.

From what I've heard from within the CDN DND Canon's military
binoculars are not selling well at all with the same technology, as
other suppliers have better stab. So that $500 is not getting the money
back they've invested for broad pusposes.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Musty" wrote in message
...

"Lester Wareham" wrote in message
...

"Musty" wrote in message
...
Hi All,

I have decided to make the step up to an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L for my 20D.
The only choice I need to make at this point is to decided if I need
the
IS version (which adds about $500 to the already high cost). I've
searched
the web quite bit and I read varied reviews. Anyone wish to shed some
light on whether the IS is worth it?

Note:
- I am not a pro : just a lowly hobby photographer
- Many of my shots _will_ be handheld, but generally a tri-pod will
accompany me if required
- Most of my shooting will be of still objects (no sports)
- Money is not a huge issue, but anything saved can be used for a prime
or
flash or whatever other toy. In other words I dont really want to spend
the extra $500 if I dont absolutely have to

Thanks
Musty.

I would think so, just to cancel out the arm tremble just holding the
brut
up!! grin

I suggest you start working on the wieght lifting straight away.

Lester



I have been weight lifting for 6 years, so hopefully that will minimize
tremble! I realize that IS helps, I was just wondering if its a big help
or
that the non-IS version is very limited to well-lit shooting.

Thanks
musty


I can't offer (serious) advice as I don't have any IS lenses but they seem
to work well.

People who have them seem to like them, try
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is.html.

Lester

PS Keep up the wieghtlifting.

"Michael Meissner" wrote in message
...
"Musty" writes:

Hi All,

I have decided to make the step up to an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L for my 20D.
The
only choice I need to make at this point is to decided if I need the IS
version (which adds about $500 to the already high cost). I've searched
the
web quite bit and I read varied reviews. Anyone wish to shed some light
on
whether the IS is worth it?

Note:
- I am not a pro : just a lowly hobby photographer
- Many of my shots _will_ be handheld, but generally a tri-pod will
accompany me if required
- Most of my shooting will be of still objects (no sports)
- Money is not a huge issue, but anything saved can be used for a prime
or
flash or whatever other toy. In other words I dont really want to spend
the
extra $500 if I dont absolutely have to

If a tripod is an acceptable option (it isn't for many people who like
shooting
hand held, and in some venues outright forbidden), than you don't need IS.
Similarly, if you can guarantee that you will have enough light to achieve
a
shutter speed of 1/320 second, you likely won't notice not having IS. If
on
the other hand, you might have the lens wide open, and still only doing
1/60
second hand held, you would want IS.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

An interesting point is Canon put IS on some of the big telephotos that
wiegh 2.5Kg or so.

I heard a report that the IS works even on a tripod to damp down wind
vibration movement.

On the other hand my understanding is the IS system switches off on a tripod
because it needs some movement to operate correctly and not drift.

Anyone know the truth in all this?

Lester

In message ,
"Toby" wrote:

The IS version apparently will allow you to handhold shots 2 speeds lower
with the same amount of shake. You have to decide if that is worth the cost
to you.

I think the gain is mainly in low-frequency shake, at least on the older
generations of IS. High-frequency jitter is still there, but blurs over
a smaller area. This means that if you can hand-hold an IS lens at
1/100, you won't necessarily be able to hand-hold it at 1/280 with a
1.4x and 2x TC stacked; the high-frequency jitter now effectively
becomes low-frequency jitter, covering many pixels.
--


John P Sheehy