Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
1/4/2007 2:39:25 PM EDT
Yes, more inane questions from me.
As I ponder plunking down multiple K on camera stuff, how important/how useful is the Image Stabilization feature?
how often do you find yourself using it?  For the L series, is it worth the scratch?
For example, I look at the 70-200 2.8 and figure I won't use it that often unless with a tripod/monopod, with a flash or outdoors with good lighting, which negates the IS (doesn't it?)?  I like it as a general purpose portrait lense and with a 1.4 a little wildlife action.  Doesn't the 2.8 provide enough light to give you what you want?
Just curious
1/4/2007 4:03:51 PM EDT
[#1]
almost all of my lenses have it but I rarely use it.

it sucks battery power too. that might matter if you spend a lot of time in the field.

(the canon manuals say that using a tripod turns off IS, but I don't see how it possibly could. There's no connection between the collar and the lens on the 70-200)
1/4/2007 4:50:04 PM EDT
[#2]
As I understand it, the IS measures the amount of shake and if it is low it assumes a tripod and shuts off.
I really am not seeing the cost benefit but some reviewers really speak highly of it but I can't see myself using it 95% of the time (if not more)
1/5/2007 10:39:39 AM EDT
[#3]
IS allows you to haldhold longer exposures then you normally could.  I have heard reports that some IS lenses give you as much as 3 stops of extra exposure (8 times brighter) without camera shake blur.

Obviously if your subject is moving then you can't use IS to get a clearer picture.  IS only corrects the photographer's shake.

On long lenses I would think it is important.  I used to have to crank down exposure times by a stop or two when going from a 50mm lens to a 135mm lens.  That would limit my light to only 1/125th or 1/250th at most.  If you need the light, it helps to have your extra stops of light gathering.
1/7/2007 5:47:42 PM EDT
[#4]
I couldn't live without IS (well, I guess I could, but I wouldn't want to).  For weddings, the IS of the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 let me shoot the ceremony without flash (with the exception of processional / recessional... IS doesn't help with moving targets).  The 70-200 in particular comes in very handy when I banished to the back of the church, and I also use it almost exclusively to shoot the medical conventions I do a couple of times a year.

In short, if you're shooting low-light where the subjects aren't moving much, IS is a godsend.

--Mike
1/7/2007 7:16:40 PM EDT
[#5]
I will probably get it on the 70-200 but go for the extra stop on the 24-70 instead of the 24-105
thanks for the replies.