Jump to content
IS v's non IS
2 replies to this topic
Posted 17 March 2008 - 08:11 AM
I have been doing a bit of reading lately about IS (Image Stabiliser) v's non IS and I was just wanting some *real* opinions.
Who here has an IS lens? What is it? And do you feel the IS was worth the extra $$?
DH and I have our eyes on the 70-200 f2.8 L, though we can't decide if we pay the extra for the IS or not. We have felt the non IS version and it was ok, but it is hard to judge a 5 min hold to a few hours out on a shoot.
Anyways, I am going on now any opinions? ideas? suggestions?
Posted 17 March 2008 - 09:40 AM
I have just bought the IS version of the 70-200mm... and know that most who have it also think it is vital. But I have seen pros using the other versions and I know of a few that bought without IS, didn't like it and returned it for the f2.8 IS... doesn't help you much does it?
I think it comes down to the fact that the lens is so long and heavy that IS is certainly big help WRT keeping it steady etc. If you have the money, I would get it.
Posted 17 March 2008 - 09:44 AM
I bought the f4 with IS over the f2.8 without IS. Those two are approximately the same price (about $1000 cheaper than the 2.8 IS).
On such a long (& heavy) lens the IS is really good idea.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Top 5 Viewed Articles