IS verus No-IS

[Tom B.]

Hello,

I had a conversation with a sales guy the other day on whether IS (Canon) is worth the extra $$ when looking at a new lens...I personally think getting the IS feature is worth it as it can be a safety net if a tripod is not available or one has issues while hand-holding at slow shutter speeds. The salesman thinks that if you really know what you are doing, that it might not ne necessary to pay for the IS...

So, I am asking all of you to add your thoughts on this: Is Image Stabilization worth the extra $$?

(In this case, the discussion was based on the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS USM...)

Thanks Everyone!!

Tom B...

[bob_r]

Tom,

I'm a big fan of IS. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a heavy lens and towards the end of the day you'll notice an increase in your keeper percentage if you have it. I had the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS and may have actually kept it if it had IS.
It is a big deal. This was taken handheld just before sunrise with a 100-400 rather than a 70-200. There's no way I could have shot this at those settings without IS.
BTW, the new version will be released soon, so now is an excellent time to get the last of the current stock. You'll easily be able to recoup your money if you should decide to sell it later.

Canon 30D- Canon 100-400 - 1/30s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400

[Tom B.]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the reply...I appreciate the input...I do agree with you...I know when I get a bit tired or have been hiking, camera shake increases!

With the new 2.8 IS 70-200 USM II coming out, Canon will only be making that and their current NON-IS 2.8 70-200...The cost on the new upgrade will be in the $2500 range...

Nice shot by the way...

Thanks...

Tom B.

[gldiana]

I would have lost 50% or more of my evening/night shots in Japan without the IS of my 24-105 L