I like the Canon DSLR's because IS is built Into the lens unlike Nikon is built Into the camera but both cam's are very well made products. It just my choice for the Canon as I have been using them for more then 40 years.

I guess I'm just old school. I like fast, single focal length lens best. Nothing wrong with IS lens other than being all zooms that I am aware of and slow. If the manufactures get smart, they would make a fast 35mm, 50mm, & 85mm F2+ with the IS. Then I would be interested.

Thay make a very noticeable difference.

I don't have the steadiest hands, so it helps out a lot when needed.

I have one IS lens but haven't noticed what the differences are.

It is important on long lenses, over 200mm. On shorter lenses it's not very important.

IS is valuable, especially for travel photography!

I have it on several lenses, but I never turn it on. I don't think my pictures are as sharp when I use it.

The stabilization built into my Sony (and previously Minolta and Konica/Minolta) bodies does the trick. Another trick, though, is that three-legged photo assistant—the tripod!

I shoot sports, mainly baseball, hockey ,soccer, and golf, an IS lens is not something I want or ever need. Would not help me at all but the added weight would hinder my work.

I generally am more concerned re subject movement in low light lever situations than I am about camera movement.

IS is important but is only one of (not the only) the factors I consider in whether to purchase a particular lens.

Not a problem for Pentax owners. All those "heritage" lenses - back to the original Tukamars now have IS.

I have worked for over 40 years and have never felt the need for IS. I have a couple of L-series lenses that have it but I don't really use it much anyway.

Definitely helps- I do a lot of available light and birds flying. Both benefit greatly.

Its helped in situations where hand holding alone would not work - I love it.

Gotta have it!

The larger physical size and weight of the new DSLR cameras and lenses plus the focal length multiplier created by the smaller-than-standard 35mm sensors, these cameras have become unwieldy and IS technology has become very important. With the ability to turn off IS (especially when tripod mounted) IS should be an important consideration in any lens purchase.

Image stabalizing technology has substantially improved my ability to obtain great images even as an relative novice.

I have hand tremors so it is very important.

I can shoot with my Nikkor 18-200 VR II IS at 1/30 and still feel secure in the knowledge that there will be a solid, stable image. It is no longer a gamble.

Any lens that includes magnifications equal to a "Normal" lens to longer focal length must have IS in my estimation.

Comment applies to general purpose standard and fast telephoto zooms only. I would buy wideangle zooms and most (shorter) primes only WITHOUT IS feature.

I use my Canon EF 24-70L sparingly because it does not have stabilization. The older I get the more I need the stabilization.

I buy only lenses with image stabilization in them.

This is very important to me. This is particularly true as my age increases.

Higher ISOs now available make larger apertures less important.

Its either you have a camera with IS built in or a lens with IS built in, that has proven to very useful in times of grab a quick shot. But it does have its limits.

Vibration reduction is not a game changer for me. First I go for quality, then speed, then Vibration Reduction if I have money left over.

My hands aren't as steady as they should be, so having IS on my lens is extremely helpful for me.