Forums
Home » Forums » Digital SLRs » Canon User Group
2 replies [Last post]
mkf's picture
Submitted By: mkf
Location: Newfoundland and Labrador , Canada
Joined: Sep 4 2006
Posts:
Is IS worth the extra cost?
Posted: November 12, 2006 - 3:14pm

I am still trying to decide on my next lense. One issue that comes up with a number of people I speak with - including my local retailer - is the added cost of IS. While I have it on my 17 -85 canon lense, my only experience without it is on my 50mm lense. That's not a real test.

For those of you out there who have used a big zoom lense with and without IS; does it really make a diference and is it worth the additional cost?

Thanks for helping out.

Top
jadphoto1's picture
Submitted By: jadphoto1
Joined: Nov 14 2006
Posts:
#1
Re: Is IS worth the extra cost?
Posted: November 16, 2006 - 9:57am

I use IS regularly while shooting birds and marine mamals from a kayak. It is definetly worth the extra expense. I have three IS lenses (28-135mm, 70-200, and 300) and frequently add a tele-extender to the 70-200mm or 300mm while shooting birds from the boat.

Obviously from a kayak a tripod is not an option so IS makes the difference.

I also know several professional nature or sports shooters and they all rely on IS in their work.

Go for it, you won't be sorry.

Joe D.

Top
Tumak's picture
Submitted By: Tumak
Joined: Nov 30 2006
Posts:
#2
Re: Is IS worth the extra cost?
Posted: November 30, 2006 - 1:00pm

100-400, I love it. 70-200 2.8, might be a luxury, I don't know. I would probably pass there. Remember, speed stops action, IS only contributes by allowing slower speeds. Oh, and dragging a tripod around on Mt Evans 14,000 feet all day can be a pain.

Top

 

  •  
  •