netspots wrote:
How low of a shutter speed do you think an "average" person can get with IS? Not a 15 year old, but someone that bought 8-track tapes when they were 15.
I'm still wondering how important IS really is, since I've never used IS before.
IS is a nice luxury. When I am shooting with my IS lenses, I can relax a lot more and generally just focus on shutter speed and aperture. Not shutter speed, aperture, and focal length. It is hard to describe, but what I am trying to say is that the feature takes some pressure off the photographer and makes taking pictures easier. Of course it also improves the sharpness of your photos. It is a big deal to me. It is even more important with a lens like this 70-200 where you really need to keep shutter speeds up without IS.
The last thing anyone should be doing is chastising these "kids" for spending their money on lenses, a lot of their peers are spending it on crack and pot
JFB318 wrote:
The last thing anyone should be doing is chastising these "kids" for spending their money on lenses, a lot of their peers are spending it on crack and pot???
No they'll buy pot but will have to sell their lenses to buy crack LOL
UCSB wrote:
IS is a nice luxury. When I am shooting with my IS lenses, I can relax a lot more and generally just focus on shutter speed and aperture. Not shutter speed, aperture, and focal length. It is hard to describe, but what I am trying to say is that the feature takes some pressure off the photographer and makes taking pictures easier. Of course it also improves the sharpness of your photos. It is a big deal to me. It is even more important with a lens like this 70-200 where you really need to keep shutter speeds up without IS. ...Show more →
That sounds pretty convincing. I think I'm sold on IS.
Now I just need to decide between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-300 non-DO IS.
netspots wrote:
That sounds pretty convincing. I think I'm sold on IS.
Now I just need to decide between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-300 non-DO IS.
If you can go down and look at these two lenses it would be a good idea. They are really different from a users perspective ... night and day. Two distinctly different ways to go. There is no right answer, it comes down to your personal perferrences.
UCSB wrote:
If you can go down and look at these two lenses it would be a good idea. They are really different from a users perspective ... night and day.
Will do. Thanks! But can you give me an idea of what you mean?
I hadn't used IS seriously until a trip to France a couple months ago. I bought the 17-55f2.8 IS as a walk around lens on a rebel. After about 10 images I was sold. It let me take pictures in Notre Dame Cathedral in the alcoves by candlelight. 1/6 of a second handheld at the 17mm end. Missed 2/10 due to camera shake, one more probably couldn't go larger than a 5x7. The remaining 7 could take an 11x14 enlargment without any problem.
The interesting thing is that the limiting factor rapidly becomes the subjects movement, rather than camera shake.
I'd be interested to try it in a mid-range length, like somewhere between 100 and 200mm. I just got the 400, but haven't had time to test it extensively yet.
I have to say that I'm quite excited by the things IS lets me do.
JFB318 wrote:
The last thing anyone should be doing is chastising these "kids" for spending their money on lenses, a lot of their peers are spending it on crack and pot
netspots wrote:
Will do. Thanks! But can you give me an idea of what you mean?
The 70-200 lens is internal focus and very solidly built. The controls are very smooth. Focus is very fast and quite. I love lenses like this myself. They are a pleasure to use. The 70-300 takes nice pictures and it is light weight. But, AF seemed clunky to me, the barrel entends way out when zooming. Build quality was cheaper than any lens I own and just a little too cheap for my tastes. For IQ distinctions, you may want to consult the reviews, but I thought the contrast and color on the 70-200 was nicer. Can't go wrong with either, but from a users perspective they really seemed different to me.
