Just picked up a Canon 40D with the kit lens, 28-135mm, and wanting to pick up another lens here soon. Im thinking I would like to get a little more zoomed lens for a second lens.
So, my question is how important or how significant is Image Stabilizer on the lenses? I mean is there that much of a difference between a lens with IS and non IS?
I always thought (after shooting for 16 years) that Image Stabilization was a 'gimmick' with limited use...then I purchased the 70-200IS...now I wonder how I EVER managed a descent pic without it! Made a believer out of me for sure!
It's a great boon for some conditions. If you always shoot in bright light or with a solid tripod, or you shoot lots of fast action, you won't benefit from IS as much as if you shot stationary subjects handheld in dimmer lighting.
You get more keepers with IS in low light situation if you need to shoot handheld with smaller aperture. If you don't need to, I'd pick a faster lens (1.2-1.8) before an IS lens as it also drains your battery faster.
Twb0038 wrote:
Just picked up a Canon 40D with the kit lens, 35-128mm, and wanting to pick up another lens here soon. Im thinking I would like to get a little more zoomed lens for a second lens.
So, my question is how important or how significant is Image Stabilizer on the lenses? I mean is there that much of a difference between a lens with IS and non IS?
Trevor
There is a significant difference between IS and non-IS lenses but it's importance to you depends on what type of photography you intend to pursue. You really need to know what IS does and then apply that to the kind of shooting you intend to do. IS, in and of itself, will not make a lens better, or deliver better images. What it will do is make it possible to capture some images in very low light conditions that you would not be able to capture without it. Using fast aperture prime lenses (non-zoom lenses with maximum aperture values of smaller than f2.8) is another way to shoot in low light.
Unless you're sure you'll need IS I'd say hold off on the next lens purchase for a while. If you don't need IS the non-IS lens will save you money as well as being smaller and lighter. The zoom that came with your camera has a pretty versatile range. Get to know it well and it's limitations will tell you what kind of lens you need next. If you really want to buy another piece of glass right away, why not try an inexpensive fast prime? The 50mm f1.8 Mk II will show you what a really sharp Canon lens can do for less than $100.
WmPat wrote:
There is a significant difference between IS and non-IS lenses but it's importance to you depends on what type of photography you intend to pursue. You really need to know what IS does and then apply that to the kind of shooting you intend to do. IS, in and of itself, will not make a lens better, or deliver better images. What it will do is make it possible to capture some images in very low light conditions that you would not be able to capture without it. Using fast aperture prime lenses (non-zoom lenses with maximum aperture values of smaller than f2.8) is another way to shoot in low light.
Unless you're sure you'll need IS I'd say hold off on the next lens purchase for a while. If you don't need IS the non-IS lens will save you money as well as being smaller and lighter. The zoom that came with your camera has a pretty versatile range. Get to know it well and it's limitations will tell you what kind of lens you need next. If you really want to buy another piece of glass right away, why not try an inexpensive fast prime? The 50mm f1.8 Mk II will show you what a really sharp Canon lens can do for less than $100. ...Show more →
WmPat wrote:
There is a significant difference between IS and non-IS lenses but it's importance to you depends on what type of photography you intend to pursue. You really need to know what IS does and then apply that to the kind of shooting you intend to do. IS, in and of itself, will not make a lens better, or deliver better images. What it will do is make it possible to capture some images in very low light conditions that you would not be able to capture without it. Using fast aperture prime lenses (non-zoom lenses with maximum aperture values of smaller than f2.8) is another way to shoot in low light.
Unless you're sure you'll need IS I'd say hold off on the next lens purchase for a while. If you don't need IS the non-IS lens will save you money as well as being smaller and lighter. The zoom that came with your camera has a pretty versatile range. Get to know it well and it's limitations will tell you what kind of lens you need next. If you really want to buy another piece of glass right away, why not try an inexpensive fast prime? The 50mm f1.8 Mk II will show you what a really sharp Canon lens can do for less than $100. ...Show more →
Im not to worried about buying new glass right away, but I did wonder if IS was all that important. I do want to shoot some lower light situations but it will not be my main focus so I will most likely go non-IS for the next lens. I might take your suggestion and pick up that 50mm. I really want to shoot all types of photography from landscape, wildlife, portraits, and sports. I enjoy them all so far. Im not looking to go professional, just a hobbyist. I would really like a little more of a zoom lens also though.
Well you can always try one out and see if it fits the bill and is worth the money. I think the main point was to figure out what you like to shoot first and that will tell you more about what you need ultimately. But you can always sell what you don't need after you buy it. Personally, I always get the IS version of a lens when available. You can search on the topic and find a lot of threads on IS, this subject comes up VERY frequently...and some love it, some not.
None of the lenses I am interested in are offered with IS... so it is a non-issue to me, but IS would certainly be useful. Without it you have to get used to propping for stability or using a tripod when the shutter speed goes way down... it's probably more acceptable to those of use who have been shooting long before IS was offered at all...
If I was buying a lens now that was offered in both IS and non-IS *I* would buy the IS version, unless it was really cost prohibitive.
Yes you are def right...nothing makes up for good technique, no question, even good monopod technique is uber important. And similarly, most of my lenses are not IS versions. The only two IS lenses I have right now are the 70-200 2.8 and the 400 2.8, the latter only comes in an IS version like most of the super-teles any more. All the rest don't have it and just fine with them. Now, just saving up for that 200 2.0.
not to start an old war... but it would be nice if they put IS in their bodies... even if it wasn't equivalent to the lens based IS... but "needs" is probably too strong a word for any of this.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I would love IS in all of my lenses, it's a pity Canon doesn't have IS in any f/1.4 of f/1.2 primes Even the 135L needs IS
Twb0038 wrote:
Just picked up a Canon 40D with the kit lens, 35-128mm, and wanting to pick up another lens here soon. Im thinking I would like to get a little more zoomed lens for a second lens.
So, my question is how important or how significant is Image Stabilizer on the lenses? I mean is there that much of a difference between a lens with IS and non IS?
Trevor
I'm guessing that you mean the 28-135 is? I think that lens was the first or 2nd to have IS and as such is not as effective as later versions of the system. IS is more of a benifit on the longer lenses (my 70-300 IS is very good for handheld at thelonger end) but examples of the shortest lenses (17-55 on crop or 24-105 on FF) show it can have a benifit for some shots at the short end as well. but there are other ways to get sharp shots a low shutter speeds like tripods / resting on something solid but these might not be as conveinient.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I'm guessing that youmean the 28-135 is? I think that lens was the first or 2nd to have IS and as such is not as effective as later versions of the system. IS is more of a benifit on the longer lenses (my 70-300 IS is very good for handheld at thelonger end) but examples of the shortest lenses (17-55 on crop or 24-105 on FF) show it can have a benifit for some shots at the short end as well. but there are other ways to get sharp shots a low shutter speeds like tripods / resting on something solid but these might not be as conveinient....Show more →
You are right, 28-135mm is what I meant. I was in a rush when typing this post and I guess I just reversed it.
You have IS now. Shoot with it for a week and then turn it off for a week. You'll know at the end if it's usefull to you. And the longer the lens the more easily you'll see the benifit.
Even the 135L needs IS