Not specifically related to the OP, but I am not sure I understand IS.
Sure I love it on my 500/f4; in fact it has probably saved my buttissmo multiple times.
But when Nikon brought out its 500/f4, at ~$US2k more than the Canon 500, there was the claim that the Nikon IS was newer and good for 4 stops while the Canon was only good for 3 stops (I probably got that wrong, but I know there were claims that the newer Nikon IS was better than the older Canon IS).
It does make sense to me that IS can be improved and that newer IS is better than older IS; I just don't know how much.
But what I am wondering is if the IS in kit lens is the newer first tier IS; or maybe both Nikon and Canon cut corners in the kit lens IS and that is the reason the cost for IS in a kit lens is cheaper than IS in a 500/f4.
I have also seen claims that in body IS is more general in nature and not good for as many stops as lens specific IS.
I can't confirm any of this speculation, and as I said "I don't understand IS"; but I sure like it in my 500.
Hrow wrote:
I just am getting a little tired of people asserting that since they don't need IS on a wide that it is a stupid idea. It isn't, they just don't need that feature.
+100000000000000000000
I would gladly pay $500 extra for IS on my 14mm f/2.8L II...some people don't need it fine, but YMMV (mine certainly does and I have the blurry 1/5 sec shots to prove it)
The same for those who claim they don't need IS on fast primes, it fails to register with some people that a 85 f/1.2 stopped down to f/4 benefits as much from IS as a 70-200 f/4L IS Instead they are content with razor thin DOF and high ISO for every shot to prevent contamination from the impurity of IS
n0b0 wrote:
Funny that, I don't remember buying my MP-E 65mm and TS-E 17mm more than once... how much would you have to pay for the Nikon vers... no wait... They ain't got one. Teehee.
I had to send my MP back TWICE! I've had 3 TS-Es and still didn't get a decent one. Got my money back tho.
I would gladly pay $500 extra for IS on my 14mm f/2.8L II...some people don't need it fine, but YMMV (mine certainly does and I have the blurry 1/5 sec shots to prove it)
The same for those who claim they don't need IS on fast primes, it fails to register with some people that a 85 f/1.2 stopped down to f/4 benefits as much from IS as a 70-200 f/4L IS Instead they are content with razor thin DOF and high ISO for every shot to prevent contamination from the impurity of IS
Again, you aren't understanding the point. The cost of IS makes many lenses prohibitive. $500 is almost the cost of a 17-40 or 70-200 f/4. If lenses are being replaced with IS versions which make the price jump up by several hundred dollars, it removes the ability to purchase such lenses from those who aren't independently wealthy or have a vested interest in photographic equipment (the professionals).
I for one am glad that the 16-35 f4 will have VR/IS. If it saves me a few stops of Iso I lose out on by not having f2.8, then why not. I'm sure in five years time, we'll laugh at how we all used lenses without it. Just like now we take AF for granted, I'm pretty sure IS lenses will become the norm.
Doesn't it just become a lens with out IS at that point (not effecting any other functions like focusing or being able to zoom in and out?). But even then, I haven't read of any pandemic of IS breakdowns with Canons 70-200mm lenses. True, its another thing that can break but one shouldn't be afraid of it.
bluetsunami wrote:
Doesn't it just become a lens with out IS at that point (not effecting any other functions like focusing or being able to zoom in and out?). But even then, I haven't read of any pandemic of IS breakdowns with Canons 70-200mm lenses. True, its another thing that can break but one shouldn't be afraid of it.
Not a pandemic, but my friend have a 70-200IS and 100-400IS, both lenses IS mechanism failed. They won't AF. He doesn't use the lenses a lot. You need to be careful and turn off the IS when not needed that's all.
Tri Tran wrote:
Not a pandemic, but my friend have a 70-200IS and 100-400IS, both lenses IS mechanism failed. They won't AF. He doesn't use the lenses a lot. You need to be careful and turn off the IS when not needed that's all.
Ahhh, that stinks that it takes out the AF too. Good to know!
Does anyone remember what the cost of a 300 F2.8 non IS was at the time the new version introduced and what the new lens's price was? I could be wrong but my recollection is that the two were very close in price and that there was not a huge premium that could be attributed to the IS.
Tri Tran wrote:
You guys make it sound like the 17-40 is garbage. I've seen some amazing shots with it. Oh wait, including my shots
Actually I want to try one of Canon's wider TS lense one day soon.
it is kinda of long in the tooth
i dumped it for my tamron 17-50 on APS-C
on FF there isn't much else to consider for UW, but that still doesn't mean it comes close to taking full advantage of a 5D2, sure it can take nice pics, but you might be 10MP at the edges and 6MP in the corners- there is the 17mm TS-E now though which is supposed to be pretty amazing. Myself I tend to not shoot too many UW landscapes and 24mm is generallyt enough
Instead they are content with razor thin DOF and high ISO for every shot to prevent contamination from the impurity of IS
It sounds ridiculous; Ridiculous as in unrealistic. $1800-2000 (With IS), OTOH, and I'd have it preordered.