timbop wrote:
Boy does this get rehashed a lot. It also brings out the narrow minded \"everyone should shoot the way I do and I do/don\'t need it so everyone else does/doesn\'t need it\" crowd.
Do you really need f/2.8? Do you really need macro? Do you really need ring USM?
The answer to those is the same as \"do you really need IS in this focal length\"? The answer of course, is sometimes yes and sometimes no. The 17-55IS sells extremely well, with third party manufacturers following suit. There\'s even a Nikon 16-35VR, for those that pay attention. The reason canon hasn\'t done it yet is because they haven\'t felt the need to - nothing else.
As for the \"added weight\" argument, compare the weights of the 70-200 variants before you parrot that statement.
Agreed.
I think that many of the posters who think that every lens needs IS, even wide angles, have come to that conclusion more from reading internet forums than from actual shooting experience.
The problem that their whining leads to is that even those of us who would never use IS are forced to pay for it as new Canon models replace fine old L glass.
Jan 27, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Previous versions of WmPat's message #10286727 « Why no IS on the 24-70 f2.8? »
