Is IS that important?

Started Mar 4, 2011 | Discussions thread
Schnapper Contributing Member • Posts: 993
Re: Is IS that important?

If you're expecting to take a lot of shots between 1/50-1/200 sec at F/2.8, and want to do it handheld, then the F/4.0 IS is the better bet. That will give you between 1/25 and 1/100 at F/4, which is easier on a F/4 IS than 1/50-1/200 would be on a non-IS lens. Of course, if you want/need the shallower DOF of the f/2.8 then you need to get the 2.8 lens. But at 200mm, f/4.0 gives very good isolation provided the background isn't super close to the subject.

Also consider that the f/4 IS weighs a lot less than the f/2.8 and is easier to carry around.

That was one of the big factors that drove me to the f/4 IS. Had the weights been equal, I probably would have gone for the f/2.8 IS even at the higher price.

Of course, had the prices been equal between the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 IS, I would have gotten the f/2.8 IS even though it's a lot heavier... so I guess weight and price were the two big considerations!

But in either case, for a lens that extends to 200mm, the IS was a definite requirement since it is available, even though it roughly doubled the price of the 70-200 f/4.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow