Reading mode: Light Dark

Image Stabilization (Canon's IS Lenses)

Go to last post
G

gemini5223

Active member
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hi,

How about anybody with experience with these lenses? Are you happy with them? Worth all the extra money? The difference between Canon's original USM and the "second generation" series... ( I believe the white lenses denote that series?) are we paying all that money for the new look or are they really that much better?

After scouring the internet for a month now narrowing down my decision, I am on overload of info and would now like some real users opinions.
Thanks,
Mary
 
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. It is, without a doubt, worth every single penny I paid for it.

When I do grab shots I get a much, much, much higher number of good, sharp images than I ever got with a "normal" 70-200.

If you ALWAYS shoot off a tripod, then you don't need it. Otherwise, you'd be missing out on the number one advantage of owning a Canon system.

BTW, the long, white Canon lenses are that color (supposedly) to reflect light and minimize heat buildup within the lens tube, which can degrade optical performance. (Think of the shimmering, swirling air you see over a hot highway.)
 
Michael Long said:
BTW, the long, white Canon lenses are that color (supposedly) to
reflect light and minimize heat buildup within the lens tube, which
can degrade optical performance. (Think of the shimmering, swirling
air you see over a hot highway.)
Click to expand...
--

A very good reason, in my opinion. Amazing how so much photographic equipment is "Basic Black".
Best, Geoff.
 
I think you might have some misconceptions regarding the Canon system. There really isn't an "original" USM or "second generation" USM series, and the white lenses do not denote this. White lenses denote Canon's L lenses. And there are two versions of USM, but they aren't first or second generation.

Here's a great resource to have your questions answered regarding Canon stuff. It's the Canon EOS Beginner's FAQ:

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/

These topics may be of particular interest to you:

Why are some lenses painted white?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whitelens

What is a Canon L-series lens and why is it a big deal?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#L

What is the difference between the various kinds of lens motors (AFD, MM, USM)? Scroll down to "Ultrasonic motors." http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#lensmotor

Do USM lenses take better photos than non USM lenses?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#usmquality

What is image stabilization?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#is
 
Michael Long said:
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. It is, without a doubt, worth every
single penny I paid for it.

When I do grab shots I get a much, much, much higher number of
good, sharp images than I ever got with a "normal" 70-200.

If you ALWAYS shoot off a tripod, then you don't need it.
Otherwise, you'd be missing out on the number one advantage of
owning a Canon system.

BTW, the long, white Canon lenses are that color (supposedly) to
reflect light and minimize heat buildup within the lens tube, which
can degrade optical performance. (Think of the shimmering, swirling
air you see over a hot highway.)
Click to expand...
Well, thank you!!! I feel so much better about spending (gulp!!) $1800 for a lens... more than the price of the camera!
Mary
 
Peter Phan said:
I think you might have some misconceptions regarding the Canon
system. There really isn't an "original" USM or "second
generation" USM series, and the white lenses do not denote this.
White lenses denote Canon's L lenses. And there are two versions
of USM, but they aren't first or second generation.

Here's a great resource to have your questions answered regarding
Canon stuff. It's the Canon EOS Beginner's FAQ:

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/

These topics may be of particular interest to you:

Why are some lenses painted white?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whitelens

What is a Canon L-series lens and why is it a big deal?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#L

What is the difference between the various kinds of lens motors
(AFD, MM, USM)? Scroll down to "Ultrasonic motors."
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#lensmotor

Do USM lenses take better photos than non USM lenses?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#usmquality

What is image stabilization?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#is

Well, thank you so much for the wealth of info sites, I will sit down tonight and go through them!
Click to expand...
As for the second generation thing, I didn't make that up, on Canon's site, under the 70-200 2.8 is usm lens, THEY call it their second generation Image stabilization technology which I guess just happens to be white... their original is black... and a third the price! That is why I wanted to know if the second generation was worth all the extra money.
Thanks,
Mary
 
gemini5223 said:
Michael Long said:
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. It is, without a doubt, worth every
single penny I paid for it.

When I do grab shots I get a much, much, much higher number of
good, sharp images than I ever got with a "normal" 70-200.

If you ALWAYS shoot off a tripod, then you don't need it.
Otherwise, you'd be missing out on the number one advantage of
owning a Canon system.

BTW, the long, white Canon lenses are that color (supposedly) to
reflect light and minimize heat buildup within the lens tube, which
can degrade optical performance. (Think of the shimmering, swirling
air you see over a hot highway.)
Click to expand...
Well, thank you!!! I feel so much better about spending (gulp!!)
$1800 for a lens... more than the price of the camera!
Mary
Click to expand...
 
IS and USM are two unrelated aspects of Canon lenses. USM refers to auto-focusing motor, UltraSonic Motor; IS is Image Stabilizer, which affect perceived hand-shake when available lighting does not allow faster shutter. There is no such thing as "second generation USM," at least not yet. The original USM, with ring USM motor, are still the best, and used on the better lenses. "Micro-USM" is a clever marketting approach to capitalize on the the success of the ring USM motor, using a much less expensive (albeit not quite as quick and possibly not as durable) alternative. Both 70-200IS and 28-135IS have the ring USM motor.

"Second generation IS" refers to the IS implementation that makes it suitable for panning (and tripod auto-detection). The IS on 70-200IS is capable of detecting panning (in mode 2 swtich position) whereas the IS on 28-135IS may get very confused if you try to track your subject by panning. In mode 1 postion, the IS on 70-200IS is also supposed to provide more stabilization. I have both the 70-200IS and 28-135IS. Besides the obvious spec difference in IS implementation (3-stop vs. 1.5-2 stop), there is no comparison between the two in terms of focusing speed. However, you should keep in mind that the 70-200IS can be quite long on 1.6x bodies, depending on your photography style.

The white body, from what I have read, is to protect the flouride chrystal elements inside from overheating. That's why the case that comes with 70-200IS is also siverish on the outside. I always take extra care about where in the car to place the 70-200IS, lest it over-heats. I never leave it in my black rollie case on-site. The 28-135IS does not have flouride element, so overheating is not a big deal (within the limit of normal glass, obviously).

Best,
Jim
gemini5223 said:
Peter Phan said:
I think you might have some misconceptions regarding the Canon
system. There really isn't an "original" USM or "second
generation" USM series, and the white lenses do not denote this.
White lenses denote Canon's L lenses. And there are two versions
of USM, but they aren't first or second generation.

Here's a great resource to have your questions answered regarding
Canon stuff. It's the Canon EOS Beginner's FAQ:

http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/

These topics may be of particular interest to you:

Why are some lenses painted white?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whitelens

What is a Canon L-series lens and why is it a big deal?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#L

What is the difference between the various kinds of lens motors
(AFD, MM, USM)? Scroll down to "Ultrasonic motors."
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#lensmotor

Do USM lenses take better photos than non USM lenses?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#usmquality

What is image stabilization?
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#is

Well, thank you so much for the wealth of info sites, I will sit down tonight and go through them!
Click to expand...
As for the second generation thing, I didn't make that up, on
Canon's site, under the 70-200 2.8 is usm lens, THEY call it their
second generation Image stabilization technology which I guess just
happens to be white... their original is black... and a third the
price! That is why I wanted to know if the second generation was
worth all the extra money.
Thanks,
Mary
Click to expand...
 
nanook s said:
The white body, from what I have read, is to protect the flouride
chrystal elements inside from overheating. That's why the case
that comes with 70-200IS is also siverish on the outside.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but the 200/1.8, and 300/4 are both white "L" lenses, but neither have fluorite elements.

I suspect it's actually heat expansion, internal heat/air flow control, and maybe fluorite element protection.

Not to mention the most important element: the Canon lens stand-out-in-the-crowd free-advertising effect. ;)
 
I'm sure the last reason you cited had something to do with it ;-) Canon is second to none in the marketting department; well, Nikon marketting is no slouch either. From what I read recently though, you can get Nikon lenses in different colors as well. hmm, Can I have one of those yummy strawberry color? or is the local camera shop going to call my wife up and say "come on down, we have a pretty electric blue one!" ;-)

Jim
Michael Long said:
Michael Long said:
The white body, from what I have read, is to protect the flouride
chrystal elements inside from overheating. That's why the case
that comes with 70-200IS is also siverish on the outside.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but the 200/1.8, and 300/4 are both white "L"
lenses, but neither have fluorite elements.

I suspect it's actually heat expansion, internal heat/air flow
control, and maybe fluorite element protection.

Not to mention the most important element: the Canon lens
stand-out-in-the-crowd free-advertising effect. ;)
Click to expand...
 
I would assume the white suits both purposes... both for protection AND great advertising.... as one of their commercial states.... showing all these photogs and the white ones all stand out.
Thank you for everybody's input!
Mary
Michael Long said:
Michael Long said:
The white body, from what I have read, is to protect the flouride
chrystal elements inside from overheating. That's why the case
that comes with 70-200IS is also siverish on the outside.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but the 200/1.8, and 300/4 are both white "L"
lenses, but neither have fluorite elements.

I suspect it's actually heat expansion, internal heat/air flow
control, and maybe fluorite element protection.

Not to mention the most important element: the Canon lens
stand-out-in-the-crowd free-advertising effect. ;)
Click to expand...
 
A little one upsmanship over Canon... would you say??? (o:
Nanook S said:
Jim
Michael Long said:
nanook s said:
The white body, from what I have read, is to protect the flouride
chrystal elements inside from overheating. That's why the case
that comes with 70-200IS is also siverish on the outside.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but the 200/1.8, and 300/4 are both white "L"
lenses, but neither have fluorite elements.

I suspect it's actually heat expansion, internal heat/air flow
control, and maybe fluorite element protection.

Not to mention the most important element: the Canon lens
stand-out-in-the-crowd free-advertising effect. ;)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi back Mary,
To cut to the chase, I've been using the 100-400 IS for over a year,
mostly for Air Shows and Nature shooting, animals and birds in flight.

This means hand-holding. Being just a few months short of 65 I have a tendancy to be a little shakey and find the IS invaluable.
Yes, I am very happy with it. To me definitely worth the extra money.
All that money, in my opinion, is for extremely good and well designed
lenses.
The 100-400 IS and my 1-D make an enviable combination for the
shooting I do.
There, that's my opinion.
George
gemini5223 said:
Hi,
How about anybody with experience with these lenses? Are you happy
with them? Worth all the extra money? The difference between
Canon's original USM and the "second generation" series... ( I
believe the white lenses denote that series?) are we paying all
that money for the new look or are they really that much better?
After scouring the internet for a month now narrowing down my
decision, I am on overload of info and would now like some real
users opinions.
Thanks,
Mary
Click to expand...
--
George Reeves
 
the only people I ever hear take issue with the price of an IS lens are those that don't own one. I think that sums it up.

(anxiously waiting for my 70-200 IS which shipped yesterday)

jeff
 
gemini5223 said:
Hi,
How about anybody with experience with these lenses? Are you happy
with them? Worth all the extra money? The difference between
Canon's original USM and the "second generation" series... ( I
believe the white lenses denote that series?) are we paying all
that money for the new look or are they really that much better?
After scouring the internet for a month now narrowing down my
decision, I am on overload of info and would now like some real
users opinions.
Thanks,
Mary
Click to expand...
 
I do not find using the hood that important.

For Mary,

I can only give you an emphatic yes concerning the "Canon L IS" lenses. Once you experience one, you'll be hooked.

I bought my 70/200 IS for sports. Now, if you can believe it, I use it as a "walkaround" lens. It is very heavy, attention drawing white and physically big. While not a "long lens", it allows me just the right reach to be candid. One must start with a well focused picture and this lens gives me that and more- contrast and rich colors.

Save your pennies and go for it. You'll love yourself later!

An example of what I'm talking about...



--
Ron Salyer
DizzyArt
http://www.pbase.com/odizzy1/dizzy_art
 
Since I don't put filters on my lenses unless needed, my hood is almost ALWAYS on the lens. I'd rather bash a $30 hood against something instead of a $1700 lens.

And yes, hoods make a big difference in increasing contrast by keeping stray light off the front optic.
 
Thanks for your input Ron, that is the lens I am considering buying.... and that is what I always have done and probably always will. I take so many pics under so many circs, it is usually very impractical for me to use a tripod... so it sounds like this will help alot.
Mary
DizzyArt said:
I do not find using the hood that important.

For Mary,
I can only give you an emphatic yes concerning the "Canon L IS"
lenses. Once you experience one, you'll be hooked.

I bought my 70/200 IS for sports. Now, if you can believe it, I
use it as a "walkaround" lens. It is very heavy, attention drawing
white and physically big. While not a "long lens", it allows me
just the right reach to be candid. One must start with a well
focused picture and this lens gives me that and more- contrast and
rich colors.

Save your pennies and go for it. You'll love yourself later!

An example of what I'm talking about...



--
Ron Salyer
DizzyArt
http://www.pbase.com/odizzy1/dizzy_art
Click to expand...
 
gemini5223 said:
Hi,
How about anybody with experience with these lenses? Are you happy
with them?
Click to expand...
I don't know about the L lenses.

As for IS - a couple years ago I bought a Canon Pro90 IS "to see what all the digital fuss was about". I never shot another piece of film, and never shot another image without IS. Still have the Pro90 plus 10D and two IS lenses. I am an amateur but a 10 year pro in years past. PS - am a Pisces.
 
Hi Michael,

I agree with you 100%. If I am using a tri or monopod, I stick on the hood. However for my style of shooting, the hood seems to double the length of the lens and quadruple the attention- thus making it harder to get that candid shot. I use a UV filter for protection. Been thinking about getting a can of WalMarts best black spray paint and doing away with the white lens look. Ha! ;o)



Ron Salyer
DizzyArt
http://www.pbase.com/odizzy1/dizzy_art
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top