When to go with an IS Lens?

I just bought my 300D dRebel and wanted to buy my first telephoto lens. The only lens I have now is the 18-55 which came with the camera. The sales person at my local camera store suggested to go with a Canon 75-300 NON-IS lens. He said IS is new technology and we've all gotten along without it this far and besides IS cost a lot more.

If I do decide to go with an IS lens, as a general rule, is there a certain focal length where IS is considered necessary? For example, anything larger than 200mm? The reaon I ask is that there is also a 28-200 lens but from what I can see, it's not available with IS.

Thanks

John

Taken at 600mm without IS



Taken at 1200mm without IS



Taken at 300mm without IS



So you don't need IS to get the shots, but I did need a good monopod and good long lens technique.

IS will give you an advantage when going hand held, and even when mounted on a monopod/tripod in some situations.

However your local store is correct, we've done without it for years, and you can get great results with the correct techniques.

Comes down to price Vs features, and that's a personal decision.

For me, I choose non IS...I find that I don't need IS to get my shots, and hence I can save $$$$$

Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod

DuckSoup said:

I just bought my 300D dRebel and wanted to buy my first telephoto
lens. The only lens I have now is the 18-55 which came with the
camera. The sales person at my local camera store suggested to go
with a Canon 75-300 NON-IS lens. He said IS is new technology and
we've all gotten along without it this far and besides IS cost a
lot more.

If I do decide to go with an IS lens, as a general rule, is there a
certain focal length where IS is considered necessary? For example,
anything larger than 200mm? The reaon I ask is that there is also a
28-200 lens but from what I can see, it's not available with IS.

Thanks

John

Click to expand...

Just a guess, you told him you did not want a very expensive lens, and he did not have the 75-300 IS in stock, but he did have the 75-300 non-IS in stock.

IS is not "new technology". Canon has been providing IS lenses to the public since 1995. IS lenses of one sort or another have been around to specialized users for 20 years that I know of, just not the exact same technique that Canon uses in their SLR lenses.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_75~300_4~56is_usm.html

At what focal length do you need IS? That varies from person to person, and from situation to situation with a given person. For me personally I feel that IS is almost always useful at any focal length greater than 100mm. I have, however, taken shots at focal lengths as short as 28mm and felt that I would not have been able to get the shot without IS or a tripod/monopod. By the way, IS gains you nothing that a tripod or monopod does not also gain you, but without having to cart the tripod/monopod around with you all the time. IS does not replace a good tripod, but it does reduce how often you absolutely have to use one.

My attitude, since the first time I tried an IS lens, has been that if a version of the lens is available with IS, I will get the IS version. You can always turn the IS off, then it hurts nothing, but if you don't have it on the lens you can not turn it on. IS just plane flat out works, it is almost amazing.

T!

Thanks Chris -

Great shots!

John

Chris Dodkin said:

Taken at 600mm without IS



Taken at 1200mm without IS



Taken at 300mm without IS



So you don't need IS to get the shots, but I did need a good
monopod and good long lens technique.

IS will give you an advantage when going hand held, and even when
mounted on a monopod/tripod in some situations.

However your local store is correct, we've done without it for
years, and you can get great results with the correct techniques.

Comes down to price Vs features, and that's a personal decision.

For me, I choose non IS...I find that I don't need IS to get my
shots, and hence I can save $$$$$

Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod

Click to expand...

Chris Dodkin said:

Taken at 600mm without IS



Taken at 1200mm without IS



Taken at 300mm without IS



So you don't need IS to get the shots, but I did need a good
monopod and good long lens technique.

IS will give you an advantage when going hand held, and even when
mounted on a monopod/tripod in some situations.

However your local store is correct, we've done without it for
years, and you can get great results with the correct techniques.

Comes down to price Vs features, and that's a personal decision.

For me, I choose non IS...I find that I don't need IS to get my
shots, and hence I can save $$$$$

Chris.
--
http://www.1D-images.com
[email protected]
Mac G4/iMac/iBook/iPod

Click to expand...

Chris, that first image looks like camera shake, there are multi images of the same plane. To bad you didnt have IS on that lens

As far as IS being a new technology, yes, it has only been around since 1990 with the introduction on the Canon UC 5 video camera. It has since been incorporated into video cameras, a lot of 35mm camera lenses, photocopiers, binocs, and the list goes on.

If it were up to me I would always go with a IS lens, you can always turn it off if you find you dont like it or are using the les on a tripod. Using a lens that has IS built in it give you a 2-3 stop advantage over a lens that doesnt have it!!!! What that means is that when the light levels go down (inside a room or as the sun sets) you can basically use the lens if your TV goes below the 1:1 of the focal length of the lens you using For example if you were ising the 75-300 at 300 you could get away with a shutter speed of 1/60th-125th/sec. IS can save the day, a lot of days, as far as I am concerned IS is worth every penny extra. The dealer probably said what he said because he didnt have the lens in the IS version in stock.

PP
--

Images taken with IS on seldom prove a thing, it is normally conjecture whether you would have been able to get them without IS or not. The last one on this list I firmly believe I could not have gotten without IS.

400mm hand held, IS on,



560mm hand held, IS on,



400mm hand held, IS on,



560mm hand held, IS on, and IS really doing it's job, because this was shot at 1/125 sec shutter speed on an overcast day.



As I said, IS does not eliminate the need for a tripod, just reduces the number of times you absolutely have to have one.

T!

Token said:

DuckSoup said:

I just bought my 300D dRebel and wanted to buy my first telephoto
lens. The only lens I have now is the 18-55 which came with the
camera. The sales person at my local camera store suggested to go
with a Canon 75-300 NON-IS lens. He said IS is new technology and
we've all gotten along without it this far and besides IS cost a
lot more.

If I do decide to go with an IS lens, as a general rule, is there a
certain focal length where IS is considered necessary? For example,
anything larger than 200mm? The reaon I ask is that there is also a
28-200 lens but from what I can see, it's not available with IS.

Thanks

John

Click to expand...

Just a guess, you told him you did not want a very expensive lens,
and he did not have the 75-300 IS in stock, but he did have the
75-300 non-IS in stock.

IS is not "new technology". Canon has been providing IS lenses to
the public since 1995. IS lenses of one sort or another have been
around to specialized users for 20 years that I know of, just not
the exact same technique that Canon uses in their SLR lenses.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_75~300_4~56is_usm.html

At what focal length do you need IS? That varies from person to
person, and from situation to situation with a given person. For
me personally I feel that IS is almost always useful at any focal
length greater than 100mm. I have, however, taken shots at focal
lengths as short as 28mm and felt that I would not have been able
to get the shot without IS or a tripod/monopod. By the way, IS
gains you nothing that a tripod or monopod does not also gain you,
but without having to cart the tripod/monopod around with you all
the time. IS does not replace a good tripod, but it does reduce
how often you absolutely have to use one.

My attitude, since the first time I tried an IS lens, has been that
if a version of the lens is available with IS, I will get the IS
version. You can always turn the IS off, then it hurts nothing,
but if you don't have it on the lens you can not turn it on. IS
just plane flat out works, it is almost amazing.

T!

Click to expand...

(IS just plane flat out works, it is almost amazing.)

I remember when it first came out on on the L's, my thought back then was what a waste. I never realized what it could do until I bought the 28-135mm and was amazed as all hell. Now almost all my lenses have it in it.

PP
--

(560mm hand held, IS on, and IS really doing it's job, because this was shot at 1/125 sec shutter speed on an overcast day.)

That image speaks volumes to its capabilities as that lens weighs in at what?? 10-12 lbs.

I shoot with a 300 f/2.8 and hand hold it, it weighs 8 lbs

PP

--

Hi Token,

To answer yours and PP post, the store owner did "not" carry an IS lenses. I've been reading so many good things about IS lenses that I'm really leaning towards getting one. I'm a caffine drinker and don't do well in cold weather (Sacramento, CA) - yes a shaker..

If you guys were me, what would you recomend as a first telephoto lens? Here are the only 2 IS lenses I could find under $500:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS

I'd like a 28-200 IS lens but aparently non exist. If I got the 28-135 IS could I use a 1.4 or 2.0 extender to give me more focal length or is that considered a no no?

You guys are great!

John

Token said:

DuckSoup said:

I just bought my 300D dRebel and wanted to buy my first telephoto
lens. The only lens I have now is the 18-55 which came with the
camera. The sales person at my local camera store suggested to go
with a Canon 75-300 NON-IS lens. He said IS is new technology and
we've all gotten along without it this far and besides IS cost a
lot more.

If I do decide to go with an IS lens, as a general rule, is there a
certain focal length where IS is considered necessary? For example,
anything larger than 200mm? The reaon I ask is that there is also a
28-200 lens but from what I can see, it's not available with IS.

Thanks

John

Click to expand...

Just a guess, you told him you did not want a very expensive lens,
and he did not have the 75-300 IS in stock, but he did have the
75-300 non-IS in stock.

IS is not "new technology". Canon has been providing IS lenses to
the public since 1995. IS lenses of one sort or another have been
around to specialized users for 20 years that I know of, just not
the exact same technique that Canon uses in their SLR lenses.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_75~300_4~56is_usm.html

At what focal length do you need IS? That varies from person to
person, and from situation to situation with a given person. For
me personally I feel that IS is almost always useful at any focal
length greater than 100mm. I have, however, taken shots at focal
lengths as short as 28mm and felt that I would not have been able
to get the shot without IS or a tripod/monopod. By the way, IS
gains you nothing that a tripod or monopod does not also gain you,
but without having to cart the tripod/monopod around with you all
the time. IS does not replace a good tripod, but it does reduce
how often you absolutely have to use one.

My attitude, since the first time I tried an IS lens, has been that
if a version of the lens is available with IS, I will get the IS
version. You can always turn the IS off, then it hurts nothing,
but if you don't have it on the lens you can not turn it on. IS
just plane flat out works, it is almost amazing.

T!

Click to expand...

PixelPusher said:

(560mm hand held, IS on, and IS really doing it's job, because this
was shot at 1/125 sec shutter speed on an overcast day.)

That image speaks volumes to its capabilities as that lens weighs
in at what?? 10-12 lbs.

I shoot with a 300 f/2.8 and hand hold it, it weighs 8 lbs

PP

--

Click to expand...

LOL...not that lens. This shot was the 100-400 L IS at 400mm with 1.4 TC on it, for 560mm total. Not sure what the weight of that combo is, but around 5 lbs I would think. I have not yet gotten into the big primes, I think that is for next year. Right now the wife and I are in "negotiations" on what big long prime I am going to get, I am leaning towards the 600mm f4 IS, she is thinking more along the lines of the 400mm f4 DO IS. But, her kitchen gets remodeled first (she says), so I may just wait until we are done with that and decide, based on how much the kitchen cost us.

T!

DuckSoup said:

Hi Token,

To answer yours and PP post, the store owner did "not" carry an IS
lenses. I've been reading so many good things about IS lenses that
I'm really leaning towards getting one. I'm a caffine drinker and
don't do well in cold weather (Sacramento, CA) - yes a shaker..

If you guys were me, what would you recomend as a first telephoto
lens? Here are the only 2 IS lenses I could find under $500:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS

I'd like a 28-200 IS lens but aparently non exist. If I got the
28-135 IS could I use a 1.4 or 2.0 extender to give me more focal
length or is that considered a no no?

You guys are great!

John

Click to expand...

John:

It depends on the type of photography you do, the two lenses you mentioned are at opposite ends of the spectrum. A good all around lens would be the 28-135mm, for outdoor sunny daylight type sports or for a longer reach than the 135mm I would get the 75-300 IS.

What are you looking to shoot?

Extenders...no, they will not physically fit on either of those two lenses. The extenders are designed to work on only the big white "L" lenses

PP
--

DuckSoup said:

Hi Token,

To answer yours and PP post, the store owner did "not" carry an IS
lenses. I've been reading so many good things about IS lenses that
I'm really leaning towards getting one. I'm a caffine drinker and
don't do well in cold weather (Sacramento, CA) - yes a shaker..

If you guys were me, what would you recomend as a first telephoto
lens? Here are the only 2 IS lenses I could find under $500:

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS

I'd like a 28-200 IS lens but aparently non exist. If I got the
28-135 IS could I use a 1.4 or 2.0 extender to give me more focal
length or is that considered a no no?

Click to expand...

I think the 28-135mm IS is one of the best non-L zooms I have tried. It is still my primary short walk around zoom. But, I am not sure in your case it would be the one to get.

Yes, the 28-135 IS would probably produce better images than your kit lens, but it would duplicate so much of the kit lenses coverage.

In general I loath the 75-300 IS. It was one of three lenses I got with my D60 18 months ago. At first I did not think anything of it, but now I find it extremely soft beyond 200mm and I do not use it any longer. I replaced it with the 100-400 L IS, and my daughter used the 75-300 IS for a while. Now she refuses to use it, instead using the 70-200 f4 L with 1.4 TC.

I tried a couple of these lenses (75-300 IS) at the time I got mine, they all seemed about the same. ALso I heard from other users at that time that the resullts from their copies were less than delightful.

But, recently several people have gotten quite good results from new 75-300 IS's. I do not know if Canon tightened up QC on them, or if a few years ago they were just runing off some bad ones.

The recomendation I recently made to a buddy of mine locally, debating the same situation as you are, was to get the D Reb with kit lens, and to get the 75-300 IS. But to check the sharpness of the IS lens carefully and to send it back if he was not happy. This gave him coverage from 18 to 300 mm with a very small gap. He has had the combo for about 2 weeks and is happy with what he has. I shot a couple images with his 75-300 IS and it is, indeed, sharper than my copy. I also suggested he get the 50mm f1.8 for a low light lens, but he passed on that one.

T!

PixelPusher said:

John:

It depends on the type of photography you do, the two lenses you
mentioned are at opposite ends of the spectrum. A good all around
lens would be the 28-135mm, for outdoor sunny daylight type sports
or for a longer reach than the 135mm I would get the 75-300 IS.

What are you looking to shoot?

Extenders...no, they will not physically fit on either of those two
lenses. The extenders are designed to work on only the big white
"L" lenses

Click to expand...

Some (not all) 3rd party extenders will fit on the 28-135 IS. However, this has been hashed out several times on the forum, and I believe the general thought is that although it works, it is generally not a good idea.

T!

Token said:

DuckSoup said:

Hi Token,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

Yes, the 28-135 IS would probably produce better images than your
kit lens, but it would duplicate so much of the kit lenses coverage.

In general I loath the 75-300 IS. It was one of three lenses I got
with my D60 18 months ago. At first I did not think anything of
it, but now I find it extremely soft beyond 200mm and I do not use
it any longer. I replaced it with the 100-400 L IS, and my
daughter used the 75-300 IS for a while. Now she refuses to use
it, instead using the 70-200 f4 L with 1.4 TC.

I tried a couple of these lenses (75-300 IS) at the time I got
mine, they all seemed about the same. ALso I heard from other
users at that time that the resullts from their copies were less
than delightful.

But, recently several people have gotten quite good results from
new 75-300 IS's. I do not know if Canon tightened up QC on them,
or if a few years ago they were just runing off some bad ones.

Click to expand...

That is possible. I just got a 75-300 about 3 weeks ago. I had to wait a bit cause I was already checking since Nov about. It was out of stock then from the local distributor in our country, so I presume that what I have now is the newly manufactured ones.

I did not see that same softness past 200mm as many claimed. What can be said is "it is not as sharp 75-200." But definitely, not the same softness that was previously. To say it is "soft" past 200mm is a bit of an injustice now. What I can say is that it is lest contrasty past 200mm and a tendency to saturate the reds a bit. But these two areas is something that a simple PS could fix.

What can be said about the lens is that the AF is still slow. Now "slow" means it is not as fast as the ring usms (by a wide margin). In this case, the 100-300 USM (non L) is miles away. It is still probably as fast as the regular USM of many. But...

It is slow only if it starts or hunts from one end to the next end of the focus range AND if you are focusing from near to far. I tried this just yesterday. I tried focusing from a distant target (about 100mm and later 200mm+), then focused at something about 3m away. It took less than a second to focus. But from 3m to to the same far distances, now it took more than a second. Both were done in the early twilight, so light was also not good.

It also tends to hunt longer if the focus point is ambiguous. It suddenly goes back down to close focus then jumps back to the long end, then it finds the AF. This could take almost 2 seconds. Really bad.

So, the trick is to get your focus marks as near as you can, and make sure your target is clear, and know that it is faster to focus from far to near, than near to far. If the next focus point is very near each other (I tried focusing on a 400mm building far away and just 50m near and it really did not take that long. It is only if the subject is around 5m-8m maybe coming from 100mm or higher away does it take too long.

The AF speed now becomes a non issue, even for sports if these simple guidelines are followed. I will be testing this in some soccer games next week, but there is no doubt that this already works fine.

Member said:

The recomendation I recently made to a buddy of mine locally,
debating the same situation as you are, was to get the D Reb with
kit lens, and to get the 75-300 IS. But to check the sharpness of
the IS lens carefully and to send it back if he was not happy.
This gave him coverage from 18 to 300 mm with a very small gap. He
has had the combo for about 2 weeks and is happy with what he has.
I shot a couple images with his 75-300 IS and it is, indeed,
sharper than my copy. I also suggested he get the 50mm f1.8 for a
low light lens, but he passed on that one.

Click to expand...

Yes, Canon may have improved the lens without saying so. Peterri, in another thread, also mentions that the 75-300 IS is not quite the same design as the the non-IS versions. And lately I am finding more and more duff complaints from these fori on the 75-300 III. If indeed there is a departure in design from

The bigger question for the original poster would be his own use and type of shooting. Which range would he most likely operate in? He wanted a 28-200 with IS and there is non. If the long end is that important, he can always consider his 75-300 IS a 75-200 IS and just shoot below that focal length. I have done this consciously if I wanted quality of image. In fact I try to shoot at around 180mm max. Aperture is also around f5.0 and not f5.6. I notice that at 75-150mm this thing is really very sharp. If you can't fill the frame, it is a matter of just cropping a bit.

If he were uncertain, or if he prefers the wide end more, he could choose the 28-135mm IS and be done with it. Either way, IS does make a difference. In static subjects, in low light situations, I have shot at f5.0 at 150mm - 180mm at 1/6-1/8 sec with IS and got the shot using the 75-300 IS. With a 50mm f1.8 mkII, I get about 20-25% blurred shots of my total shots using the lens at these slow speeds. This is why I am considering a 28-135mm IS in the future. I may need to dump my 28-105 f3.5-4.5 mk I. It is a good lens but I as I shoot more and more I am beginning to find that the IS is a lifesaver.

--
---------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

As others have stated, if an IS version of a lens is available, I buy it everytime over the non IS lens. When the light gets low, only a heavy tripod beats IS.

Notice that folks who poopoo IS only show shots in bright sunlight. Yes, if you have enough light for a 1/1000 shutter speed, IS doesn't really help. But...who has that kind of lighting for every shot they take? I have taken sharp (count each hair) shots with my 28-135 IS @ 135 (effective focal length 216) at 1/10 sec. IS will not freeze moving objects, but will allow you to take pictures of stationary objects two stops or more lower than you could normally handhold.

--
MOLON LABE!

Regards,
John