topic Re: Should you pay extra for IS? in EF & RF Lenses

Should you pay extra for IS?

limvo05 — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 00:43:12 GMT

Hi All,

I would like to know your thought on paying extra for IS. Do you really need IS for 300mm and beyond? I am keen at getting either 300 or 400 mm lens for bird photography. That said, I found myself shooting mostly with a tripod.

Thanks.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

wq9nsc — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 01:14:31 GMT

I rarely use IS because much of the time I am using a high shutter speed for sports to avoid subject motion blur. But with birds and other wildlife you will probably find yourself using a monopod at times where IS is very helpful if you need to drop the shutter speed to put you in your desired area of the exposure triangle. And there will be times when you will be using most lens handheld, I have even taken a few shots with the EF 800 handheld and IS is definitely needed with it unless the shutter speed is really high.

And if you are shooting outside with gusty winds, you will be surprised how much of a workout even a big tripod will experience. I have a Manfrotto 161 Mark IIB with a Wimberly gimbal head and last week with the 1DX III and EF 800 on it at a pretty low working height (maximum working height is just under 9 feet), with the center column full retracted and locked, and sand bags on the spreader the image still quivered in wind gusting at 30 MPH and if I had been using a slower shutter speed I would have turned on IS.

For the type of photography I do, I don't really care about IS in the sub-200 focal length range but I definitely want it in the longer glass. It is somewhat like having 4WD in my diesel pickup, I rarely use it but when I need it I REALLY need it and you will find the same with IS.

We survived a long time without IS in cameras but it definitely provides an excellent way to slow shutter speed to allow for a lower ISO setting or a means to allow decreased aperture opening for more depth of field and sometimes those will be important to your shot setup. The downside is IS is one more thing to go wrong with a lens although it seems to be quite reliable.

Rodger

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

kvbarkley — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 03:09:49 GMT

Yes. If anything it really helps framing with long lenses.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 14:39:14 GMT

"Do you really need IS for ...?

I came from a world that didn't have IS. It was an unknown concept. We learned how to get good shots anyway. So, for me it is a nice to have but not a must have. If there are two identical lenses, one with IS and the other without, I would buy the one with IS every time. However, if there was no choice and no IS was the only option, I would have no problem buying it.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

limvo05 — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 15:05:23 GMT

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience. I think you are absolutely right that IS is great in some situations and not needed in others. I have the 70-200 2.8 IS ii, but I have not been using the IS feature much, primarily because I often have it mounted on a tripod. Actually, the real reason for not using IS is that it tends to drain the battery more quickly. And secondly, when shooting with the 5Ds, I noticed even with the slightest movement, it will show up in the photos.

I am in the market for either a 300 or 400 2.8. I believe both are available in IS and non IS, the latter is considerably cheaper but also much older in terms of built date. Should that be a concern? I know many would say that these lenses are built like a tank and I believe them, that said, I have seen how badly they are treated by some owners. In fact, one person trying to sell his on eBay with a description "crack housing". Not sure what that really means?

Thanks.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 16:26:51 GMT

"I have the 70-200 2.8 IS ii, but I have not been using the IS feature much, ..."

Of all the lenses that have IS, there isn't one, or any lens, that is better than the IS on the 70-200mm L. Take that for whatever you think its worth. It is the top of the mark. I would not be afraid of buying an ugly big white L lens but there is a limit to just how ugly. A crack is too ugly! My own 600mm L still looks new but that is probably because I don't use it anymore.

There are two lenses that I consider a better value than what Canon has to offer. And, why Canon does not see fit, yet, to produce one is beyond me. Anyway the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens is just a better way to go.

The other is my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens. Canon also does not make a super zoom in this configuration or f-ratio. Make no mistake these are full on pro level lenses. Big and heavy and well built. Not cheap either!

I only ever advise people to consider off brand lenses, or any gear for that matter, if Canon doesn't offer the same. Canon offers neither off these.

One thing to keep in mind, these are the Sports models. The others are just common plastic lenses for amateurs and not built to take the rigors of professional day in day out work.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

Waddizzle — Fri, 05 Jun 2020 21:42:46 GMT

I think your question is suggestive of a patently false assumption. "Should you pay extra for IS?"

Your questions assumes that all the only difference between the lenses is one has IS, and one does not have IS. The lenses that you have cited have more differences than IS. In one sense, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

limvo05 — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 14:33:14 GMT

I am sure there are many nuances and subtle differences between say 300mm f.28 NON IS and IS model. That said, for many users like myself, we are not professional photographers, thus, trying to get a better understanding from those are.

This question is simply not just about potential savings when it comes to costs. It's also about trying to understand the potential implications and impact IS has especially when using these big lenses. I've forgotten where I read this, might have been from Ken Rockwell. IS it not about freezing the object, making it stable, but more of help stoping the camera shake or somewhere along those lines.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 15:16:31 GMT

"...IS it not about freezing the object, making it stable, but more of help stoping the camera shake or somewhere along those lines."

IS has nothing to do with the subject. It has everything to do with you, the photographer. It helps reduce motion when you can't hold the camera steady. Also keep in mind the more you need IS the less it works. I.E. as SS lowers, meaning you are subject to more camera motion the less effective IS will be. That is why some claim 3 stops, or 4 stops or whatever stops but there is a limit to how well it can work. It also works better for some and less for others.

I had both version of Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 Lens. First one I had did not have IS or OS as Sigma calls it. My current one the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens does have OS (IS). These two lenses are basically identical except for the OS (IS). Looking at them you couldn't tell the difference. My gut feeling was the one without OS was a tad sharper. No facts just a feeling. It just seemed to have that something extra. Is this true for all non-IS vs IS lenses? Now ask me would I rather go back and have the non-OS lens. Absolutely not. The Sport model is by far the better lens. It gets more usable shots, easily. So, in this case I would definitely go for the OS lens.

I don't know this for a fact but I doubt there is any difference in the optics between a non-IS Canon lens and one with IS if the model don't change. Obviously a newer model will be different. Hopefully better!

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

Waddizzle — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 15:32:56 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
I am sure there are many nuances and subtle differences between say 300mm f.28 NON IS and IS model. That said, for many users like myself, we are not professional photographers, thus, trying to get a better understanding from those are.

This question is simply not just about potential savings when it comes to costs. It's also about trying to understand the potential implications and impact IS has especially when using these big lenses. I've forgotten where I read this, might have been from Ken Rockwell. IS it not about freezing the object, making it stable, but more of help stoping the camera shake or somewhere along those lines.

I suggest that you name the specific lens models that you are comparing. If you want specific answers, then ask specific questions. Otherwise, you responses will only be the same vague generalizations that you are posing.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

limvo05 — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 17:39:28 GMT

The lens in question is Canon 300mm F2.8 IS mark i vs non IS. Similarly, I am also curious how the Canon 400mm fair in the same comparison, i.e. IS Mark i vs Non IS.

My guess is the IS version are considerably newer in terms of manufacturing dates. If I am not mistaken, for both 300 and 400 lenses, non IS were made in the late 90s or easy 2000, whereas the IS versions are made in early 2000 to mid and late 2000s.

Thanks.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

Waddizzle — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 21:24:30 GMT

[Sigh].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_300mm_lens

Are you comparing a 30+ Year old lens to a [20+] Year old lens? I doubt if the version released in th 1980s has the lens coatings commonly found in today's "digital" lenses.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

wq9nsc — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 19:33:49 GMT

You are correct that in the long telephoto primes, the non IS versions are older. Unlike some of the shorter glass, once IS was available Canon discontinued the non-IS version given that IS was considered to be a very important feature in this focal length range.

Although the IS versions are more complex and have additional elements and lens groups, they also tend to be lighter as Canon used available technology to lighten many of the component parts. This really shows up in the 400 f2.8 and there are 5 versions of it. The original EF 400 f2.8 weighs over 14 pounds, the IS II version I have comes in just under 8.5 and the latest version is just over 6 pounds.

Optically I am sure that there has been some improvement over the design life of these lenses but any of the 300 or 400 f2.8 family in proper working order is incredibly sharp and will still look great with the 1.4X extender and very usable with the 2X. I used an EF 200-400 with integrated 1.4X extender last year on a test loan and although I REALLY wanted to like that lens, and it is exceptional, it just doesn't have the same look as the 400 f2.8 and that difference is even more pronounced when each is using a 1.4X extender to hit 560mm. This is more of a comment on the sharpness of the long primes because the 200-400 is an incredible lens but the compromise necessary to make even a 2:1 zoom gives the prime optics an edge and the 1 F stop loss coupled with the drop in sharpness was enough to convince me it wouldn't replace my 300 and 400 f2.8 glass.

Note that if you buy one used, most (probably all) of the variations of these lenses were optically designed to have something in the drop in rear filter holder and the included plain glass should be in place if you aren't using a filter. I have seen a lot of used ones for sale on ebay with just the holder because the owner used a filter but took it out before selling so if you buy one without the plain glass or a filter you should plan on buying a filter to fit.

My first longer fast prime was a 300 f2.8 IS and next was the 200 f2 IS followed by a 400 f2.8 IS II and a 800 f5.6 IS. I really can't choose a favorite from these because all are capable of producing incredible images with beautiful sharpness, color, and contrast. The 800 will get the least use because it is more specialized and although the 400 is more of a classic field sports lens the 300 is a bit lighter and does a great job when you are staying on top of the action.

The 200 f2 produces beautiful outside portraits. I brought it to one high school football game last year and used it to capture some images of the pre-game warmup while I was on the field with the players. While I was using it two of the football cheerleaders who are also on my daughter's soccer team came up to me to pose for a photo while I was using it and after that photo was posted several of their squad mates made it clear that I had better take their photos with that "magic" lens also 🙂

Rodger

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

limvo05 — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 19:51:07 GMT

Thank you for answering my question.

As stated, I am considering getting either the 300mm or 400mm prime, but can't decide if I should get IS version or not. The price difference between 300 IS vs non is around $1000. Not sure what it is with the 400mm as there isn't that many used one out there.

My intended use for these lenses is the occasional wildlife e.g. for my upcoming Yellowstone trip, and bird photography.

Thanks.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 20:26:38 GMT

OK, here os the logical answer. "As stated, I am considering getting either the 300mm or 400mm prime..."

These lenses at their time of manufacture and use were state of the art. They were and are very good. Nobody made any better glass at the time than these lenses. Now consider this, they are just as good today as they ever were! Of course there has been upgrades. My gosh I would hope so. I gave you some options in lenses. Check them out but from what you just said, I believe one of the 150-600mm super zooms (the plastic ones) would be a better, cheaper option. It sounds like you really don't have need of the extreme build of big Canon telephoto lenses. And, the build is one reason they cost like they do not because of better IQ. IS or no IS. Most people do not have need of that extreme quality like a full time pro does.

For the same money you can get a brand new lens with IS and the latest greatest IQ ability. Plus it will be lighter and smaller much easier to handle.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

RobertTheFat — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 20:31:25 GMT

@limvo05 wrote:
Thank you for answering my question.

As stated, I am considering getting either the 300mm or 400mm prime, but can't decide if I should get IS version or not. The price difference between 300 IS vs non is around $1000. Not sure what it is with the 400mm as there isn't that many used one out there.

My intended use for these lenses is the occasional wildlife e.g. for my upcoming Yellowstone trip, and bird photography.

Thanks.

When you talk about a lens whose IS version costs $1000 more than its non-IS counterpart, you're talking about a very expensive lens. And with a lens of that sort, you should probably be concerned with resale value. My off-hand guess is that the IS version would be worth significantly more at resale, especially if, as some have suggested, most future long lenses will have IS. So averaged over the life of the lens, the extra cost of IS may be less than it appears.

One caution, though: If mirrorless, specifically the R series, really takes off, no EF lens may be worth all that much at resale. You pay your money; you take your chances, I guess.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

Waddizzle — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 21:28:12 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@limvo05 wrote:
Thank you for answering my question.

As stated, I am considering getting either the 300mm or 400mm prime, but can't decide if I should get IS version or not. The price difference between 300 IS vs non is around $1000. Not sure what it is with the 400mm as there isn't that many used one out there.

My intended use for these lenses is the occasional wildlife e.g. for my upcoming Yellowstone trip, and bird photography.

Thanks.
When you talk about a lens whose IS version costs $1000 more than its non-IS counterpart, you're talking about a very expensive lens. And with a lens of that sort, you should probably be concerned with resale value. My off-hand guess is that the IS version would be worth significantly more at resale, especially if, as some have suggested, most future long lenses will have IS. So averaged over the life of the lens, the extra cost of IS may be less than it appears.

One caution, though: If mirrorless, specifically the R series, really takes off, no EF lens may be worth all that much at resale. You pay your money; you take your chances, I guess.

Bob,

Because AFMA becomes a moot point with mirrorless bodes, many users are reporting that the older great whites are sharper than when they are used with the 1Dx Series bodies. The older lenses may be a good fit with the new mirrorless bodies.

But, I would still be reluctant to pair a 30+ year old lens with a modern mirrorless because of the lack of "digital" lens coatings.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

wq9nsc — Sat, 06 Jun 2020 22:30:10 GMT

If the lens is properly focus calibrated for the 1DX (or any other DSLR body), its sharpness isn't going to improve with mirrorless. There is a lot of mirrorless placebo affect from the evangelical wing 🙂 It is quite possible that a great white (or any lens) used on an older 1 series body which requires calibration by Canon service or a new 1 series body that wasn't calibrated properly by the owner would appear sharper on a mirrorless body.

And the 1DX II and 1DX III offer DPAF through liveview for anyone who wants to experiment.

Rodger

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 07 Jun 2020 14:41:56 GMT

"... its sharpness isn't going to improve with mirrorless."

Rodger you are right,... maybe! The lens can't get any sharper, no matter what some folks like to say, but the camera can.

Re: Should you pay extra for IS?

Waddizzle — Sun, 07 Jun 2020 18:26:52 GMT

"Bob,

Because AFMA becomes a moot point with mirrorless bodes, many users are reporting that the older great whites are sharper than when they are used with the 1Dx Series bodies. The older lenses may be a good fit with the new mirrorless bodies.

But, I would still be reluctant to pair a 30+ year old lens with a modern mirrorless because of the lack of "digital" lens coatings."

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

My mistake. I misspoke.

"..with mirrorless bodes, many users are reporting that the images from the older great whites are sharper...."