Is image stabilization necessary?

[BK5524]

I’m looking at the 24-70 and 28-70 RF L lenses. The 28-70 f2 does not have image stabilization. Is it really necessary? I’m sure there are places where it might and might not be, but I would appreciate help deciding. I’m glad to answer any questions that would help you give me helpful info. I like to shoot nature, but I’ve also taken up doing photos of different events at our kids school. Many of those involve lower lighting (performing arts stage and football stadium at night), but not a lot of fast motion shots. I don’t do sports. Thanks!

[ebiggs1]

"The 28-70 f2 does not have image stabilization. Is it really necessary?"

At one time in history no lens nor camera had IS. Guess what? We got along just fine and somehow got the shots. The fact is all the fantastic new capabilities of modern gear has made a lot of average folks into good photographers.

[BK5524]

I never really thought about it but yes, you are correct. I started out with a Minolta X370 I got for Christmas when I was fourteen or fifteen. I got plenty of great photos with that thing! I still have it, but it hasn't been used or even been out of the bag for well over twenty years. I don't even know why I still have it. Frankly, I didn't realize until recently that you could still buy traditional film. Maybe it'll get a little use one day...maybe not.

[ebiggs1]

By all means get that old guy out and some film and use it. I have a Minolta X-700, 35 mm single-lens reflex film camera. It doesn't get much work either but it still works. I still shoot my Canon F1n 35mm film camera.

I confess I didn't read al the fluff posted above but I would not let the absence of IS deter me from buying a lens. Oh, its nice for sure but not mandatory.