Should you pay extra for IS?

[limvo05]

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.

[wq9nsc]

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

[limvo05]

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.

[ebiggs1]

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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[wq9nsc]

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

[ebiggs1]

"... 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.

[Waddizzle]

"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...."

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"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...."

---

A distinction without a difference, I think.

But the point I was trying to make was economic, not photographic. If the preference of serious photographers switches to mirrorless (a trend that I suspect is inevitable), an older, heavier lens that requires an adapter will be less attractive on the used market than an equally sharp lens that was specifically designed for mirrorless cameras.

[Waddizzle]

"A distinction without a difference, I think."

I could not agree more.  But, sometimes you have to choose your words carefully, so that they cannot be taken out of context.

I also think a native mount lens is better than using an adapter, except the RF/EF adapters are mount adapters, not lens adapters.  They are specifically designed to allow RF mount bodies to function with EF mount lenses.  Unlike a lens adapter, you only need to buy one mount adapter for the body, instead one lens adapter per lens.

I do not foresee Canon releasing RF versions of their big EF primes anytime soon, and definitely not before they release a "professional grade" body for the RF mount.  What would be the point of releasing RF versions of some fairly recent EF primes?