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.

[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?

[ebiggs1]

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

"...the RF/EF adapters are mount adapters, not lens adapters."

An adapter is an adapter. No other way to put it.  It adapts something that was not designed to work on to some other something else. At the very least it is another piece of gear you need to keep track of. I need for this lens so I put it on, oh wait, no, I don't need it for this lens. Just something I am not wanting to deal with.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

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

"...the RF/EF adapters are mount adapters, not lens adapters."

An adapter is an adapter. No other way to put it.  It adapts something that was not designed to work on to some other something else. At the very least it is another piece of gear you need to keep track of. I need for this lens so I put it on, oh wait, no, I don't need it for this lens. Just something I am not wanting to deal with.

---

That point of view is your personal opinion, and preference.

[ebiggs1]

And correct! 

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

And correct! 

---

"I don't think there is a correct or short answer to this question."

That is true.  You are learning, although some seem to think their way or no way.

[ebiggs1]

You really shouldn't take everything so seriously especially when it is done in jest, my friend.