Would you buy a lens without IS?

[inkjunkie]

Really considering buying a 5d Mark IV or a 6D Mark II. I recently purchased a T7i, with the EFS 18-135mm lens. It is a fantastic camera. I also purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 lense.....absolutley incredible photos. Please don't ask why I am considering this, the answer is very long winded...but to sum it up I am bi-polar and in "the mood to spend"....

Anyways, been spending some time looking at "shorter" EF mount lenses. Have been thinking about

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/standard-zoom/ef-24-70m...

The thing that bothers me is no IS. I have been using my EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 with the IS turned off. In looking at the RAW images in LIghtroom they look pretty sharp to me but......

So what say you fine folks? Would you purchase a lens without IS?

Those of you with Full Frame bodies...what lens is your "go to" as far as landscape, walk around general use? One of the things I will be doing is taking photos at the local dragstrip next season. One of the things I like to do is show up early and take shots of people unloading their cars, driving thru the pits to warm up them up etc. I am thinking that the 70-200 may be a bit "long" for this as I am often only a few feet from the cars/people.

Appreciate any and all input...

[ScottyP]

I have lots of lenses without IS. Image stabilization only helps with camera shake from hand-held shots. IS can't help you with blur that comes from moving subjects.  Only fast shutter can help with that. 

[ScottyP]

My go to lens for full frame is my 35mm f/1.4  prime lens.  Lately I've been using my 16-35mm f/2.8 zoom instead, when I don't need the 2 extra stops of light from the prime.  Neither of those lenses has IS. 

[shadowsports]

inkjunkie,

Nothing wrong with buying a lens without IS. 

I like a 16-35 for FF landscapes and 24-70 for a walk around.  My 16-35 is f2.8 no IS and the 24-70 is a Sigma f2.8 with IS.

The former is something I knew I'd typically use in bright daylight and fast shutter speeds, so IS wasn't as important on this lens.  The latter is something I knew I would use during the day, but would also use a great deal for handheld shots in dim, low light situations where I might use f2.8 and slower shutter speeds.  This would also be my go to lens for video.  Because of this, I wanted IS which is is why I bought the Sigma Art.  The Sigma weighs .5 lbs more than the equivlent Canon (non-IS)...  I thought about this a great deal.

I have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8~4 APS-C contemporary for my T6s and have had fantastic results in low light.  Addtionally after a full day of shooting when fatigue sets in, IS can keep your images sharp when you might be a little shakey.  This is what influenced my purchase decision when it came time to buy a FF walk around for my new body.

IS is going to be most effective for handheld shots in low light, low fStop and slow shutter speeds, stationary subjects.  If you are shooting video off tripod, IS will help reduce jerkiness. 

All that said, I would not hesitate to buy a non-IS lens, especially on a lens with shorter focal lenght.  Lighter weight is nice most of the time.  

[inkjunkie]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

inkjunkie,

Noting wrong with buying a lens without IS. 

I like a 16-35 for FF landscapes and 24-70 for a walk around.  My 16-35 is f2.8 no IS and the 24-70 is a Sigma f2.8 with IS.

The former is something I knew I'd typically use in bright daylight and fast shutter speeds, so IS wasn't as important on this lens.  The latter is something I knew I would use during the day, but would also use a great deal for handheld shots in dim, low light situations where I might use f2.8 and slower shutter speeds.  This would also be my go to lens for video.  Because of this, I wanted IS which is is why I bought the Sigma Art.  The Sigma weighs .5 lbs more than the equivlent Canon (non-IS)...  I thought about this a great deal.

I have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8~4 APS-C contemporary for my T6s and have had fantastic results in low light.  Addtionally after a full day of shooting when fatigue sets in, IS can keep your images sharp when you might be a little shakey.  This is what influenced my purchase decision when it came time to buy a FF walk around for my new body.

IS is going to be most effective for handheld shots in low light, low fStop and slow shutter speeds, stationary subjects.  If you are shooting video off tripod, IS will help reduce jerkiness. 

All that said, I would not hesitate to buy a non-IS lens, especially on a lens with shorter focal lenght.  Lighter weight is nice most of the time.  

---

Have never looked at Sigma lenses. The 24-70 SIgma that you have, is it as durable as its Canon counterpart? One thing I have always liked about Canon equipment is how durable it is.

[diverhank]

A few of my lenses do not have IS...I don't think you really need to have it except in emergencies...like in real low light without a tripod, shooting at non-moving objects.

One should not use IS as a way to be "undisciplined" in picture taking.  What I mean is that you should always use adequate shutter speed when hand-holding; use  a tripod in low light, etc. then IS is a no-factor.

My go-to lens that I use about 90% of the time is my favorite EF 24-70mm, F/2.8L II USM lens that never has IS.  Prior to that I was using the kit lens EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and as I mentioned the only time it made a difference is in real low light without a tripod...a situation you should consider as an emergency...I don't allow myself in that corner...your pictures in that corner will not be stellar, period.

[shadowsports]

inkjunkie,

The v2 of Sigma's 24-70 is extreme weather / dust resistant.  Model # is 576.  I feel the same way as you. If I'm going to spend 1-2k on a lens I should be able to take it outside in less than ideal conditions. The Sigma traveled to Russia with me last month. It rained. 3 of the 13 days I was there. Both my new lens and body took the moisture like champs. I love Canon products and while I will always usually choose a Canon lens first, Sigma has stepped up their game. The reviews speak for themselves, and given the positive experience I had with my 17-70 APS-C lens, I did not hesitate to buy Sigma again. Their 24-70 is a tank. I own over 10 lenses, only two are non-canon and both are excellent performers.

Here is an example of sigma quality.  Paris Catacombs.  T6s, 17-70 f2.8 Contemporary, near pitch black conditions, handheld, slow shutter.  We visited after a full day of sightseeing.  I was tired and fatigued.  IS was great. New Art lens on my 6D2 is even better.

Dem Bones

[ebiggs1]

At one time we didn't have any lens with IS.  Guess what we got along just fine.

This is how I see it.  Two identical lenses, one with IS and one without.  I would probably buy the one with IS.  However if there were no IS on either, I would not even hesitate in buying it.

[RobertTheFat]

---

ebiggs1 wrote:

At one time we didn't have any lens with IS.  Guess what we got along just fine.

This is how I see it.  Two identical lenses, one with IS and one without.  I would probably buy the one with IS.  However if there were no IS on either, I would not even hesitate in buying it.

---

Many of us in this forum (Ernie and I included) are fans of Canon's latest version of the 24-70mm f/2.8, which doesn't have IS. The lens is already big and heavy, and at that focal range the benefit of IS doesn't justify the additional size and weight that it would require.

[shadowsports]

Yes, what Robert says is true. Canon's 24-70 is 1.74lbs while my Sigma is 2.24lbs. That's the trade off.  While it doesn't bother me...  everyone has their preference.