| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2006 11:26:12 AM · #1 |
was wondering if the IS feature on lenses are worth the additional price bump?
Was thinking of either the 28-135mm with IS or the 28-105 without IS, the 135 is almost double the price of the 105.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 11:30:27 AM · #2 |
There are opinions on both sides of the argument. Hopefully you'll get a balance on both sides. Whether it's worth it for you will depend a lot on your shooting habits.
IS is beneficial where tripods and flash aren't allowed (a fast lens may be a better choice in these situations if you're shooting wide open). It is also beneficial when you want to stop down the lens to gain DOF. It will give you about 2 extra stops. The most noticable difference will be with telephoto shots over wide angle.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 11:45:09 AM · #3 |
You really need to evaluate what type of photos you will be taking with that particular lens. I went through the same dilema and ended up with the 28-105 non-IS. As much as I wanted the IS feature, the price wasn't worth my typical applications. I have three kids, and a house full of pets (including a miniature horse in the back yard).If your going to shoot action, IS won't help much. IS wouldn't help at all when trying to capture our German Shepard herding the horse into it's pen.
If you think IS will be beneficial, save up a little longer and buy it. If you don't need the IS, I think you'll be pleased with the 28-105.
Happy shopping,
RCB |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:11:47 PM · #4 |
No way! I own two cameras that have IS and neither one has yet made a winning entry!
Seriously, it is unlikely that IS will make any dramatic improvement unless you shoot a lot of action material in marginal lighting conditions.
There is generally about a two stop improvement in shooting speed. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:14:50 PM · #5 |
Using the 1/focal length rule, anything under a 75mm lens doesn't relaly need IS. It's got to be really dark for to need 1/60 or 1/80 or slower shutter speed. You can brace yourself or use flash, bump up the ISO, etc. The best choice is a faster lens. And as mentioned, it won't do anything for moving subjects.
So yo have a 100mm shot and should be holding at 1/125. To me that is rare, but does occur. How often will it occur for you? With IS you can drop that to 1/30 and get a solid shot so the theory goes. personally I don't think the extra cost and complexity (and weight, battery drain) are work it to me. The one IS lens I may get one day is the canon 70-200 2.8 IS. A long length where IS is truly useable and if 2.8 is not enough then it works. ON a 4.5 lens you'd be better off with a 2.8 lens.
Before you buy any of those lenses, do yourself a favor and check out the Tarmon SP24-135. Fabulous glass. L quality optics if not better than L.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:16:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
No way! I own two cameras that have IS and neither one has yet made a winning entry!
Seriously, it is unlikely that IS will make any dramatic improvement unless you shoot a lot of action material in marginal lighting conditions.
There is generally about a two stop improvement in shooting speed. |
IS does not help with action! It gets you 2 stops slower shutter speed - so instead of 1/125 you can handholed 1/30. or 1/500 can be 1/125. if you need the faster shutter speed to freeze the action, then you need that shutter speed. IS will not help, as the slower shutter will allow the action to be blurred.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:23:11 PM · #7 |
| I think IS is only useful for telephoto. The 70-300 IS is the only one I have and is unbelieveable...sharp handheld at 300mm 1/60s. I wouldn't waste the money on the 28-135 since its application is very limited. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:28:36 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
IS does not help with action! It gets you 2 stops slower shutter speed - so instead of 1/125 you can handholed 1/30. or 1/500 can be 1/125. if you need the faster shutter speed to freeze the action, then you need that shutter speed. IS will not help, as the slower shutter will allow the action to be blurred. |
IS can, indeed, help with action shots (some, anyway). Consider, if you will, the two-mode IS system fitted to newer lenses. This permits stabilisation to be effective in the vertical plane only, thus making panning shots a little better (in theory at least). Also, don't forget that, using the 1/focal length rule, that using a 100mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera, one should really aim for a shutter speed of 1/160 or faster handheld.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:29:13 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by ElGordo:
No way! I own two cameras that have IS and neither one has yet made a winning entry!
Seriously, it is unlikely that IS will make any dramatic improvement unless you shoot a lot of action material in marginal lighting conditions.
There is generally about a two stop improvement in shooting speed. |
IS does not help with action! It gets you 2 stops slower shutter speed - so instead of 1/125 you can handholed 1/30. or 1/500 can be 1/125. if you need the faster shutter speed to freeze the action, then you need that shutter speed. IS will not help, as the slower shutter will allow the action to be blurred. |
Or two stops smaller aperture! |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:29:30 PM · #10 |
I just fairly recently finally made the step from my Canon A-1 to a 350D. Wanting to set myself up without having to change lenses constantly, etc, I went with a bare body and the Canon Zoom W/A-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM AF Lens as a "Does-it-All" lens. So far I've been quite happy with it, though I have to admit I haven't really put it through it's paces yet, so to speak. Of course, since all had before was a fixed 50mm lens, the new one is a gem for getting just the right DoF and framing.
Okay, so I didn't really answer the question, I'm just sharing user experience. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:31:10 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by cresus:
I think IS is only useful for telephoto. The 70-300 IS is the only one I have and is unbelieveable...sharp handheld at 300mm 1/60s. I wouldn't waste the money on the 28-135 since its application is very limited. |
If one wants to use a smaller aperture in dark conditions and still go handheld, then IS is most certainly useful. After all, with a larger aperture, the DOF might be too small for the intended application. I think that the 28-135 is a good lens. It seems sharp enough certainly and has a good range, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:33:41 PM · #12 |
I forgot to mention, the 28-105 is arguably a better lens optically than the 28-135...so keep in mind you're not only deciding on whether or not you want IS, you're compromising on image quality.
28-135 7.6
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=10&sort=7&cat=27&page=1
28-105 f/3.5-4.5 8.6(make sure you don't get the f/4-5.6 version)
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&cat=27&page=3
And then there's what I did...had the 28-105 but was unhappy with the sharpness and bought the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which would be my recommendation in place of either of Canon's. Just FYI. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 12:59:47 PM · #13 |
Thanks for the feedback guys!
I read the fredmiranda reviews, (thanks cresus) and settled my doubts. Im getting the 28-105 (the 3.5). I haven't owned any lenses besides canon, new photographer here.
I am very interested in the Tamron SP 24-135, might save up enough for that too. we'll see. Is the glass on that Tamron really L quality? Any users of this tamron outhere? |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 01:18:15 PM · #14 |
| Prof_fate is a large supporter of the 24-135. I had it and decided to sell it for the 28-75 which is sharper. The 28-75 I think is L quality optically. It's got comparable reviews as Canon's 28-70 2.8L at 1/3 the price. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the Tamron aside from not having full time manual focusing. |
|
|
|
02/17/2006 01:59:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by cresus:
Prof_fate is a large supporter of the 24-135. I had it and decided to sell it for the 28-75 which is sharper. The 28-75 I think is L quality optically. It's got comparable reviews as Canon's 28-70 2.8L at 1/3 the price. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about the Tamron aside from not having full time manual focusing. |
I think the the Tamron 28-75 is compared to Canon's 24-70 more often than it is compared to the 28-70. The 24-70 is a current model while the 28-70 has been discontinued. All three are excellent lenses with little difference between them in regards to image quality.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2006 02:19:14 PM · #16 |
| That's what I thought too but then when I was quickly looking through reviews I saw the 28-70 and thought I had been wrong. Thanks for correcting me. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 01:37:56 PM EDT.
