DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon's IS lens...worth it?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/20/2004 05:37:45 PM · #1
Hi,

I was looking into getting the ef 73-300 lens but not the IS one because of the price. My question is for those of you who have it, does it really make a difference? I won't be using a tripod and the 300d is pretty light so would it be too off-balanced?

Thanks
 05/20/2004 05:38:22 PM · #2
it's overrated
 05/20/2004 05:48:04 PM · #3
I just got the 75-300 without IS, and it works fine at a speed of 150, with the IS you will be able to shoot at 60, so the price is much higher than the benefit, at least for me (that i can't afford it) it doesn't worth it.
 05/20/2004 05:51:59 PM · #4
Well I have the 90-300 non-IS its light, and at 300mm hand held its unusable. So I bought the 75-300 IS and I am very very happy with the results

my image in the centered challenge is taken with this 75-300 IS lens, hand held at 300mm - when the challenge finishes check it out. Its crisp and sharp, something I could NEVER get with the non-IS model without a tripod.

Don't watse your money on the non- IS, or at least if you do then buy mine (its still here in a box waiting for a bid on ebay.
 05/20/2004 06:40:37 PM · #5
I'd like to here more discussion on this.

I'm trying to decide whether to buy a Canon 75-300MM f4.0-5.6 IS USM or keep saving for the L-Series equivalent. I can get the aforementioned for about $400 while the L-Series is about $1400. Any more thoughts or comments?
 05/20/2004 06:48:03 PM · #6
Originally posted by scrum8:
I'd like to here more discussion on this.

I'm trying to decide whether to buy a Canon 75-300MM f4.0-5.6 IS USM or keep saving for the L-Series equivalent. I can get the aforementioned for about $400 while the L-Series is about $1400. Any more thoughts or comments?


I have the same question.................... inquiring minds want to know.
 05/20/2004 07:04:38 PM · #7
The L-series equivalent is either the 70-200mm f/4.0 US$550 (A real bargain given the quality), or the 70-200mm f/2.8 US$1,140 or the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS at US$1650 (The ultimate best in this range).

In terms of bang for your buck you can't beat the 70-200 f/4 at US$550
If money is not a limiting factor then you can't beat the 70-200 f/2.8 IS in term of quality.

Message edited by author 2004-05-20 19:05:24.
 05/20/2004 07:20:45 PM · #8
You are crazy not to spend the few extra $$ for IS version of the 75-300mm - in low light situations IS is mandatory for catching decent outdoor pictures at twilight without a tripod - and if that isn't enough , it will enhance the resale later on. I have this lens - I wouldn't trade the IS function on it for the world.

I also have the IS version of the 100-400mm L IS lens - now, this puppy is pretty heavy, especially with the 2x Extender, and in the past year I have always used it with a tripod. In hindsight, I probably could have done without IS on this lens ....... but, there is no telling what I will be doing with it in the next ten years. Since I live in Alaska and every day is a photo opportunity, there is a very good chance the day will come when having IS on this lens pays for itself.

05/20/2004 07:30:51 PM · #9
Given the rather high f-stop on the lens (5.6 at 300mm I belive) I find the IS very usefull. Without it I think I would bump my head on the handheald limit when shooting the occasional low light performance or weekend sport shot handheld. The lens itself is not one of canon's finer efforts, but it's small size, wide zoom range and price point are good, and compensate for the softness and tendency to seek for focus. Given that the IS in the L series lenses is about an additional $500, the $200 price here isn't too steep.

I am looking to add the 70-200 2.8, and there the IS is a toughter question, given the higher speed and shorter length, but if the 75-300 didn't have the IS I don't think I would ever use it. IMHO you should dig deep and pay for the IS. Have you looked at EBay or the used market? This lense is a classic second step lens, and is often sold as folks send good money after bad;)
 05/20/2004 08:28:56 PM · #10
I have the 70-200/2.8L IS, and the lens is a total dream. I was just raving about it in some other forum post today I think.

The IS basically allows me to never think about the shutter-speed. I can shoot down to 1/50s at 200mm and have very acceptably sharp photos. It's the lens I use for almost everything I do, and I even leave IS on when it's on a tripod to counter some of the mirror-slap on the Digital Rebel (especially when I have an extension tube on for macro work).

Also, the lens has an IS mode where it will sense the direction of most movement, if you are panning a shot, and only stabilize orthogonally to that motion. This is a big boon for moving sports shots.

The one big drawback is that you should budget not only extra for the IS, but also a few hundred bucks for a good set of home dumbells, because once you feel how heavy the IS feature makes a lens, you'll need to bulk up for photo shoots.

-Will
 05/20/2004 09:08:49 PM · #11
Originally posted by achiral:
it's overrated


I agree. I have this lens & have yet to realise the grandness of the IS feature.
 05/20/2004 10:35:16 PM · #12
The only IS lens I have is the 28-135 and it is one of my favorites.
 05/20/2004 11:00:25 PM · #13
I had the 75-300 IS. I sold it and bought a 70-200 non IS. In my opinion, the IS is overrated. I was never able to successfully say that the IS allowed me to make a photo that I would not have been able to make otherwise. When I found myself in low light hand held situations, I was unable to produce acceptable photos with IS. There is probably some extreme borderline area where IS will help you.

I have yet to see any acceptable evidence that IS is worth the extra money. Those who have it will generally tell you how great it is, but they haven't shown me any evidence that it is better to spend the extra money.
05/20/2004 11:42:57 PM · #14
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I had the 75-300 IS. I sold it and bought a 70-200 non IS.

Did you get the 4 or the 2.8? I'm trying to get up the courage to buy the 70-200, and I'm stuck.

Here's my process:
(A) I feel the 4 would be a great buy.
(B) But the 2.8 non-IS would be the way to go if you're not getting IS.
(C) But hey, then I think if you're spending $1,100, why not pony up the extra cash and get the IS at that point.

Then I go back to position A and start all over. Been doing that for a while now. :(
 05/21/2004 12:12:46 AM · #15
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I had the 75-300 IS. I sold it and bought a 70-200 non IS.

Did you get the 4 or the 2.8? I'm trying to get up the courage to buy the 70-200, and I'm stuck.

Here's my process:
(A) I feel the 4 would be a great buy.
(B) But the 2.8 non-IS would be the way to go if you're not getting IS.
(C) But hey, then I think if you're spending $1,100, why not pony up the extra cash and get the IS at that point.

Then I go back to position A and start all over. Been doing that for a while now. :(


I bought the f/2.8. I did not buy the IS at the extra cost for the reasons i listed in my previous post. The 'extra cash' for IS in this lens is a significantly extra amount of cash :)
05/21/2004 12:37:51 AM · #16
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I wavered about what to get; IS, Non-IS; IS, Non-IS. hmmmm. So I went for the IS 'cause I didn't have any IS lenses and I figured that if it totally sucked I could resell it and be doing just fine (as far as getting most of my investment back out of it).

I can say that having IS has saved me hours of work or lost shots. I just shot the kindergarten graduation for my nephew and since he was at the front of the list and I was sitting on the front row I decided to go ahead and get a shot of all the kids to just give to their families if they wanted. The location was a LARGE religious building that is almost cavernous in its lighting; I mean, who's really gonna notice during services but when you dial in ISO 400, set the aperture to 2.8 and still have to lower the shutter speed to 1/30th of a second you begin to get a feel for how dark it was. Now certainly I could have dialed up to 800 but the principal was wearing either a black suit or a dark navy suit and the outcome was the same on my computer. His suit was a solid dark color. Great opportunity for noise. The teacher that stood by his side for the first half of the students wore a bright yellow, floral print dress. Being able to get more ambient light in that setting without having to dial up 800 made a huge difference in how viewable the subjects were and the fact that the images can actually be blown up to 8x10's if the parents want without displaying much noise at all. I didn't have to NeatImage the shots so they are crisp and clean.

I don't post the photos as proof only because 9 out of 10 times that I actually notice IS saving a photo opportunity is when I'm indoors shooting some event for kids and I know that parents don't want their little 5, 6 or 7-year old's photo on the Internet ('Cause they tell me). I've posted tons of photos of models that I've shot in full daylight where the IS is useless for most purposes.

I can't speak to the 75-300 lens you are interested in but I can tell you that the IS technology can make a difference in low light photography where you want to use ambient light without resorting to higher ISO's. Frankly as much as I'm enjoying shooting this lens I'll probably buy either an f/4 or non-IS f/2.8 version later (after the professional body and other lenses) simply because of all the arguments about how IS is necessary and then how its not. The only way to truly know for sure is just to purchase one of each and test it and then sell whichever you don't like. The weight doesn't bother me during a 3-hour photoshoot with models and I'm holding my camera with the battery grip, flash bracket, 550EX and the 70-200 2.8 IS attached. It is a noticible weight but my opinion is that I like the solid feel of it and I haven't had a time when the weight made me wish I had something lighter yet (of course, as John has noted before, sometimes I hate carrying the darned camera bag to the location).

Kev
 05/21/2004 12:39:51 AM · #17
The IS version of the 70-200 has the better weather sealing and the circular aperture as well, so there's that to consider. I have the f/4 version and there have been sports moments where I wish I had the f/2.8. However, and this is a very important however, I'm not sure you'd fully realise the benefits of the f/2.8 version with the 10D. I find that with sports and action I get a lot of misses at f/4, in that the DOF is very shallow even at that aperture. The stop of brighness might make a bit of difference in focusing, yes, but without a 1-series body with the cross-sensor focus you're likely to miss a hell of a lot of the time at f/2.8. I'm thinking of getting a 135/2 for lower light situations where I need something really fast, in addition to the 70-200.
 05/21/2004 02:45:51 AM · #18
I have the EF 75-300mm Ultrasonic lens. Is that the alternative to the IS? Anyway, if it is and I could afford the IS after looking it up right now, I'd get the IS. The one I have is not very good when handheld in low light conditions, as anyone would expect. My 2 cents.

June
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:33:56 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/02/2025 03:33:56 PM EDT.