Canon Image Stabilizing Lens - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/30/2004 01:42:00 AM · #1

I'm looking to purchase a new lens for my Digital Rebel. While searching ebay, I found some great deals like 2 lenses (25-100mm, 100-300mm) for around 180USD. Then, I see a 28-135mm lens for over 400USD. I clicked to see what was so special about this lens and found out it was canons special "Image Stabilizing" lens. I was wondinging if anyone had one of these or have ever seen/used one. Is the output of this lens worth the extra fortune? I'm seriously interested in both deals, and am trying to weigh my decision with an educated mind.

Here's a Link for you to see the lens: //consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7337

ConcreteDonkey

Nikon D300

06/30/2004 01:43:39 AM · #2

well its always better to have an image stableizer.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/30/2004 01:44:24 AM · #3

Do they really provide a signifigant difference?

ConcreteDonkey

Nikon D300

06/30/2004 01:46:03 AM · #4

well yess if you get shake in your pictures is is a big help like my friend Joe he has toretts and he can take a sharp picture with an image stabilizer.,

Bassie

Nikon D70

06/30/2004 01:48:04 AM · #5

Oh yeah! My friend has parkinson's desease and his shots are crisp with the image stablizer!

06/30/2004 01:49:07 AM · #6

well, I don't have any disabilities, but maybe it is worth the money for those... "Oh shoot, I wish I had my tri-pod right now!" situations

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/30/2004 01:52:09 AM · #7

anymore feedback/advice? I'd really apreciate your views on the matter...

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

06/30/2004 01:53:41 AM · #8

I just got my first IS lens (I believe Canon pioneered IS, but might be wrong) and am astounded by it.

I can happily handhold at 400mm and shoot a lot slower than I would ever have got away with with my old 300mm non stabilised lens.

I think the rule of thumb is you get an extra 2 stops from IS.

Any future purchases I make, if there is an IS variant of the lens I am will automatically go for it, unless there ius a very compelling alternate reason not to.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/30/2004 01:56:56 AM · #9

beautiful... exactly the info I was looking for!

Message edited by author 2004-06-30 01:57:06.

flip89

Nikon D700

06/30/2004 02:05:58 AM · #10

Got a VR (vibration reduction, Nikon equivalent for IS) for my second lens and like Natator, would gladly purchase another with a stabilizer (in fact, I just did). I no longer have to carry a tripod or monopod when I'm tramping for shots, even sometimes, my hand held night shots aren't bad at all.

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

06/30/2004 02:24:26 AM · #11

The new Konica/Minolta dSLR will have an in-camera image stabilisation system which means cheaper lenses :)

wkoffel

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/30/2004 09:08:26 AM · #12

GUYinaTIE:

There are numerous discussions on these boards about the IS lenses. In general, it sounds like people who have them love them, including me (70-200/2.8 IS). If you have the money, they are worth the money. If you don't, you can get high quality optics, with slightly less flexibility, for less money.

Search these boards, and you'll find an awful lot about the pros and cons of these IS lenses. I won't rehash them all here.

Good luck with your choice.

-Will

digistoune

Canon EOS-20D

06/30/2004 09:16:12 AM · #13

I might add that you should really think about the type of photography that you do. Alot of action? IS would be a good bet. Are still life photos your specialty? Then IS would be overkill.

Just a thought ;-)

Ngporter

06/30/2004 09:35:52 AM · #14

i use both the IS lens the 28 - 135 and the 70 - 300mm they make up half of my kit, and i wouldnt swap them for any other lenses. they take sharp pictures, and i wish i had got them a couple of months earlier :-)

biohazard

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

06/30/2004 09:38:51 AM · #15

Ngporter, you have any sample pics? I'm thinking about buying the 28-135.

Does the IS eat much more battery than normal?

audioaltima

06/30/2004 01:06:53 PM · #16

Originally posted by biohazard:

Does the IS eat much more battery than normal?

The motors for the IS system are powered by the camera, so battery life will be reduced. How much is a function of how often you use the IS. The IS is activated once you half press the shutter, so if you learn to shoot quickly, the extra consumption isn't terrible at all.

garlic

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

06/30/2004 01:24:58 PM · #17

Originally posted by GUYinaTIE:

Do they really provide a signifigant difference?

Depends what you are dealing with. If you are dealing with low light situation where long shutter is needed then it is without a doubt a very useful thing. But if you are dealing with sports or well lit object where you can or have to use fast shutter speed it doesn´t change anything.
But I advice you not just to bye the most cheepest lens you see, very often you get what you pay for (not always of course). There are many sites dealing with lens quality that I would recomend looking at before bying, f. inst this.

Ngporter