Is IS all it's cracked up to be

[jann1033]

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm

last sentence of this article makes me wonder if i am not as crazy as i may appear ( don't know if it's allowed to just paste that part or not so sorry for the long thing for 1 line)

any thoughts?

personally i think it's a great invention but wonder if it's just more to go wrong and wonder if the above isn't true...or maybe it's just a lack of quality control in general . anyway, i think i'm getting a decent monopod and forgetting the is till it's proven one way or the other. Canon sent me a survey about my 28-135 experience...they probably will wish they hadn't... even though i was "polite" i told them their repair stinks pretty plainly

 

[ndelaware]

I love my IS lenses, especially the 70-300IS with the newer IS version. It is amazing the effect that Canon's IS has at 300mm.


It is good that Canon gets to hear about the bad experiences too. The managment in the Cust Service dept. should be glad to hear of it too.

 

[Master Mason]

Jann,

I bought my 70-200 f/2.8 without IS, saved me almost $600 For what I use it for, mostly sports, the IS really wouldn't have helped any anyway. I got a really nice Manfrotto monopod I use as needed, works like a charm. I can see the value in the IS, but to me personally it wasn't worth the extra expense and as you say, it is more to go wrong....

In a lot of ways, it was so much more simple when I was using my dad's old practica with everything manual, and the look down view finder...

 

[BorisMD]

Master Mason,

I, too, have a Manfrotto monopod. I'm curious, what head did you choose? I have the one with a multidirectional ball and a set screw.

It works well, but doesn't have the controlled feel you get with a fluid head.

Regards,

Boris

 

[jann1033]

i too would like info on the monopods if you could ie which and what camera do you have that it holds( weight wise i mean) and which head..is the swivel tilt one more like a panning head?

 

[boBQuincy]

>Is IS all it's cracked up to be?

Yes, and no. How's that for decisiveness? IS definitely helps with sharpness at marginal shutter speeds, I have many more sharp images than before when shooting between 1/60 and 1/8. IS also seems to help even with a monopod, down to maybe 1/2.

As for the added complexity, yes, I think Canon has trouble making them consistently. There are a lot of extra moving parts in there and by definition it leads to less reliability (my 6 Sigma training is starting to show).
If you don't need IS then save the $$$, weight, and reduced battery life and get the non IS version.

I am not convinced that Canon's (or anyone's) repair centers are very good about getting things right, and that's another minus for IS.

 

[Master Mason]

The head I have on my monopod is the Monfrotto 3232. It only moves side to side, or front to back depending on how you allign the camera on it. With my 70-200 I attach it via the lens ring, so it swivels in that.

I have't found that I need anymore than that on a monopod. I would save the money on the fancy ball head, and put that into the one on the tri pod where it really makes a big difference.

and jann, I have an XT, most of the time when it is on the monopod now it has the 70-200 on it, sometimes with the 1.4 extender.

 

[DueyDooDah]

I love my IS lenses, especially the 70-300IS with the newer IS version. It is amazing the effect that Canon's IS has at 300mm.

I have to second this. I too have the 70-300mm. As shaky as I am at times, I couldn't use this lens without IS. I have been very happy with the images I've taken with this system.

 

[jann1033]

I have to second this. I too have the 70-300mm. As shaky as I am at times, I couldn't use this lens without IS. I have been very happy with the images I've taken with this system.

truthfully that is my big fear. i really want the 70-200 but wonder if i should go with the is due to tremors...i seem to be ok with my 100mm as long as it's not 1/1 macro and that has a slightly larger aperture so i can go faster if i need to but it's not any place close to as heavy as the 70-200 either. i have till tomorrow to decide so i better think fast

 

[boBQuincy]

Funny enough, more weight often helps to dampen vibrations. The greater mass takes more force to move so unless it's to the point where you are shaking from just holding it the heavier lens might be ok.

Still, if you can sneak the extra $$$ of the IS past DH, I would go for it.