Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9 Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3699 times:
Currently I have the Canon 75-300mm USM and am thinking about upgrading to the one with IS. Does the IS lens produce far better images than the other one? Is the IS lens also soft at full focal length? I would like your opinions and experiences. I know some of you would suggest I should probably go with 70-200L lens but I don't want to spend more money right now. I'd rather buy a 400mm L lens down the road. Thanks for your feedback.
Paulianer From Germany, joined Jul 2002, 875 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3665 times:
I had both lenses... And to be honest, quality wise I liked the non IS version much more... I don't found the IS useful, because it didn't work while panning... I sometimes had the feeling the results were even worse with IS switch on... Although for non aviation and static stuff it was quite nice, especially in low light...
I now have the 70-200 L, that's a whole different story
Tobias Rose - Hamburg (HAM/EDDH) & (XFW/EDHI) - Canon EOS D60 - ICQ: 235621277 - MSN: Tobias.Rose@gmx.de
FlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3642 times:
I would say, better always depends on what you want to do with it. Im currently using a Canon EOS 300D with a Tamron 28-300mm lens without IS and after a little while of getting used to it it works like a charm. I mean, of course IS is great for poorer light conditions, let's say for shutter speeds below 1/125s but above that I don't think it really matters if you have IS or not. And you said your lens is soft at full focal length, which I think can only be a matter of you not holding the camera 100% steady which I admit is hard at 300mm, but like I said, an IS won't change that unless in poor lighting.
Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3616 times:
There seem to be mixed impressions among users. Thank you to all who replied. Paul, thanks for the links I found my answers there as well. I tried searching but... you know how that function works sometimes. I think I'll just stick with my non-IS lens and just upgrade to 100-400mm L later on. Thanks again.
Fly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3459 times:
It is possible to get a good shot in low light even without IS. I am happy I got this shot accepted in the DB. I shot it with my 300mm lens early morning. Sorry for the self plug, you don't have to click on it.