Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:42 am

Is Is Worth Paying That Much More For?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:05 am

Here is my situation:

300D coming in my hands in about a month or so with a kit lens. I want to get a 75-300mm since I don't want to bust all my money on a 100-400 or 70-200. Yet i look at the 75-300 and the regular one is $149US and the IS is $414 US..... in my position, or in general, is the IS worth $250 more for a lens that you may not use for such a long time?
Chelsea Football Club supporter.
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Is Is Worth Paying That Much More For?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:09 am

It all depends on what you want to do. Do you want shoot at slow shutters like 1/100 and below? Do you want to shoot fast subjects like at airshows, you want to shoot in low / bad light?

If not, just for normal without IS will fit your needs!
Jet Visuals
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Is Is Worth Paying That Much More For?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:14 am


The bottom line is budget. I have the IS version, having previously had the standard lens. There is no doubt that the IS lens provides a lot more flexibility - for example, being able to keep the aperture relatively small (to help with the photo quality) without losing the photo to blur. Also, contrail shots are possible with this lens that I don't think would be with the standard one - again because you do need to watch your f-number to maximise quality.

So the IS really does make a difference, but there is also no doubt that the lens is somewhat soft at the long end of the zoom. You can read more information in this thread.

All I can say is I am glad I made the upgrade. But I still am a bit envious of those guys with the 'L' lenses - they do make a difference to quality. Though with good editing technique the IS lens is more than acceptable.

Hope this helps.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests