Is Image Stabilization worth the extra money?

[egarrard]

Find out: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/

[JCYC5]

But that article ends up saying "So IS works!"...

Do you NEED IS? If you intend to use it in low light conditions, it is a saviour... In places where you cannot use flash and tripods (museums, etc) it is extremely useful and can mean the difference between getting a picture and not at all...

But -supposedly- IS degrades the image quality even when off, as reported in the DPReview forums (at least for the 70-200L F2.8 compared to the 70-200L F2.8 IS)

[egarrard]

Originally posted by JCYC5
But -supposedly- IS degrades the image quality even when off, as reported in the DPReview forums (at least for the 70-200L F2.8 compared to the 70-200L F2.8 IS) If you have a $1000 tripod rig maybe, due to the extra glass, but for most people, it will be a god send. Look at the pictures of the street sign in that article. It made a big difference when the lens was handheld. That's how most people would use it. In the 75-300mm that most 300D owners might buy, it is a very good thing.

[JCYC5]

Originally posted by egarrard
If you have a $1000 tripod rig maybe, due to the extra glass, but for most people, it will be a god send. Look at the pictures of the street sign in that article. It made a big difference when the lens was handheld. That's how most people would use it. In the 75-300mm that most 300D owners might buy, it is a very good thing.

Agreed :thumb