# IS or no IS?



## samhodde (Feb 7, 2013)

I'm looking into Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 and my current debate is whether or not to go with the IS version or non IS version.

For a bit of context, I do mostly video work, narrative shorts and the like. I'm looking into getting into more photo work like weddings and similar events. My main body is a 7D and I'm looking to a full frame body to that somewhere along the line.

What are everybody's experiences with IS, especially pertaining to video?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 7, 2013)

Not having read a lot about Tamron's 70-200, in general I would say get an IS version if you might be shooting with slower shutter speeds, as it'll help with any tiny bit of camera shake. However, I don't know if the 70-200 non-IS is optically better than the 70-200 IS. If it was the Canon lenses, both are great but the 70-200 2.8 IS edges out as the best.


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 7, 2013)

Video without IS sucks unless using either tripods only or have some kind of steadycam outfit.


----------



## LowBloodSugar (Feb 8, 2013)

I am in the market for an IS lens for indoor photo and video work. IS is a must for me.

I am considering:
Canon 24-105 f/4L IS
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC
Canon 35 F2 IS

I just rented the Tamron 24-70 IS from lens rentals, and liked it. Its a bit big. IS worked well, but its not a magic. You still have to hold still when hand holding the camera.

I had the efs 17-55 2.8 IS and it was really amazing lens, but incompatible with full frame.

Does anyone know of any websites that show comparison of IS on various lenses for video? Are some IS lenses able to absorb more motion than others?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 8, 2013)

You should also be aware of lens barrel distortion for lenses at various focal lengths (if it's a zoom) since it'd be extremely difficult to remove those in video. The 24-105 has some visible distortion at 24mm depending on what you're shooting, while the Tamron and especially the Canon 24-70 v2 are much less at 24mm.


----------



## pwp (Feb 8, 2013)

Don't even think about it. Get the IS version. IS is useful on wider lenses like the 24-105, and indispensable for a 70-200 for the sort of work you have described. You'll have tangibly superior video and a higher percentage of keepers from your stills.

-PW


----------



## Plamen (Feb 8, 2013)

+1



pwp said:


> Don't even think about it. Get the IS version. IS is useful on wider lenses like the 24-105, and indispensable for a 70-200 for the sort of work you have described. You'll have tangibly superior video and a higher percentage of keepers from your stills.
> -PW


----------



## agierke (Feb 8, 2013)

will you be hand holding the 70-200 while doing video? that seems like a little much for video purposes.

everytime i see a videographer with a 70-200 its on a tripod or dolly. never hand held. in that case, you dont need IS and shouldn't have it on.

in this instance i think IS wouldn't be as useful. if you are planning on working handheld at that focal length or shooting alot of stills in low light then yes get the IS.


----------



## steven kessel (Feb 8, 2013)

I shoot only still images but I've gradually moved all of my lenses to IS. Currently, my three principal lenses are the 100-400 f4-5.6L IS, the 70-200 f4L IS, and the 24-105 f4 L IS. I do a lot of wildlife shooting and at low light and slow shutter speeds IS is a godsend. Even then it's not perfect. With my 100-400, anything shot handheld below 1/200 of a second is noticeably soft. I can get slower shutter speeds out of the 70-200 and the 24-105 due, most likely, to their considerably lighter weight, but with these lenses below 1/100 is problematic.


----------



## samhodde (Feb 8, 2013)

The good majority of my video work is done from a tripod or another stabilization system. This lens would probably rarely be used for video but I just wanted opinions because I see little point in spending so much on a lens that I can only use for a few situations.

I started this thread seeing if anybody could give me a good excuse to go ahead and jump on a 70-200 f/2.8, but after reading everybody's responses it seems that waiting a bit longer to go with the IS is the way to go.

Thanks for your help!


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 8, 2013)

samhodde said:


> I'm looking into Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 and my current debate is whether or not to go with the IS version or non IS version.
> 
> For a bit of context, I do mostly video work, narrative shorts and the like. I'm looking into getting into more photo work like weddings and similar events. My main body is a 7D and I'm looking to a full frame body to that somewhere along the line.
> 
> What are everybody's experiences with IS, especially pertaining to video?



I don't do video (unless I have to and then I use a video camera...) but that seems to be the only justification for IS I can think of.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 8, 2013)

IS is huge plus for this range, especially f2.8 lens


----------



## pedro (Feb 8, 2013)

I guess, IS at this range is a plus for video or handheld photography. But I do some photography using my Canon 70-200 2.8 non IS and get nice results at very low speed, sometimes below 1/200. As the 5D3 allows me to crank up the ISOs quite a bit there is some space for experiments...


----------



## The Bad Duck (Feb 8, 2013)

IS. No doubt about that.

One thing it does besides the things already mentioned above is to give you a steady viewfinder/LW while composing your image and help with panning. I´m no video guy but that seems helpful there too.


----------



## eyeland (Feb 8, 2013)

I understand that IS should be off (or in tripod-mode if available) when a tripod is used but how about stabilizer systems like http://www.ebay.com/itm/370736718339 ?
I understand that this particular model may be to "lightweight" to handle a serious DSLR + a heavy lens, but still, IS off when mounted?


----------



## J.R. (Feb 8, 2013)

While I'm in favour of IS, I've just read from another poster that IS can affect bokeh 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12818.msg230053#msg230053

while I've put a parallel question in the relevant post but it seemed right to put the question here also - is this correct?


----------



## Plamen (Feb 8, 2013)

J.R. said:


> While I'm in favour of IS, I've just read from another poster that IS can affect bokeh
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12818.msg230053#msg230053
> 
> while I've put a parallel question in the relevant post but it seemed right to put the question here also - is this correct?



If the IS elements are so decentered at the moment of the shot, to affect the bokeh, this means that without IS, you whole shot would be bokeh only.  Not to mention that you can always turn the IS off. 

On the other hand, the IS poses design restrictions, and they might affect the bokeh.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 8, 2013)

Plamen said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > While I'm in favour of IS, I've just read from another poster that IS can affect bokeh
> ...



The biggest reason I was surprised by this statement is because I've heard most people say that they never turn it off ... Sounds odd if there is a possibility that your IQ can be compromised


----------

