ClioSport.net

Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Canon IS lens



Does anybody here have any experience with them? I have the chance to buy a 28-135 IS USM lens for a good price but was not sure if it warrented the extra over the 25-105.

Does the IS improve the picture quality at slow shutter speeds a lot?

Thanks for any feedback
 

dk

  911 GTS Cab
lots of different opinions on this, for low light conditions i think it helps alot but i went for a better lens without the IS when i was choosing.
 
'IS' is very good at what it does, steady the camera, but depending on what your shooting it can be only half the equation. If anything in the shot is moving it will still suffer at slow shutter speeds.

A bigger aperture to let more light is another factor, how does that compare between the two lenses.
 
  Pink & Blue 182, JDM DC2
I've compared shots taken with my non-IS L-series lens to pictures tkane with an IS L-series. Whilst I would imagine you'd get less duff shots, I still didn't see a good enough benefit to warrant the extra outlay.
 
  106 GTi
I would not bother with it on a lightweight or short focal length lenses. Works well on my 300mm prime though.

All depends what you want to shot as well.
 
  Silver 172 PhII
DutchRS said:
Does anybody here have any experience with them? I have the chance to buy a 28-135 IS USM lens for a good price but was not sure if it warrented the extra over the 25-105.

Does the IS improve the picture quality at slow shutter speeds a lot?

Thanks for any feedback

I sold my 28-105 asI bought a 28-135 IS. Both are good lenses but IMHO the 28-105 is a better lens. I've found the IS useful but the 28-105 is sharper and I wish I would have kept it. I find that if I'm going slow enough to really need IS then I've usualy got my tripod on me anyway. I've used it once or twice and it is very good when you do need it I just don't seem to find myself in situations when I do often enough.

I also found the 28-135 a tad slower to foucs, but that could just be the awful AF on the 10D....
 
Thanks all for the answers.... looks like it may well be the lens without it as it will save me 100 Euros. It will be an "everyday" lens rather than for any specific shots. I still want to treat myself to a L series at some stage but am moving house next month and dont want to have to sell the wife just yet.
 
  A red missile
L Series is definately the way forward, my old efs 18-55 was so bad in comparison that i shot it after using an L, only downside was then i wanted a larger L series, then a camera with a full frame sensor and before i knew it i'd parted with 3 1/2 grand. The shots look the b****cks though but for general landscape/portrait shots with normal light i dont thnk IS makes much difference but handheld at 400mm would be virtually impossible without it, that said its rare to be in a position where a tripod is impractical but i like having the option to not use one, i guess it comes down to money really, an L Series IS lens will give better shots in most circumstances, what you have to weigh up is can you justify the high price.
 


Top