Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by SLED, Feb 15, 2007.
To IS, or not to IS..... that is the question
no is no care
if j00 dont get is you might as well just get the 135mm f2 instead
a pole is coming?
this is such a stupid fucking question
Yea because asking opinions about whether or not to spend an extra $600 on a feature is just fucking out of this world. Keep trolling.
What do you shoot primarily? When do you find it effective for your exposures?
I personally don't think it's that big of a deal. At least not enough to spend that much money on it. Plus, it's really only good for shooting stationary things in low light, because while it eliminates some of your motion, it doesn't do anything for the subjects moving.
Do you shoot alot in low light situations?
Do you shoot alot in the 1/10 - 1/60 second range hand held?
Do you have parkinsons disease?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, IS might be right for you...
A better question is what do you shoot primarily.
s o n y > *
if you can afford it, is the only fucking reason
Right now I have NO need for IS. I primarily shoot sports, and always during the day... and a little outdoor modeling.
I guess I want to start shooting more, and was looking for good comparisons about when you guys have really needed it or not, and what the particular situation was. I don't know what direction I really want to go yet, just trying to get some ideas.
f/4 IS, seems to have the best optics and IS of the group, still leaves a budget for a fast prime for low light
i use my nikon 70-200 VR and love it. LOVE ITTT
I have the 2.8 non IS. It is razor sharp, at 2.8 I can slow it down to 1/40th handheld in twilight without a problem. I hardly ever shoot in low light tho and when I do a tripod is always nearby. Obviously it depends on what kind of shooting you are going to do but if you dont need IS save the 500+ and put it towards a 17-40L or something else like I did.
i have the f/2.8 NON-IS version. As people said. IS is nice.. but doesn't help from moving objects and blur.. it just helps with camera shake. I use my 70-200 f/2.8L NON-IS for people, cars, sports.. and it's fine. the extra $500-$600.. ehh.. i'd rather just get a fast prime or something.
Hey, did the pole come yet? I would like to dodge when the pole arrives.
btw, I have the 70-200 f4....it IS nice, got it as a present but my next step will be the f2.8 non-IS. I rather spend the extra money on a nice prime or some other equipment.
the 70-200 is 2.8 is great for weight lifting.
It is a heavy fucker
that's what she said