IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Newer members often state that they think their question is too basic, or stupid, or whatever, to be posted. Nothing could be further further from the truth in any section at DSLRUsers.com, but especially here. Don't feel intimidated. The only stupid question is the one that remains unasked. We were all beginners at one stage, and even the most experienced amongst us will admit to learning new stuff on a daily basis. Ask away! Please also refer to the forum rules and the portal page

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is. Please also check the portal page for more information on this.

IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Postby chaos133 on Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Hey everyone, I was wondering what your thoughts were on IS vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

I'm thinking of getting a Canon EOS 1100D with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Lens and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens. I can get this for $709 AUD.

I can get the same but with the the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens and the Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1.2 Lens Canon Mount (both lenses non-IS) for $547 AUD.

Should I save some money and go with the non IS or should I spend a bit more and get the IS kit?

Also, does anyone know the real world battery life for the Canon EOS 1100D? I never trust the specs on the websites so I'm looking for people who have this camera to tell me the approximate battery life.

Thanks for anyones help :)
chaos133
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Postby chrisk on Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:48 pm

This isn't just about IS, this is also about different lens'. To cut a long story short, yes IMO you should pay extra for IS especially for telephoto zoom lens'.
EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75 l AW1 l V3
User avatar
chrisk
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3317
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: Oyster Bay, Sydney

Re: IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Postby ATJ on Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:51 pm

Yes, in most cases IS lenses are worth the extra money.

I shoot Nikon, so they are called VR (but it is the same thing). After many years of photography, I bought my first VR lens earlier this year and I was absolutely blown away by the difference it makes. This is on a 70-300mm lens and it is obvious just looking through the viewfinder how much it stabilises the image. I liked it so much I have already replaced my 18-55mm with a VR version. I just wish there was a VR version of the 60mm macro lens.
User avatar
ATJ
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW

Re: IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Postby Aussie Dave on Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:21 pm

Anything that benefits the photographer is a good thing.

Of course it is no replacement for technique but it will allow you more options when the light levels are forcing you to use a less-than-optimal shutter/aperture/ISO settings....generally more beneficial for your longer focal lengths but can also be handy with shorter ones when the light levels are really low and using a tripod is not an option.

Also, as Rooz pointed out different lenses will have different optical qualities. Just because two different lenses have may have the same focal length (eg. 18-55mm), this doesn't mean that they will be the same optically. Just something to keep in mind when looking at lenses, regardless of IS.

Dave
Dave
Nikon D7000 | 18-105 VR Lens | Nikon 50 1.8G | Sigma 70-300 APO II Super Macro | Tokina 11-16 AT-X | Nikon SB-800 | Lowepro Mini Trekker AWII
Photography = Compromise
User avatar
Aussie Dave
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: West. Suburbs, Melbourne [Nikon D7000]

Re: IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Postby the foto fanatic on Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:46 pm

There is no reason to buy a non-VR or (IS) lens.

The technology is proven and the price differential is peanuts in the scheme of things.

I suggest that if you don't buy it you will regret it.
TFF (Trevor)
My History Blog: Your Brisbane: Past & Present
My Photo Blog: The Foto Fanatic
Nikon stuff!
User avatar
the foto fanatic
Moderator
 
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: Teneriffe, Brisbane

Re: IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Postby aim54x on Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:52 pm

Between the kits stated...I would also vote the IS. The 18-55 IS II is quite an improvement over the elderly 18-55 II, and the IS in the longer lens is worth the excess alone!
Cameron
Nikon F/Nikon 1 | Hasselblad V/XPAN| Leica M/LTM |Sony α/FE/E/Maxxum/M42
Wishlist Nikkor 24/85 f/1.4| Fuji Natura Black
Scout-Images | Flickr | 365Project
User avatar
aim54x
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7305
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: Penshurst, Sydney

Re: IS lenses vs non IS lenses, are they worth the extra money?

Postby chaos133 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:54 pm

Thanks for your help everyone. I'll definitely get the IS lenses now :)
chaos133
Newbie
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:23 pm
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia


Return to Absolute Beginners Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests