Image stabilization in canon

mackinnon

mackinnon

Active member
so i was talking to a lady at ritz today about lenses and whatever for my 20D.  i asked her about canon lenses with image stabilization and she said that the camera already has image stabilization so a lens with it is unnecessary..  i'm not sure if i totally buy what she was saying.  thoughts? i also shoot a lot of live bands, so i think it'd be nice to have those extra 3 stops the IS gives you...
 
my point and shoot has IS, and having never used a differnt cam. for any length of time, I can't really compare it, but the image stabilizer doesn't seem to be much of a help in lower light.
 
well, i am not 100% sure on it, but the ritz person is half right. The camera has it, bit i think you need a IS lens to use it.
 
That lady is full of shit. I hate Ritz, the sales people are worthless...they know NOTHING.

But yeah, I have a 20D (which I love) and it doesn't have in-body IS. Canon only offers it in lenses...
 
word. that's what i thought. when she said that i was like "....err yeah"

haha^ yeah, i've had about 1 good experience at ritz with someone knowledgeable.  i got a camera there a few years ago and the salesguy was a tota douche. i was like "...feel free to be remotely nice when i'm dropping $400 that you didn't help me choose at all. enjoy your commission!"
 
I think IS is little too hyped up lately. It only helps you control camera shake and shooting static objects in lower light. Nothing a fast lens can solve anyways.

What range lens were you looking for?

~Ben
 
i've been looking at:

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 

 
if i were you id pitch for a lower aperature..

i just bought a 70 - 200 sigma dg ex 2.8

an i honestly love having a bigger aperature anyways..
 
If this is going to be your all around lens, the 17-85 is going to be your best bet. Its slow though, so don't expect to be able to shoot for shit indoors without a good flash.

 
nope, you need an IS lens for it. I think sony has it built into their dslrs if I'm not mistaken. a lot of point and shoots have it.
 
well i'd take the L lenses into consideration, but they're obscenely expensive for me. i DO want a 2.8, but that automatically bumps the price up to almost $1000...which isn't happening haha.  i shoot a lot of concerts with crappy lighting...so i guess i'll just have to start using an external flash...bah
 
Take a look at the sigma 24-70 2.8 EX. You can find them used for around 350-400. I actually have one as a backup to my canon 24-70L. EX is sigma's "pro" line and optically its a pretty compariable to the canon. The Autofocus is accurate, but not as fast and silent as the Canon's USM type. It also uses 82mm size filters, so if you are into filters, that can be a pain. Overall though, its a rockstar for the price. Also check out the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, they just released this lens with the HSM type autofocus and it would be a good fit for what your doing from the sounds of it. Link: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3327&navigator=6
 
oh man thats ghetto, i'm sure it will come over to Canon soon. HSM is really nice to have, the non-HSM Lens is still good, just not as quick when it comes to AF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top