Can anyone explain to me how helpful IS is compared to non IS, all my lenses are non IS and with zoom (300mm)I cant seem to shoot below 1/125 shutter at f5.6. With IS do you think Id be able to go as low as lets say 1/60 or would it be slightly helpful maybe at like 1/90 over 1/125. im just curious if its worth the extra $150 or $200 for an IS lens over a non IS, what Id really like would be an f2.8 75-300 but I cant find any under a grand (anyone know where theyre cheaper?)
Canon lens IS vs non IS
- Thread starter fhawk362
- Start date
fhawk362;4282303; said:
The IS or (VR on the Nikons) function works like magic. Seriously. I have a tamron 100-300 macro without any kind of image stabilization and just like you stated, anywhere under 1/125 is completely useless without a tripod or remote. The IS function is very much worth looking into. I have the cheap 55-250 IS f3.5 and it works great. Even under 1/125. I've gone as low as 1/30 and lower with successful results. If you are just looking into getting a better zoom lens look into the 55-250mm IS aka the nifty-two-fifty. Look up forums for used lenses, this particular lens used runs about $150. Yes the IS is worth it.