 |
|
|
|||
|
|
BetterPhoto Q&A
To participate in the Forum, become a BetterPhoto member or Sign In.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Craig Demartino member since: 8/9/2005 |
Image Stabilization Lens With the current line of Canon lenses, is it still better to buy a fast lens, 2.8? Or is it OK to go with a slower lens with image stabilization (IS)? It goes against all my past knowledge to do that, but I'm wondering if the technology is so good it does not matter. Thanks! 8/15/2005 8:51:55 AM |
|
|
|
||
Jon Close member since: 5/18/2000 |
IS is a great feature for getting sharp shots hand-held without blurring from camera shake. It is not a replacement for f/2.8 or faster lenses when the primary concern is shallow depth of field, or a fast shutter speed to freeze subject motion. Thus, some of Canon's f/2.8 lenses also incorporate IS (eg., EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, EF 300 f/2.8L IS USM).
8/15/2005 9:03:39 AM |
|
|
|
||
|
Ron Taylor member since: 10/16/2003 |
Just a second "Amen" to the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. I have a several other IS lenses and the 70-200 is my favorite by far. Great lens!
8/16/2005 5:13:01 AM |
|
|
|
||
|
To participate in the Forum, become a BetterPhoto member or Sign In.
|
||
|
|
Copyright © 1996-2013 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.