Mike -
I think this depends entirely on what you want to use it for. If you
need to do a lot of low-light shooting, or very low ISO shooting -
i.e. anything involving shutter speeds that significantly exceed the
inverse ISO rule, then it's worth it. If you just want to shoot your
kids' daylight soccer games, then go the cheaper route. The only IS
lens I currently own is the 28-135, and I use the IS feature maybe
25% of the time. But when I need it, there's no substitute.
And remember, at low shutter speeds, IS doesn't stop blur
form *subject movement!" But you knew that.
Ken
At 08:08 AM 2/24/2006, you wrote:
Greetings All,
I have been a member of this list for about 5 minutes....literally. Anyway,
I would like to ask the age old question (sorry if it's been over done) if
opting for the image stabilization feature on the 70-200L is worth and extra
$700. I am looking at "like new", non IS 70-200 L's on Ebay for $900 so I am
having a difficult time justifying such a high price tag for the IS. Let's
face it $700 is a nice chunk of $ towards another lens! Suggestions and
feedback would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.
-Mike
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
