IS or Not IS ???

[mbp]

Hi

I am debating over 2 lenses.

Either the canon 28-136 IS lens or the sigma equivalent without the image stabilization.

Is the IS worth the extra money?


Thanks

Mark

[photovanbeek]

This is a good question but not as straight forward as it might seem. Personally I don't like the lens that you are asking about but IS in general is worth it. I have never met anyone who has bought an IS lens who was not extremely relieved that they did.
Rather than put money into a not-so-great lens with IS, I would buy higher grade lenses without it or better still, put the money into a very good lens with IS.

[mbp]

Andrew

Is it the Image quality of the canon IS lens you are referring to or the build quality?

Thanks

Mark

[photovanbeek]

Poor image quality only. Always soft, terrible bokeh, and very soft edges wide open.

That lens taught me to never buy a non-'L' zoom again...

[MikeCraven]

Go for the Canon 24-105mm f4L. IS. It is on my cameras must of the time and giving spendid results. Works well in low light churches and receptions.

regards
Mike

[studio58]

I have used that 28-135 is extensively. I bought it about 5 years ago & I would say that the is function is amazing. However, I rarely use it now as i prefer my 24-70 2.8 L & my 70-200 2.8 L is. I had the non is 70-200 L for 7 years before I upgraded & the difference is unbelievable. I can now get shots that were not possible previously (eg.....low light) Personally, I would not purchase a non is lens if the is alternative is available in that focal length. & I would not purchase a non Canon lens & stick to L glass, having said that I do use the 100 macro & 15fisheye. Both non L

Cheers,

Paul

[VisionsbyBaker]

I rarely take the 24-105 off my main camera! It's a great lens and well worth the cost. Putting "cheap" glass in front of your professional grade camera is like re-treads on a '68 Vette. It took digital to finally teach me this... Film can hide the defects that digital does not.