http://www.dead-pixels.co.uk/2010/01/canons-new-70-200mm-lens-with-new-image-stabilization-technology-why/ Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:38:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://www.dead-pixels.co.uk/2010/01/canons-new-70-200mm-lens-with-new-image-stabilization-technology-why/comment-page-1/#comment-286 Agree and disagree Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:27:41 +0000 http://www.dead-pixels.co.uk/2010/01/canons-new-70-200mm-lens-with-new-image-stabilization-technology-why/#comment-286 I see you're point and I do agree (at least mostly; There /are/ situations where image stabilisation allows you to better capture the action in a shot by using longer shutter speeds. For example I went to watch the touring cars (stock cars for the Americans among us) last weekend and in order to freeze the action I needed to use a shutter speed of less than 1/125 sec, however the shots I took at 1/60 sec whilst panning to follow the car in frame came out much more pleasing as the background was nicely blured, but the car was kept crisp. It was only because of the image stabilisation on my lens that I was able to do this. However... that said, I have (and was using) the MK I version of this lens and it's awesome. I really don't see how they could have made sufficient improvements to justify the whopping £1000 price hike on top of the MK I which was a staggering £1300 at full retail price itself. I see you’re point and I do agree (at least mostly; There /are/ situations where image stabilisation allows you to better capture the action in a shot by using longer shutter speeds. For example I went to watch the touring cars (stock cars for the Americans among us) last weekend and in order to freeze the action I needed to use a shutter speed of less than 1/125 sec, however the shots I took at 1/60 sec whilst panning to follow the car in frame came out much more pleasing as the background was nicely blured, but the car was kept crisp. It was only because of the image stabilisation on my lens that I was able to do this. However… that said, I have (and was using) the MK I version of this lens and it’s awesome. I really don’t see how they could have made sufficient improvements to justify the whopping £1000 price hike on top of the MK I which was a staggering £1300 at full retail price itself.

]]>