image stabilization

does IS affect quality? outside of the blur - does it reduce the capable resolution of the lens, or in the anti-shake world - does it affect the quality of the CCD?

was just wondering if it might...

I've heard people say that the non-IS version is sharper than its IS counterpart. But to make that comparison valid, one would have to compare the same model (70-200 f/2.8, 300mm prime, etc).

I believe that the resolution difference, if noticeable, can be rationalized by how one shoots in the field. If you are a stanch supporter of using tripods (pun intended) all time time, then go with the non-IS version and save $$. If you plan to do a lot of hand-holding, then the advantage of the IS is going to vastly outweigh any of the initial resolution difference (again, if any).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loupey

I've heard people say that the non-IS version is sharper than its IS counterpart. But to make that comparison valid, one would have to compare the same model (70-200 f/2.8, 300mm prime, etc).

---

You're right about that - except it's really an optics issue, I think. The best example I know of is the Canon 300 f/4L and the newer IS version of the same lens. People who've used them both feel that the older, non-IS version was better - but not because of the IS, just because they changed the optics a bit. But no one says the 300 f/4L IS is a bad lens. They just say the older one was better. And as you said, the benefits of image stabilization will outweigh any negative effects, which will be minimal or non-existent, anyway.