How important is IS to you?

T

Tdes

Suspended / Banned
Messages
440
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
I have read on some FB groups recently about questions people have for new kit, that a lens having no IS is a deal breaker for them, the most recent being an 85mm for portraits.

How important is it for you, I have never had IS in a body and don't really notice it on the lenses because I mainly shoot events where the subjects are moving, so shutter speed can't go too low.

Am I missing something? Why would you need IS on a lens you are buying specifically for portraits?

T
 
Very, stabilisation camera and/or lens makes a big difference to me and no doubt many others with a less than steady grip.
I never take portraits so can't comment on that aspect, just answering the question in the title of your thread.
 
Last edited:
When you start photography and it’s film and usually slow speed ISO 100, you dearly wish you had IS in every lens. You get your first DSLR and the sensor is extremely noisy above ISO 400, IS would have been welcome. You get your first full frame camera and a 70-200mm f2.8 and shot in a dimly lit venue but wish you had IS. I think IS is important depending on how you shoot or what you shoot. With long telephoto lenses it’s very important, dimly lit condition, traveling light so you don’t have to take a tripod, as you get old you find you can’t hold the camera as steady as you want to. With a portrait lens where you have time on your hands and full control, IS wouldn’t be as important as the image quality or ”look” .
 
Last edited:
I hate it. I use a tripod a lot and if I forget to switch image stabilization off, it ruins the image... But not to the extent you can see it on the preview so I remain oblivious till I get home. It creates a subtle double image which drives me nuts.
 
I mostly like to use lenses between 20 and 85mm and within that range 35-50 is my most used range. At these lengths IS is arguably less necessary and actually when taking pictures of people and other things that may move I find the double digit shutter speeds at which IS would be more useful less useful as even posed people can move as can things in the wider world. Once a shutter speed adequate to freeze movement is dialled in I find IS less important. For long lenses I'd imagine it's very useful but I don't tend to use those. I suppose it's useful for double digit shutter speeds too but I again I tend not to use them.

So, IS is nice but it's not a killer feature or deal breaker for me.
 
Not really. I rarely use it. If you know what you are doing you can simply just set the correct settings that avoid the need for IS.
IS only gives you a little 'buffer' as it were.
 
I've been using bodies with stabilisation since I moved up from a compact digital.
Pentax K100D, Olympus PEN E-PL5 the Olympus OM-D E-M10 and finally E-M10ii each camera has had better stabilisation.
I can't remember the last time I saw any camera shake on a shot I took - but I've seen subject movement because the shutter was too slow.
I never use a tripod.
I was recently shooting seals at 300mm (600mm equivalent) in quite poor light at the beach - I was getting decent results when the little blighters stayed still but binned a lot of shots because they'd moved.

I do agree that 85mm for portraits on a tripod it's not necessary but it might be nice to have the option to use it handheld?
 
Last edited:
riddell said:
Not really. I rarely use it. If you know what you are doing you can simply just set the correct settings that avoid the need for IS.
IS only gives you a little 'buffer' as it were.
Click to expand...

So all those people who swear by it are just a bit incompetent?
To call a possible five or six stops advantage a "little buffer" is plainly wrong
 
Very important. IS is one of the most amazing advances of relatively recent years, and it's getting better all the time. Or maybe all those camera/lens manufacturers and millions of user are wrong.

Faster shutter speeds do not eliminate camera-shake, they just reduce it to an acceptable level. Ditto image stabilisation. And the more help you can get with that, the better chance you've got of sharp images in all situations - especially if you're to have any chance of seeing what your new hi-res sensor can do.

A fast 85mm lens is one thing, but a 70-200 at f/8 on a dull day is quite another.
 
Last edited:
I try to avoid using tripods, so stabilised lenses are really valuable in low light, or when using a telephoto. Also, with a 36MP, sensor camera shake can be more of an issue so I prefer to use stabilised lenses where possible. They’re not infallible, but they are effective.
 
When I was a student photographer in the 50's There was no IS . Yet I could take a one second exposure with an acceptability rate of around 50% using a hand held Rolleiflex.
By comparison the minimum I could achieve on a Hasselblad was around 1/125 second. ( mirror slap and complex shutter .sequence...... open , closed, mirror. open and close, mirror, open.) for each exposure induced both a reflex twitch and shake.

To day, the affects of time and the onset of essential tremor has meant that unaided exposures longer than 1/250 sec are near impossible for me.
However I can happily use Fuji IS lenses down at least as far as 1/10 second with a reasonable chance of success.

Everyone has some degree of natural tremor, or have not trained themselves to the necessary degree, to hand hold longer exposures.
As a result every one gains to one degree or another from the use of IS or IBS.

when hand holding, IS both increases the hit rate of sharp images taken at normal shutter speeds. and greatly so at longer ones.
This is especially true with longer focal length lenses. But is also true to a lesser extent at all focal lengths.
The advantage of using stabilisation is very great indeed.

The lack of mirror slap in mirrorless cameras has also improved almost everyone's hit rate of sharp images.
 
Stegosaurus said:
I hate it. I use a tripod a lot and if I forget to switch image stabilization off, it ruins the image... But not to the extent you can see it on the preview so I remain oblivious till I get home. It creates a subtle double image which drives me nuts.
Click to expand...

That was certainly true of lenses with early iterations of IS.
More recent examples are perfectly stable on tripods.
in some early examples you could actually see the image wandering in the screen when on a tripod.
Some modern examples even let you pan the camera on fast moving subjects, with out problems.

I found it interesting last year when I took a large number of detailed shots, for a book being published for our local church.
All of them were taken with a tripod. After the first day, when I had religiously tried to remember to switch of the IS when changing lenses. I realised I had taken a number with out doing so.
I checked the images at 100%, that evening, so that I could retake any "failures" the next day. In no case were any of them other than pin sharp, with most taken at more than a second exposure.
Over the following days I did not bother to switch off IS. resulting in a 100% success rate.

Camera XT30 and XF 18-55 f2.8 and XC 50-230 ( interestingly there was no discernible difference between the images produced by either of the two lenses.) some images in the book were taken by other people and at other times and the Fuji images stood out as an order different in quality.

The quality of printing of the illustrations was outstanding as they had been printed on a digital press using Stockastic screening on fine quality art paper.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
That was certainly true of lenses with early iterations of IS.
More recent examples are perfectly stable on tripods.
in some early examples you could actually see the image wandering in the screen when on a tripod.
Some modern examples even let you pan the camera on fast moving subjects, with out problems.
Click to expand...
Good to know! I'm always a few steps behind the times... but then I still use film!
 
I managed without it for over forty years, but now I have it I'm grateful for it.

With film only ever normally printed to around 8x10 it was never needed for my pictures. If I wanted to make a bigger print, I'd be sure to use a 50mm 1.8 to get as sharp a picture as possible for something like a 20x30.

Now with such high resolution cameras and the ability to pixel peep so readily, it's easy to show if there's any shake - especially on longer lenses. I find I don't need it most of the time - certainly not on an 85mm, but when using 300 plus lenses, it's an absolute marvel.

Not forgetting of course, getting older sees my hands a lot less steady than they once were.
 
It will vary depending on the camera kit (wide angle or telephoto, the balance of the camera and lens, vibration from mirrors, how hard it is to press the shutter button, where the button is, etc.) and will also be down to the type of photography you do, and how much tremor/shake you have.

Using a tripod to take photos and you won't usually benefit from IS, taking hand-held photos with a longer lens and/or using a shutter speeds lower than 1/125 to 1/60 and you will usually benefit from IS. However, all the IS and IBIS in the world won't stop a moving subject (such as a vehicle or vegetation blowing in the wind), only a fast enough shutter speed will do that.

So the importance of IS to me depends on the camera and lens combination I'm using, the light levels and the subject. In some situations 4 stops of image stabilisation can be a shot-saver, in others it's of no benefit at all. If your lens or camera has IS then it's there if it's needed.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Very important. IS is one of the most amazing advances of relatively recent years, and it's getting better all the time. Or maybe all those camera/lens manufacturers and millions of user are wrong.

Faster shutter speeds do not eliminate camera-shake, they just reduce it to an acceptable level. Ditto image stabilisation. And the more help you can get with that, the better chance you've got of sharp images in all situations - especially if you're to have any chance of seeing what your new hi-res sensor can do.

A fast 85mm lens is one thing, but a 70-200 at f/8 on a dull day is quite another.
Click to expand...

Wowza. That's a clickbait opening there Hoppy. I don't think anyone who doesn't see IS as essential would go on to say that all those camera/lens manufacturers and millions of user are wrong. They probably think it's not essential for them and how they take pictures but can possibly see that it could be essential for others in other situations such as your 200mm guy at f8.

IS is a technological marvel and very useful but as with all things I think it's worthwhile thinking about our needs and if it's an essential deal breaker or not for us.
 
Stegosaurus said:
Not just mirrorless cameras, many if not most DSLRs have a mirror lift function, for example if using live view.
Click to expand...

even my predigital Olympus OM1n has a mirror lift.......

However Mirror lift is not a function used for hand held shots.
 
For motorsport it IS essential!
 
I shoot a very wide range of subjects & found IBIS a real bonus when I got my first (used) DSLR ten years ago. The panning setting was available right back then as well.
However when I got my first few mirrorless cameras they didn't have IBIS. it wasn't a deal breaker for me. If it's available it's a nice extra to have & for me still a bonus when using long lenses at events. Fortunately my latest mirrorless has IBIS as well as improved low light performance...
 
Mikesphotaes said:
For motorsport it IS essential!
Click to expand...

You think?

I held a press pass at Brands in the early 90's using MF T90's & FD lenses shooting BTCC, rallycross and Sunday series Formula Fords and bikes.

No such thing as IS back then and it certainly isn't essential now.

It's called cameracraft and a lot of practice.

Sure nowadays I'd have more keepers but it's certainly not essential.
 
Tdes said:
I have read on some FB groups recently about questions people have for new kit, that a lens having no IS is a deal breaker for them, the most recent being an 85mm for portraits.

How important is it for you, I have never had IS in a body and don't really notice it on the lenses because I mainly shoot events where the subjects are moving, so shutter speed can't go too low.

Am I missing something? Why would you need IS on a lens you are buying specifically for portraits?

T
Click to expand...
You are missing that some of us are old and shaky and rely on IS when low shutter speeds are un-avoidable.
And I don't care much for carrying cumbersome tripods either.
 
Some interesting points of view, I had not considered some aspects.

I think 95% of my work wouldn't benefit from IS because the subjects are usually moving or I am on a tripod, that is why I could not see it!

T
 
Stegosaurus said:
Why do you say that? Obviously not in the film days because the viewfinder would go black, but I can use live view hand held, and up goes the mirror... whole new ball game.
Click to expand...

True for those stuck with DSLR's. I still have one of the first to facilitates that. the Canon 40d complete with three lenses and retired to its camera bag in virtually new condition. not use it since I got my first mirrorless.
 
Getting more and more necessary as I get older. Used to be able to reliably hand hold 1/30th or so when using a 50mm but would now struggle to do the same at 1/60th. Most of my lenses now have it as does one of my bodies.
 
I find it very nice addition to have but not a deal-breaker for sure. I almost always have tripod with me.
The lenses where I strongly want to have them are 100mm macro, 85mm (portrait), and ideally anything over 70mm. 24-70 would be very nice with it too.
 
I have IS functionality on two of my lenses. I've yet to switch it on on either of them. The only reason I have it is because there is no non-IS option. Where there was, I took it (IS version was 70% more than the non-IS)
 
Tdes said:
Some interesting points of view, I had not considered some aspects.

I think 95% of my work wouldn't benefit from IS because the subjects are usually moving or I am on a tripod, that is why I could not see it!

T
Click to expand...
I use panning mode for moving subjects, it prevents the IS fighting against my horizontal movements.
 
Around 2004 or 2005, I splurged on a Canon EF 70-200m f2.8L IS lens. It was the first lens I acquired that had IS, and I was really fascinated to find out if it really worked. Of course, it did, and if a wanted to shoot hand-held, it really could help me get a shot, in the right circumstances. But of course, it did nothing when the subject was moving. And since I used a tripod for almost all of my landscape work, it was a pain to have to remember to turn IS off each time. It got to the point where I left IS off by default.

That's where I am to this day. I turn off IS if the lens comes with it, and it is not a factor in deciding whether to buy a lens or not (though I'm trying REALLY hard not to buy lenses a.t.m.)

BTW, I eventually sold that f2.8 IS lens, and bought the f4.0 non-IS equivalent -- far lighter, and therefore easier on my aging back and knees...
 
image stabilisation helps me shoot 200mm @ 1/125th whilst reaching iso 6400.

Without it I would have fewer keepers, have to increase shutter speed for noisy images (not acceptable), or have to carry a monopod which would be a pain as I have to move around a lot and quickly.

So image stabilisation can be important to do a job well by the standards we now have.
 
Last edited:
Most of my shots are hand held and I have it on nearly all of the time. Like most things added over the 50+ years I have been taking photos there are some situations where they are very useful and others where the gain is marginal.
I also find it useful on my 10x monocular, when the wind is blowing me about I can still identify birds ;)
 
I have a slow methodical approach re photography , Don't do sports or Birds in flight , So no not important to me
 
For me it really depends what I'm using the lens for at the time. I would say half of my photography is still life and the camera is on a tripod, so no need for IS. A third is macro and I mostly use a tripod or flash for that too, so again no need for IS. Them a bit of pet portrait photography using flash, so no real need for it here either. Then the rest is equestrian/sport and I am generally using fast shutter speeds, but I will still have IS turned on, i'm sure it helps. Out of the 6 lenses I own, only 2 don't have IS. If I had a choice of a lens with it or without it, I would still pick the lens with IS, you never know when you'll need it.
 
riddell said:
Not really. I rarely use it. If you know what you are doing you can simply just set the correct settings that avoid the need for IS.
IS only gives you a little 'buffer' as it were.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that a system that offers up to 7.5 EV stops of compensation is a bit more than a 'little buffer' (Olympus EM1 MkIII and 12-100F/4). Not saying everyone can make good use of it but that is a significant gain for those that can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top