Image Stabilisation

A

Adam Cross

Suspended / Banned
Messages
19
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
If a camera were to be mounted on a fixed platform, would IS be entirely necessary for photographing a subject, even in lower light levels? Does the benefit of IS compensate for the extra cost? The camera and lens (max 250mm) is only going to be used on a platform, which should not shake or move.
 
If the camera is fixed, ie on a tripod, it is generally best to turn the IS off.
 
Nearly all the IS/VR/VC stabilisation methods recommend you turn them off if you're using a tripod as it can confuse the mechanism, so if you're planning a purchase and will be using a tripod then there's no need to shellout for IS too.
 
Question- is it the Canon 55-250mm IS you are planning to buy?
 
The versions of IS on cheaper lenses can't tell if it's mounted on a tripod so will try to compensate for shake that isn't their which in-turn causes camera shake (supposedly).

I've always been of the opinion that if you know you don't need it, don't buy a lens with the option. IS systems require more elements and more elements generally means less IQ. Of course there are exceptions to that.
 
I will probably be using the 18-55mm; however I may extend to the 55-250mm.
 
Then I'd recommend the 18-55mm IS version anyway. Image quality with either IS on or off is far superior than the previous versions.
 
2Thumbs said:
The versions of IS on cheaper lenses can't tell if it's mounted on a tripod so will try to compensate for shake that isn't their which in-turn causes camera shake (supposedly).

I've always been of the opinion that if you know you don't need it, don't buy a lens with the option. IS systems require more elements and more elements generally means less IQ. Of course there are exceptions to that.
Click to expand...

2Thumbs said:
Then I'd recommend the 18-55mm IS version anyway. Image quality with either IS on or off is far superior than the previous versions.
Click to expand...

Ah, seems to be contradicting opinions? Is a lens with IS worth paying extra for given that it is only going to be used on a fixed platform? I'm on a tight budget and the extra £100 pounds for IS on the 18-55mm needs to be really showing up in IQ. Thanks.
 
Adam Cross said:
Ah, seems to be contradicting opinions? Is a lens with IS worth paying extra for given that it is only going to be used on a fixed platform? I'm on a tight budget and the extra £100 pounds for IS on the 18-55mm needs to be really showing up in IQ. Thanks.
Click to expand...

£100 extra? Where did you get that from?
I got a mint (taken out of a kit) 18-55mm IS for £55.00!
I also got a 55-250mm IS 1 month old for £115.00 they can be had for £140/150 ish new.
The 18-55mm IS is a better quality lens all round (than the standard 18-55)
So, yes, it is worth the extra.
The 55-250mm IS has some oustanding reviews, and as I own one, I can say well deserved too. It performs well above it's
price bracket.
So, yes, it is worth the extra.
 
Last edited:
It's not a contradiction at all, the advice given there was to buy the IS version of the lens because even with IS off, the image quality is better than the non IS lens. The IS itself doesn't come into it.

But yeah,fixed position,no need for an IS lens. IS or any other system only stabilises the lens at your end, it won't stabilise a moving target for example, as such a fixed position I.e tripod is the best IS you can get ;)
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
It's not a contradiction at all, the advice given there was to buy the IS version of the lens because even with IS off, the image quality is better than the non IS lens. The IS itself doesn't come into it.

But yeah,fixed position,no need for an IS lens. IS or any other system only stabilises the lens at your end, it won't stabilise a moving target for example, as such a fixed position I.e tripod is the best IS you can get ;)
Click to expand...

BUT, there are exeptions!
I was on a bridge over a canal taking shots of boats. My camera was on a tripod, so, IS off. The images were coming out blurred, I could not figure why at first, then it struck me! The bridge had traffic on it and the vibrations were transmitted through the tripod to the camera. Switched on the IS and images were focused!
 
wontolla said:
BUT, there are exeptions!
I was on a bridge over a canal taking shots of boats. My camera was on a tripod, so, IS off. The images were coming out blurred, I could not figure why at first, then it struck me! The bridge had traffic on it and the vibrations were transmitted through the tripod to the camera. Switched on the IS and images were focused!
Click to expand...

Lol hardly typical but yeah I see what you mean
 
Adam Cross said:
Ah, seems to be contradicting opinions?
Click to expand...

The 18-55mm IS is an exception. ;)

Another example but vice versa is that the original Tamron SP 17-50mm is widely regarded as sharper than the VC (IS) version.

Are you talking about the Mk2 18-55mm IS when you say it's £100 more? You can buy the Mk1 for around £60-80.
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Lol hardly typical but yeah I see what you mean
Click to expand...
More typical (for me) with landscape shots is vibration caused by medium to strong winds.
It can easily be seen at the time using Live View zoomed in a bit.
In extreme gale force conditions I've found holding a finger on the lens hood damps nearly all of the vibrations plus turned IS on to try and minimise the shake caused by touching the lens.

Live View is also a good way too tell if your IS is OK left on with your lens / camera / tripod combination.
Zoom in to the max - if there is any movement then it is probably the IS settling or hunting and the IS needs turning off.
With my two IS lenses it's pretty obvious and turning the IS off fixes it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top