Image Stabilisation

boccers_2000

boccers_2000

Suspended / Banned
Messages
379
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I just wanted to check how much you guys reckon IS matters in a camera?

I expect that all depends on what you are doing with it etc but I just wanted to gauge opinion.

Cheers
 
When you're hand holding a D700 with a 70-200 f2.8 it at an event it matters a lot. ;)
It enables you to really nail shots that you would miss normally. The VRII version is fantastic.
 
PSILVERMAN said:
When you're hand holding a D700 with a 70-200 f2.8 it at an event it matters a lot. ;)
It enables you to really nail shots that you would miss normally. The VRII version is fantastic.
Click to expand...

I only ask as ive just purchased the Canon 70-200 f4 L which doesnt have IS. Im happy with that given im interested in landscape and portrait (as well as architecture) so i use a tripod or can take time to get a steady surface etc (as opposed to wildlife/sports etc when there is lots of handheld).

The IS version just seemed to be crazily more expensive than the non IS.
 
VR lets me use my 55-200 in lower light with its slower speed as a walkaround. I can hand hold it at 150-200 at 1/15 and get pretty usable shots. I don't know that I could do that without VR, and the benefit is more stops than I could get from going to a 2.8 lens. Of course I'd prefer a 2.8 lens, but the price and weight have held me back on getting one.

Thanks
Rick
 
IS is always on the list when looking for a new lens (along with IQ, size, weight, noise and cost). I find IS gives me the flexibility to be more fluid with my photography, I'll only use a tripod when I really need to. All depends on your personal style of course.
 
i have is built into my sony so even 20 year old lenses have the benefit from it. i've only really turned it off when i have the camera mounted on a tripod. i guess i'm taking it for granted because i've always had it whilst using dslr's. i might switch it of and see how i get on for a weekends shooting
 
would depend entirely on what I am shooting. If it's sports, quite often a fast shutter is needed, so hand held with the 70-200 is fine. I guess some sports a slower shutter is OK. But for wildlife, IS would be nice, as static animals in low light would benefit from IS+slow shutter.

Suppose that's a yes and a no! haha, not much help.
 
boccers_2000 said:
I only ask as ive just purchased the Canon 70-200 f4 L which doesnt have IS. Im happy with that given im interested in landscape and portrait (as well as architecture) so i use a tripod or can take time to get a steady surface etc (as opposed to wildlife/sports etc when there is lots of handheld).

The IS version just seemed to be crazily more expensive than the non IS.
Click to expand...

The IS version of the 70-200L is more expensive mainly because it's a completely different lens - better optically and mechanically, as well as having IS. IS in itself is not very expensive, and is fitted to some of the cheapest lenses out there, eg kit zooms.

IS-or-not is a long running and often heated debate.* Personally, I think it's a fantastic invention.

* I don't like permanently fitted protection filters either :D
 
I have in body IS on my Olympus, allways on, never turn it off
 
IS has saved quite a few of my handheld shots at around 200mm but maybe I just have the shakes!
 
FrankCastle said:
IS has saved quite a few of my handheld shots at around 200mm but maybe I just have the shakes!
Click to expand...

Thanks guys. I just bought the 70-200mm f4 L and was taking a few shots last night hand held in low light. Im thinking that as a lens it either needs lots of light or a tripod. Great lens though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top