Lens with Stabilization vs Not....is it worth the extra money?

T

T4Fotoz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2
Edit My Images
No
Looking for thoughts and insight as to if having built-in stabilization options is worth it for taking outdoor/indoor sports action shots. Looking at the possibility of adding a Tamaron Telephoto lens to equipment and just cannot decide if it is worth the extra money or if that money is better suited to be spent on other items? Appreciate your insight!
 
Some lenses have different internals if they have IS so it may not just be a case of is it worth the extra for the IS.
 
T4Fotoz said:
Looking for thoughts and insight as to if having built-in stabilization options is worth it for taking outdoor/indoor sports action shots. Looking at the possibility of adding a Tamaron Telephoto lens to equipment and just cannot decide if it is worth the extra money or if that money is better suited to be spent on other items? Appreciate your insight!
Click to expand...

I used to lust after IS but now I'm not all that bothered. All things being equal such as prices, bulk and weight I suppose I'd rather have IS than not but if it adds cost, bulk and weight or if the body/lens I'm interested in hasn't got it I'll give serious thought to if I really need it or not.

I suppose it all hangs on what you take pictures of and at what shutter speed as if the shutter speed is fast enough you probably wont need the IS. If that's the case you're more likely to need IS at slower shutter speeds but that brings subject movement into the mix. For example... If I can hand hold a long lens with IBIS/IS at 1/50 and get decent pictures of a bowl of fruit that's going nowhere how will that help me with sports / action shots when I'll need 1/250 to freeze the action?

So that's the question I'd ask myself... what am I taking pictures of, what settings will I be using and will IS help or not?
 
Thank you so much woof woof - I am also toying around the idea of a monopod in the place of IS. Any thoughts on the use of a monopod?
 
All my lenses have stabilisation or VR as Nikon call it, can't say I have it turned on that often.
My main subject is wildlife which for me means fast shutter speeds.
I find VR can slow down the focus the focus time, a delay whilst it settles, although not so much
on newer lenses, for this reason I never use it for macro
 
I use IS all the time - even with high speed wildlife photography on the Sony a7Rii is still dam quick to gain pin sharp focus

Les :)
 
For birds in flight my shutter speed of often way above the need for IS however i do keep it on as it helps to keep the image steady and this in turn helps me keep on the bird.
Rob.
 
:agree:
 
The longer the focal length, or the slower the maximum aperture the more useful stabilisation is. It depends on your style of shooting. If you use a tripod all the time for landscapes, it’s pointless having IS.
 
FWIW, the four lenses that I use for sport all have IS but I shoot with it switched off.
 
Most sports you are aiming to freeze action so a fast shutter speed. If indoor happens often I'd prioritise a lens with a fast aperture rather than a slower one with IS. If the lens has both IS and a fast aperture, thats a bonus - but the IS won't be terribly useful in those circumstances. I'd also priortise a camera with good ISO handling as well
 
If your shutter is longer than the focal length of your lens then you'll not really need it. Look at your photos EXIF data and see if your shutter speed is longer than focal length then you could decide. The only issue would be darker scenes for example indoors, but if you have a camera that can handle the ISO then just bump that.
 
Don't forget that some people find it difficult to hold a long heavy lens, so for them the 1/focal length minimum shutter speed doesn't necessarily hold true. In addition the "rule" dates back to 35mm film days so a modern crop sensor digital body may/would require the "apparent" focal length not the actual focal length, the equation realistically becomes 1/(focal length * crop factor). Just to mess that up of course if using a mirrorless (or similar) camera with a lens designed for that body the lens may weigh considerably less and/or be physically smaller than the lens for a FF body, so that will have an effect on the "rule". And as another thing to mess it up, when the "rule" was devised it wasn't devised for the great heavy lumps we currently use (L series FF Canon lenses for example).
So the "rule" really isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Just my 2p.
 
Last edited:
I love image stabilisation.

Precisely zero of my lenses have it though! Which is rather a shame, but it means I have great sharp lenses that are smaller (usually). I'm likely to trade the fuji kit for Canon DSLR at some point and will use the 400mm 5.6 prime because I'll need high shutter speeds and VR won't make any difference to me compared to the weight of the lens, or my skill as a photo (which are very beginner level for wildlife, hence getting a smaller, lighter, cheaper option to learn on). Given the choice, I'd have the more expensive stabilised 100-400 zoom!
 
MatBin said:
Don't forget that some people find it difficult to hold a long heavy lens, so for them the 1/focal length minimum shutter speed doesn't necessarily hold true. In addition the "rule" dates back to 35mm film days so a modern crop sensor digital body may/would require the "apparent" focal length not the actual focal length, the equation realistically becomes 1/(focal length * crop factor). Just to mess that up of course if using a mirrorless (or similar) camera with a lens designed for that body the lens may weigh considerably less and/or be physically smaller than the lens for a FF body, so that will have an effect on the "rule". And as another thing to mess it up, when the "rule" was devised it wasn't devised for the great heavy lumps we currently use (L series FF Canon lenses for example).
So the "rule" really isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Just my 2p.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point. Also typically sports photographers don't always do handheld as they use a monopod which can help with the steadiness.
 
ThePrettyDamned said:
I love image stabilisation.

Precisely zero of my lenses have it though! Which is rather a shame, but it means I have great sharp lenses that are smaller (usually). I'm likely to trade the fuji kit for Canon DSLR at some point and will use the 400mm 5.6 prime because I'll need high shutter speeds and VR won't make any difference to me compared to the weight of the lens, or my skill as a photo (which are very beginner level for wildlife, hence getting a smaller, lighter, cheaper option to learn on). Given the choice, I'd have the more expensive stabilised 100-400 zoom!
Click to expand...
The "old" 400 f5.6 is a very sharp lens, the 100-400 mk 1 zoom wasn't/isn't quite as sharp (but IS can help in keeping the lens steady, so increase apparent sharpness), the mk2 is better I believe (but a lot more expensive). A compromise would be a 300 f4 IS with a 1.4 extender. I have/had all 3 at one point on a 5D3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top