To IS or not IS??

will69

will69

Suspended / Banned
Messages
611
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
I understand the advantages of an IS lens over a non-IS lens in respect to getting additional f-stop benefit when hand holding, but they seem to be restricted to apertures of f4 and above.

Take the fantastic (it should be for the price) Canon 24-105 f4 IS L, it is by all accounts a super sharp lens and many use it as a portrait lens. But are you not restricted on min DoF, especially on a crop body with the max aperture of f4. IS will not decrease DoF below this minimum.

For the same money you can get a faster Non-IS lens. Or even a bunch of sharp fast non-IS primes.
 
I've got IS and hardly ever use it these. It takes a second or so (mayne a bit less) to stabilise and in the type of pictures I seem to take and the way I use the camera I've often pressed the shutter too early. Also, it doesn't work too well on moving subjects.

So...

I'd say no to IS; save the money and get yourself a nice mono pod to give you the stability.
 
I always have it running on my 300mm prime where I often want to use shutter speeds less than the reciprocal focal length. I would be much less worried on a shorter focal length, particularly when you're using it outside (as I would)
 
Badger UK said:
I've got IS and hardly ever use it these. It takes a second or so (mayne a bit less) to stabilise and in the type of pictures I seem to take and the way I use the camera I've often pressed the shutter too early. Also, it doesn't work too well on moving subjects.

So...

I'd say no to IS; save the money and get yourself a nice mono pod to give you the stability.
Click to expand...

Given that my IS takes less time to stabilise than the camera takes to turn on (1/20 iirc) I'd say yours is horribly broken!
 
IS also opens up creative possibilities which are often over looked. I love being able to handhold "slow water" shots or work in the evening.

Also please remember that f/4@105mm will give you a more shallow DOF than f/2.8@70mm

As with all glass - its what you make of it that counts!

Cheers
-Rob
 
IS/VR is worth its weight in gold for slow shutter speeds and single shot shooting. When it comes to 1/250th and above I usually turn the VR off on my 300mm prime, this also helps with keeping the focus spot on with continuous shooting, otherwise the VR and focusing seem to clash a little.

Mark
 
will69 said:
I understand the advantages of an IS lens over a non-IS lens in respect to getting additional f-stop benefit when hand holding, but they seem to be restricted to apertures of f4 and above.
Click to expand...
I guess I must have been dreaming then when I bought:
* EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
* EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
* EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS
and I'll give up lusting after that EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS, not to mention the EF 200mm f/2 L IS, because they must be figments of my imagination.

;)
 
StewartR said:
I guess I must have been dreaming then when I bought:
* EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
* EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
* EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS
and I'll give up lusting after that EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS, not to mention the EF 200mm f/2 L IS, because they must be figments of my imagination.

;)
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: Harsh, but true!!
 
markjayne said:
IS/VR is worth its weight in gold for slow shutter speeds and single shot shooting. When it comes to 1/250th and above I usually turn the VR off on my 300mm prime, this also helps with keeping the focus spot on with continuous shooting, otherwise the VR and focusing seem to clash a little.

Mark
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I do as well.

IS does without a doubt slow down focusing and I don't believe it can keep up with rapid direction changes in mode 2.
 
With motorsport (and possible planes Gord?) sometimes I manually focus on the point on the track, turn IS off and shoot when the car/bike gets to that point.

However - most of the time on my 100-400 I have IS on. It's saved a few shots.

I have the 24-105 and don't think I ever turn IS off.

This was handheld, ISO 3200, 1/15 sec f5.6. I would never captured this without IS.
92257485.jpg
 
Both my Canon lenses have IS, and whilst the IS on the kit lens very rarely activates, it's on all the time just in case. I've taken quite a few shots where the IS has meant I could without blurring, where if I hadn't had the IS, the shot would have been spoiled. The only time I turn off the IS is when the camera is tripod mounted, I noticed it causes some odd effects under these circumstances.
 
My main two lenses are the 24-105L (IS) and the 300 f/4L (non-IS)

The difference between them is amazing (and overly pronounced due to the extra 200mm) the IS works so well and so unobtrusively I completely forget I'm using it. Then I switch to the 300 and I'm amazed at how I'm wobbling about all over the place!
 
I can shoot my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at 200mm using 1/60 second with full expectations of 100% sharp imagery. At 1/30 second, the percentage of keepers is not quite as high but is still very respectable. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens 3-4x more often than I was ever able to use my non-IS version because of the added ability to hand-hold this lens provided bythe IS.

I never thought I would appreciate IS in the shorter focal length 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens but, the IS is also great in those focal lengths. I can shoot as low as 1/10 second at 55mm getting sharp imagery. The IS makes the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens into a pretty fair low light glass.

If you have IS, you can always turn it off for a few shots if you so desire. If you don't have IS - you can't turn it on.

Additionally, the IS version of the 70-200mm f/4L is a tad sharper than the non-IS version. Just a small bit, but sharper never-the-less.

I also have the 300mm f/4L IS lens which I frequently hand hold with no problems.
 
rdh said:
Whats IS like for shooting moving people in lower light scenario's - i.e. weddings? :)

Wider aperture wins here?
Click to expand...

IS will not stop subject action - only camera shake.

However, you can often stop action at slower speeds than those which would provide sharp imagery.

The standard rule of thumb is that in order to get sharp images, you need to shoot at a speed of 1/focal length. In other words, for a 200mm focal length, you need to shoot at least 1/200 second and for a 100mm lens you need to shoot at 1/100 second or faster. This is just a rule of thumb and many photographers need a faster shutter speed to get sharp images...

People moving in weddings are not usually moving very fast (except when dancing) and when throwing garter/bouquet. Additionally, there is a concept called shooting at peak of action which could help and also when shooting subjects aproaching or going away from the camera, you can use a slower shutter speed than when the subject is crossing the image plane.

You could get away in many instances using 1/60 or 1/125 second with expectations of reasonably sharp imagery.

However, why not use flash creatively? The introduction to this web site reads:

"These pages were originally written to help other photographers who struggle with on-camera flash. But they were also written as a reaction against the snobbery of the purists who insist on using available light only - even when it looks terrible."

http://planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/
 
rpcrowe said:
IS will not stop subject action - only camera shake.

However, you can often stop action at slower speeds than those which would provide sharp imagery.

The standard rule of thumb is that in order to get sharp images, you need to shoot at a speed of 1/focal length. In other words, for a 200mm focal length, you need to shoot at least 1/200 second and for a 100mm lens you need to shoot at 1/100 second or faster. This is just a rule of thumb and many photographers need a faster shutter speed to get sharp images...

People moving in weddings are not usually moving very fast (except when dancing) and when throwing garter/bouquet. Additionally, there is a concept called shooting at peak of action which could help and also when shooting subjects aproaching or going away from the camera, you can use a slower shutter speed than when the subject is crossing the image plane.

You could get away in many instances using 1/60 or 1/125 second with expectations of reasonably sharp imagery.

However, why not use flash creatively? The introduction to this web site reads:

"These pages were originally written to help other photographers who struggle with on-camera flash. But they were also written as a reaction against the snobbery of the purists who insist on using available light only - even when it looks terrible."

http://planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/
Click to expand...

Interesting read, thanks for your input. I think the benefit over available light is that the flash is one less thing to worry about, i.e. not constantly changing the bounce angle, fitting/removing a diffuser and stopping it down to a reasonable level.

That way you can move about and snap away quite effortlessly. Some of the shots listed on that site are easier to perform, as they are more like portraits, so using a flash is more appropriate due to having more time to get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top