Handheld photos only: IS against non-IS battle to the death!

[lwright84]

Like thousands of others before and after me, I am weighing the pros and cons of IS (OS, VC, etc) on zoom lenses of all ranges. I hear so many different opinions:

-IS doesnt matter, its all about shutter speeds
-IS does matter, but only on telephoto
-It's impossible to get a sharp image past XXXmm without IS
-Don't ever buy a lens without it!
-Don't ever buy a lens with it!

And so on and so forth. So, I figure the Lens Sample Photo Archive was the best place to put this to the test, once and for all. The only *rule* of posting here is that your shot MUST be handheld! Post your handheld images either with or without IS, and then provide what lens you shot with and at what basic settings (ISO, shutter, aperture). If your shot was taken with IS and your lens has more than 1 mode, please be sure to clarify which mode was used. If you make people guess, be sure to return with the answer!

I think that a large collection of images to compare is the best way to make an informed decision on whether or not to spend the extra money on IS. From here, people can go look at specific lens threads and really dial in on their purchase.

Whether you think it's worth the money or not, let your images do the talking!

[shallowlife]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5310/5596212731_75484a9907_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shallowlife/5596212731/)
Trying out Noise Ninja (http://www.flickr.com/photos/shallowlife/5596212731/) by Mrs Bokeh (http://www.flickr.com/people/shallowlife/), on Flickr


1/50 of a second.
50 mm 1.2 L @ 1.2
ISO 6400
Of course no IS :(

[lwright84]

Thanks for being the first! Do you feel the lack of IS leads to more unusable images?

[BXPhoto]

for a focul length under 100mm you dont need IS. Above that its recommended...

[tonylong]

It's funny, I use IS a lot but I was just going through some of my stuff and was having a hard time with something -- I shoot a lot with the 100-400 IS lens and a teleconverter and with that combo I really do prefer a monopod if it's possible and so a lot of the shots I was looking at were with that setup. Oh well, and a lot of others were with non-IS lenses, oh well.

But I do own the 24-105 IS, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, as well as the 100-400, and I have in the past owned the EF-S 17-55 IS and the 300mm f/2.8 IS, so I do have some experience with it:). And I will tell you, especially at longer shutter speeds it make a noticeable difference -- you can see the IS actually stabilizing things in the viewfinder so you know you are getting that aid, especially in lower light where your shutter speed is not up to what you wish. And, at long shutter speeds I've left it on even when using a tripod. I used to shoot with my 300 and a 2x TC a lot and often used a tripod or if not a monopod and left the IS on with good results.

Those who pooh-pooh the use of IS maybe are either not used to shooting in low light or always have a tripod on hand, but when I'm traipsing around in the woods on a not-so-bright day, typically the most I want to pack is a monopod, and iS is my friend!

[airfrogusmc]

A 200mm lens at 1/40th NO WAY you can consistently hand hold a 200mm lens 1/40. These are all shots I wouldn't have been able to hand hold with this F/L without IS.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_8546-1.jpg

Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D
Date/Time: 2009:12:12 19:58:19
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 244...
Exposure Time: 0.025 s (1/40)
Aperture: f/2.0
ISO Equiv.: 3200
Whitebalance: Manual
Exposure: Manual


And for sure you could no way hold a 200mm lens at 1/15
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_6838.jpg
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Date/Time: 2011:02:26 20:00:34
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 235...
Exposure Time: 0.067 s (1/15)
Aperture: f/2.0
ISO Equiv.: 6400
Whitebalance: Manual
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual

Heres a shot at 1/20th with the 200 2L IS
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_0838-2.jpg
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D
Date/Time: 2010:10:22 20:16:54
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: -21...
Exposure Time: 0.050 s (1/20)
Aperture: f/2.0
ISO Equiv.: 3200
Whitebalance: Manual
Metering Mode: spot
Exposure: Manual

[Scatterbrained]

5dmII, 24-70L at 48mm 1/6 sec hand held on a rumbling ferry boat.:D
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/4985159403_590879409e_b.jpg

[tonylong]

for a focul length under 100mm you dont need IS. Above that its recommended...

Actually I don't agree with that == I had good results when I was working with the 17-55 indoors in quite low light with very slow shutter speeds using the IS.

[tonylong]

I came across these two shots -- I encountered this rabbit and had the 100-400 + 1.4x TC. I didn't have time to grab and set up the monopod, and besides I figured too much activity would scare it off so I just dashed a few pictures off hand-held. I was acting so quickly that I didn't even have time to dial up the ISO higher than 800, as you can see, so my shutter speed was way slow.

For the life of me I don't know what exposure mode I was in -- I'm not at my workstation with the originals. I think it must have been Av, because the shutter speed hopped around in some of the other shots from the set.

These were both at the same settings.

Canon EOS-1D Mark III ,Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
1/160s f/8.0 at 280.0mm iso 800

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/124511870/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/124511871/original.jpg

[Memory_Junction]

It's funny, I use IS a lot but I was just going through some of my stuff and was having a hard time with something -- I shoot a lot with the 100-400 IS lens and a teleconverter and with that combo I really do prefer a monopod if it's possible and so a lot of the shots I was looking at were with that setup. Oh well, and a lot of others were with non-IS lenses, oh well.

But I do own the 24-105 IS, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, as well as the 100-400, and I have in the past owned the EF-S 17-55 IS and the 300mm f/2.8 IS, so I do have some experience with it:). And I will tell you, especially at longer shutter speeds it make a noticeable difference -- you can see the IS actually stabilizing things in the viewfinder so you know you are getting that aid, especially in lower light where your shutter speed is not up to what you wish. And, at long shutter speeds I've left it on even when using a tripod. I used to shoot with my 300 and a 2x TC a lot and often used a tripod or if not a monopod and left the IS on with good results.

Those who pooh-pooh the use of IS maybe are either not used to shooting in low light or always have a tripod on hand, but when I'm traipsing around in the woods on a not-so-bright day, typically the most I want to pack is a monopod, and iS is my friend!

Agreed. I take shots on my 200 IS I would never get on a regular 200. It's not something you can completely count on, but I have had keepers below 1/30 with IS. I shoot (rifle) pretty regularly as a hunter, and I am not one of those guys who brags about consistent sub MOA skills. I know I do not have a steady enough hand, and I can see it through the scope or through the telephoto. I'll take that advantage, thank you very much. I do have a tripod, and I do use it. But wildlife is a little too fleeting for that.

For those of you who do have that steady of hands -well, more power to you if you want to save some money.

[lwright84]

A 200mm lens at 1/40th NO WAY you can consistently hand hold a 200mm lens 1/40. These are all shots I wouldn't have been able to hand hold with this F/L without IS.

Wow those look better than I'd expect after reading the setup... thanks for sharing!

[tonylong]

I should say, though, I've happily shot with my non-IS lenses as well, particularly the 85L, the 24-70, the 100 Macro (non-IS) and the 50mm f/1.4. Of course, having the wider aperture lenses helps a lot -- I recently shot an indoor event (mid-school gymnasium so pretty poor lighting) with just the combo of my 85L (sometimes wide open) and the 24-70 which stayed pretty much fixed at f/2.8 at ISO 1600. I don't know how much better I would have faired with IS but at least I got some nice shots!

[Fricks]

i just did a little test for my self but this is what i came up with all handheld
Here is the non is

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5596999466_613882fb9d_b.jpg

Here with is

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5227/5596999112_7f13cfc28b_b.jpg

Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/20 sec, f/4, ISO 1600 for both of them

[lwright84]

i just did a little test for my self but this is what i came up with all handheld
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/20 sec, f/4, ISO 1600 for both of them

Intriguing.. do you feel you had similar amounts of hand shake for both shots? Also, what focal length?

[Sp1207]

I find IS useful all the way down to 24mm, and I'm sure it'd be nice below that if I could find a lens that offered it.

[Snydremark]

100-400 IS @ 400mm; 1/160; f/5.6; IS on; Flash; Av mode; EC +1 1/3; ISO 640 Couldn't get a crisp shot that slow if I wanted to without IS.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5058/5559975315_227a1b8e00_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/snydremark/5559975315/)
Song Sparrow-3386 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/snydremark/5559975315/) by Guideon72 (http://www.flickr.com/people/snydremark/), on Flickr

[Fricks]

Intriguing.. do you feel you had similar amounts of hand shake for both shots? Also, what focal length?

They were taken at 85mm. I felt pretty even on both not real scientific but what ever.

[BXPhoto]

Actually I don't agree with that == I had good results when I was working with the 17-55 indoors in quite low light with very slow shutter speeds using the IS.

Examples please. I dont doubt it would help at shutter speeds below 1/25th. But how often are you actually using it at these focul lengths? I love it on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but ive never needed it on my 24-70L.

[Steve of Cornubia]

Isn't this just a financial issue? Apart from when shooting moving subjects (when it could be argued that IS isn't needed or is a hindrance), is there any reason NOT to have it, other than affordability?

I see no real drawbacks to having it, so if you can afford it, why wouldn't you have it? I don't think it's a technical issue, only financial.

[tonylong]

OK, a real quick one with the 17-55 -- not the best pic, but way better than I could normally do in available light at ~1/2 sec at 24mm:

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
0.60s f/2.8 at 28.0mm iso 800
http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/90374356/original.jpg

[muusers]

IS is very helpfull, no matter what focal length. Sometimes there's just not enough light to photograph a static object. The IS saves the shot.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4151/5008132677_808f33e01d_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickmuusers/5008132677/)
Homeless (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rickmuusers/5008132677/) by Rick Muusers (http://www.flickr.com/people/rickmuusers/), on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS 50D
Exposure 0.1 sec (1/10)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 45 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias +2/3 EV

[Waleriy]

Hehe..
Canon 15-85 IS demo
-------------------------
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/429101/31272FerQ92TQm5/561281w.jpg (http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/429101/31272FerQ92TQm5/eEPtXhe74x/561281.jpg)
Canon 50D
Exposure 1/3
Aperture f/5.6
FL 85 mm
ISO 1600

[RandyMN]

All one has to do is look through the lens and then push the shutter release to turn on IS and that alone is enough to show it's worth having. No debate, and those who state it's not necessary probably just don't feel the convenience is worth paying for.

It's a choice, but it definately offers improvement. I might argue why would anyone need 2.8 compared to 4.0 lenses? There is no quetion that the extra stop helps, is it necessary?

[Techuser]

Examples with the Canon 70-300 IS (non-L) in IS mode 1 on a Canon XSi

Sometimes I think its stabilization is worst than the one my S5 IS had
its not easy to shoot on these exposures and they're most likely not tack sharp if you crop, but well usable....

I say I wouldnt have any of these if I didnt had IS
yet if I could, I'd preffer a 2.8 lens instead the 5.6 IS

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5005/5273946475_32646cc9d8_z.jpg
(1/25) f/5.6 ISO1600
300mm + 1.4TC (672mm sensor eq.)


http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5215/5407452851_7a22060bbd_z.jpg
(1/60) F/5.6 ISO1600
300mm + 1.4TC (672mm sensor eq.)



http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5293/5564461640_ce2a54780e_z.jpg
(1/60) F/5.6 ISO1600
300mm + 1.4TC (672mm sensor eq.)


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4003/4686866386_a86f6b4f09_z.jpg
(1/60) F/5.6 ISO1600
300mm (480mm sensor eq.)


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4701734790_5c30d05916_z.jpg
(1/60) F/5.6 ISO1600
300mm (480mm sensor eq.)


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1251/5106364762_f8c8ed1315_z.jpg
(1/50) F/5.6 ISO1600
300mm (480mm sensor eq.)


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/5148836852_a0b9d342eb_z.jpg
(1/20) F/5.6 ISO1600
300mm + 1.4TC (672mm sensor eq.)
Flash fired


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4309064539_08ae87d641_z.jpg?zz=1
(1/20) F/5.6 ISO1600
300mm + 1.4TC (672mm sensor eq.)
Flash fired

[Sp1207]

Where were those taken?

[sapearl]

Isn't this just a financial issue? Apart from when shooting moving subjects (when it could be argued that IS isn't needed or is a hindrance), is there any reason NOT to have it, other than affordability?

I see no real drawbacks to having it, so if you can afford it, why wouldn't you have it? I don't think it's a technical issue, only financial.

I think that Steve has hit it right here. IS capability is not cheap.....I believe it adds approx. $400-500 to the cost of higher priced lenses.

It's been very beneficial to low light wedding and social event work I've done as well as fine art landscape shots when a tripod was not available. I have the 24-105 as well as the 70-200 f/2.8 and it's benefitted both lenses at ALL focal lengths for the type of shooting I do. My wedding work helped to justify/finance the extra cost, but it's more than paid for itself - it simply.....works :D.

[Techuser]

Where were those taken?
Rainforests in southeast of Brazil

[Sp1207]

Rainforests in southeast of Brazil

Amazing to see what can be done with a 450D and Canon 70-300. Goes to show the importance of subject matter, not test charts.

[sapearl]

Amazing to see what can be done with a 450D and Canon 70-300. Goes to show the importance of subject matter, not test charts.

Subject matter..... the EYE of the photographer, and his skill/craftsmanship. ;)

[Kafn8td]

http://mcdaniel-photos.smugmug.com/Outdoors/Nature/1101untitled012/1204139066_aN8oo-L-1.jpg

7D, 400L 5.6 shot at ISO 400, 5.6 1/100. Shot through a sliding glass door, braced myself against a wall. The one keeper out of about 11 shots. :D

[nikesupremedunk]

i guess it's better to have IS if possible..i mean what can be possibly worse from having IS on a lens besides the price? When i buy my 70-200 i'm going to opt for the f/4 IS version over the 2.8 non-IS. after trying it out today i realized IS at longer focal lengths is a must.

[alb3rt4]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Fascicularis.jpg

EOS 20D + EF 70-200 f/4L
Aperture : f/4.0
Focal lenght : 200mm
Flash used : No
1/50s
Iso 800

[TC_Fenua]

i guess it's better to have IS if possible..i mean what can be possibly worse from having IS on a lens besides the price? When i buy my 70-200 i'm going to opt for the f/4 IS version over the 2.8 non-IS. after trying it out today i realized IS at longer focal lengths is a must.

Indeed, I'm really amazed by the IS on those lenses ... Can't wait for a 400 f/5.6 L IS mkII :lol:

Shot handheld with a 300 f/2.8 IS, at 1/60, on a 50D ...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4245665127_3a6e21fbc7_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippatsu71/4245665127/sizes/o/in/set-72157623006482443/)

Exif (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippatsu71/4245665127/meta/in/set-72157623006482443)

[aladyforty]

shot a whole wedding with the 24-70L handheld, no IS no problem. I have IS lenses but do just as well without

Exposure 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 45 mm
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6227/6229428132_4bf7e3cf6f_o.jpg


Exposure 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 100
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6102/6282886881_a668a2f973_o.jpg

24-70L handheld with strobes Exposure 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture f/4.5
Focal Length 70 mm
ISO Speed 100

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7009/6421373353_0fbfab5f6a_o.jpg

[tonylong]

Good light allowing a fast shutter speed is a good thing!

Having IS allowing a bit of a slower shutter speed when needed is also a good thing:)!