IS question

[ShaneR]

It is my understanding that IS doesn't help much when the subject is moving, is this correct? I need a work lens that will be used almost exclusively for moving subjects, If my comment above is true, the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS doesn't look as attracive as it did.

Has anyone had any experience with the Canon - EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM or the Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF? I figure that having the extra 135-200 (Canon) or the extra 24-28 & 2.8 (Sigma) would be more valuable than the IS. My main concern is how these other 2 lenses stack up quality wise to the Canon 28-135.

Thanks for any help.

[rcrobert]

I know that my 100-400mm lens has two IS modes. One is for still shots, one is for panning shots. Not sure if all of the IS lens have that feature or not.

Sorry, I really haven't used that mode much -- so can't report how effective it is. Overall, IS is great and I definitely can handhold at 2 stops slower than without it.

Hope this helps!

[neil_r]

ShaneR wrote:
It is my understanding that IS doesn't help much when the subject is moving, is this correct?

No it is not correct. I have a 100-400 L IS. It has 2 stabilizer modes one locks the image in all directions the other only locks on one plane and allows you to pan see example

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.rice1/donnington/Rossi_5_w.jpg

It also works fine if the movement is towards or away from you.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think that you are mistaken regarding IS.

IS Helps in any sitation where hand held Camera shake can effect the sahrpness of your image,. and as moving subjects tend to require hand holding,.. then IS is a great asset.

The 100-400IS and 70-200 IS are two of the best Zoom lenses for moving subjects around.

No one uses the Canon 28-200mm,.. the Sigma and Tamron varieties are preferable in this case (I know this is a touchy subject,. but Canon makes some bad lenses too.. :) )

[ShaneR]

Thanks for the help. I'm trying to sort out what would be more benificial - IS, a larger zoom range, or an extra stop on the low end. Of all the (moving) subjects I shoot, about half are in dark nightclubs where I use flash. With a shutter speed of 1/60 and flash, I rarely have any movement blurring. Then again, with an extra stop I could dial down the flash compensation and not blind people with a speedlight when their pupils are completey open in the dark.
I currently have a couple Sigma lenses, and had one with my old (minolta) film setup and have no bad experiences with quality.
Unfortunately, price is a very big concern here, so I'm looking for the best bad lens I can find.

[PacAce]

ShaneR wrote:
It is my understanding that IS doesn't help much when the subject is moving, is this correct? I need a work lens that will be used almost exclusively for moving subjects, If my comment above is true, the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS doesn't look as attracive as it did.

Has anyone had any experience with the Canon - EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM or the Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF? I figure that having the extra 135-200 (Canon) or the extra 24-28 & 2.8 (Sigma) would be more valuable than the IS. My main concern is how these other 2 lenses stack up quality wise to the Canon 28-135.

Thanks for any help.

You are sort of correct when it comes to the 28-135 IS since it only has the one IS mode. Trying to track a horizontally moving subject with IS mode on can be a little difficult because the IS makes the subject seem to move somewhat in a jerky manner. I've heard that if you start to track the subject before pressing the shutter button half way to activate the IS, you'll be able to track the subject but I'm not sure how true this is. I have shot a couple of moving subjects with the IS on and managed to take some good pictures. I guess it's just a matter of getting used to it.

[ShaneR]

PacAce wrote:
Trying to track a horizontally moving subject with IS mode on can be a little difficult because the IS makes the subject seem to move somewhat in a jerky manner. I've heard that if you start to track the subject before pressing the shutter button half way to activate the IS, you'll be able to track the subject but I'm not sure how true this is. I have shot a couple of moving subjects with the IS on and managed to take some good pictures. I guess it's just a matter of getting used to it.


So it wouldn't help as much if the subject is not moving at a constant rate? (ie - dancing) Sorry for the confusion, I just don't want to pay a hundred or so extra for a feature I won't use.

[robertwgross]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
No one uses the Canon 28-200mm,.. the Sigma and Tamron varieties are preferable in this case (I know this is a touchy subject,. but Canon makes some bad lenses too.. :) )


I beg to differ. I use that Canon lens as my workhorse. It is especially good since I need lots of zoom range, from wide to long. High zoom range is especially important if the subject is moving toward or away from the camera.

Back to the topic. IS has nothing to do with stabilizing the image (directly) because of the subject moving. Of course, if the subject is moving any direction other than toward or away from the camera, then the photographer will likely (but not necessarily) be panning the camera. Then, if the camera were tripod-mounted, IS still doesn't do anything for you. If the camera were handheld, then that is the strength of IS. Most of us are not as solid as a tripod, so that little bounce and wiggle is what IS will try to take out. Note that severe bounce and wiggle still can't be overcome much.

Try riding around in a vehicle on the savannah of East Africa, and try shooting from the vehicle while it is moving. It is tough, at best, with or without a tripod.

---Bob Gross---

[Longwatcher]

ShaneR wrote:
Of all the (moving) subjects I shoot, about half are in dark nightclubs where I use flash. With a shutter speed of 1/60 and flash, I rarely have any movement blurring. Then again, with an extra stop I could dial down the flash compensation and not blind people with a speedlight when their pupils are completey open in the dark.


I love IS, but as the targets oops, I mean subjects, move faster and the light gets lower a faster lens is to me more important then IS. If I am moving however, IS is more important.

The best lens for shooting moving subjects (eg. dancers) indoors would probably be the 24-70/2.8L. With say Jazz musicians who tend to be a bit more sedate, the IS of the 28-135 might make a difference at a lower cost, but if catching dancers then aperture allowing faster shutter speeds would be better. I should mention, once again, the 50/1.8 or better the 50/1.4 which work great indoors although they don't give you the flexability of zooms, but they sometimes allow you to forgo the flash completely.

Just my opinion,

[CyberDyneSystems]

ahhhh,

for shooting in dark theatres where I can't use a flash I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma,.. no IS. I find it a superb choice.

I agree that in this instance a large aperture far outweighs the need for IS.

[lightandlife]

For available light photography (as in handhold shooting indoors), large aperture is a must. IS is almost useless indoors. If you are using a tripod, why would you need IS?

[RichardtheSane]

At the end of the day I am with the crowd that recommend getting the fastest lens you can.
Yes, the 28-135 is a very good lens, but if you are shooting moving subjects indoors you want to look at getting the highest shutter speed you can - and this is only achieved well by getting a fast lens.

[Phil Hall]

I use the 28-135 IS;70-200IS and 100-400IS. I take pictures of wildlife, birds and horses. The IS allows handheld shots at full zoom, I rarely use a tripod anymore. Without the IS there is always a small amount of shake, unless you use a tripod. I have BOTh stabilisers on, For car races or similar panning operations where the movement is constant I use option 2 for the stabiliser. The 70-20 is a lot faster than the other two lenses and is best in low light.


Phil Hall

Santa Ynez CA

[ShaneR]

Thanks for the help everyone. My main concern is having one lens in at least the 28-135 range to avoid switching during a shoot. Since I can use flash, can't use a tripod, and am shooting eratically moving subjects, I'm leaning towards either the Sigma 28-135 IF 2.8-4.5 or the 28-200 3.5-5.6. I know many will claim the superior quality of the Canon and I agree, but this is one instance when quality is not the most important factor.

[robertwgross]

And that is the reason that I use my Canon 28-200mm zoom so much.

---Bob Gross---

[Mark Kemp]

I have one pic taken with IS on, that has been in several exhibitions and got one PAGB ribbon for me. It was taken in the evening so I had to use a slow shutter speed. (The subject was too big for flash to cover and I didn't want it anyway). The IS saved a picture that otherwise would have had terrible camera shake. Without it no pic, no exhibition acceptances and no ribbon!

http://www.photo2003.com (called steakout)

I leave IS switched on as much as possible on all the lenses that have it and use pan mode for motor racing shots. Why risk camera shake ruining the next great shot?

[Mark Kemp]

PS - the pic is in the colour section by the way.

Forgot to say that for sports the Canon 100-400IS is excellent.

[lightandlife]

A nice touch!
Almost everybody one time or another throughout in his life has that experience of waiting.

100-400mm is THE lens recommended by professionals, if only one had to be chosen on a trip. (Of course, there was no limit on weight!)