Image Stabilisation versus Good Large Aperture Glass

[bigted]

I have recently bought an Image Stabilised lens with the main selling point from Canon being that you can use the lens in lower light conditions (approx 2 stops). I now wonder if I would have been better off buying a constant f2.8 zoom from Sigma as there is very little price difference.

Most of the time I find that I shoot with IS off as it does slow down the focussing speed.

Any oppinions out there that might make people buy the right lens in the future?

[defordphoto]

The thing to remember about using an IS lens, is that you do not need to have the IS on all the time. If you don't need it, turn it off. I have the 70-200L 2.8 IS, the 100-400L IS and the 28-135 IS. Love them all. I do not use the IS unless it's needed, which I normally do not need it, but it's nice to have when you do need it.

Think of the IS as another tool for getting the shot rather than a feature you use all the time.

[CyberDyneSystems]

IS is nice but I would take more aperture any day of the week.

[lpbaker]

I'm curious as to the advantage of the IS version of the 70-200mm/2.8 over the regular USM as well. I have not used an IS lens before and although I can see the advantage of the technology, I wonder if it is worth the extra cost. I used Nikon D1s on the job for a number years, but Canon film-based cameras have been my personal gear since 1984. Now, I've purchased a 10D and I will have to add all new AF lenses since my D series lenses are incompatible. Most of the postings on this site have been positive on the IS version of the 70-200mm. Are there any detracters out there?

[soumya63]

IS is necessary if you are shooting handheld below camera shake threshold shutter speed. For me, as a landscape photographer, tripod is a constant companion and I do not shoot any landscape without tripod. So for me, larger aperture, sharpness and contrast of the lens are of prime importance. If I ever need stabilization, I will invest on a Gyrostabilizer, which all make all my lenses IS by a single investment.

Soumya

www.mitraphoto.com

[Mark Kemp]

I am not sure that it is quite the same.

Lets say f5.6 gives you too slow a shutter speed (at the highest ISO you want to use)

If you have an f2.8 lens, great open it up wide and you will get a faster shutter speed - problem solved.

Similarly if you have IS, turn it on and you will reduce camera shake at the same shutter speed -problem solved again.

BUT, the results will be different surely ......

The first has a faster shutter speed, but a smaller aperture and therefore any subject movement will be more frozen, but the depth of field will be reduced.

The second has the same shutter speed and aperture. Therefore subject movement will casue more blurring, but the depth of field will be greater.

So I guess it depends on which solution is more suitable for your pictures.

[soumya63]

Mark Kemp wrote:

So I guess it depends on which solution is more suitable for your pictures.


That is absolutely true. If you shoot handheld at low light and slow handheld shutter speed, IS is very helpful. It shines for photo journalists and shooting live performances at concert halls.

For a Landscape photographer, tripod is as important as a good sharp lens. So for us IS has little value.

Camera is a tool. No amount of gizmo will allow me to shoot like Galen Rowell or Jack Dykinga :)

I personally try not to get carried away with technology hype and concentrate on the art part of it.


Soumya

www.mitraphoto.com

[CyberDyneSystems]

Again,. Big brite fast glass is really allways better.

IS was designed and implented to make less "Big, brite fast" glass function "Almost as if it were" "big, brite, fast" glass.

IS "tries" to give you those extra stops under certain conditions where as a larger aperture obviously actually DOES give you those extra stops!

So you really can't compare the two,.

That said,. it doesn't hurt either. Canon is equipping a few models with fast f/2.8 apertures with IS. So every little bit helps. (of course you don't see IS on any f/2.8 wider and than the 70-200,.. so it probably stops having a benifit, they did not put IS on the new 24-70mm f/2.8 when it replaced the 28-70mm)

[dbarthel]

Got to disagree. Big bright glass with IS beats all. What you're really asking for is a 28-135 f2.8L IS zoom. I've successfully hand held the 28-135 4.5IS down to a 1/15 at about 100mm, and I'm an old guy. With long, bright telephotos like the 300 f2.8L IS and the 500 F4L IS, IS counters wind and mirror slap, so it's useful even hand held.

Dan

[france]

Keep in mind that the autofocus mechanism always sees the lens wide open. So brighter better glass will help considerably for focus accuracy alone.

The 10D (as well as other CCD cameras) loves light, so give it what it needs. Shallower depth of field shots are a kick as well.

Eric

[basroil]

IS is good, but mainly after 50mm anyway, before that, you can easily handhold and shoot most stationary subjects (i dislike shutter speeds >1/80 because even stationary subjects tend to move a bit). the 70-200 IS had the best of fast shutter and IS (ide still take a 200mm 1.8 prime w/o the IS any day though), i generally leave it wide open and use the IS to reduce shutter speed to <100 whenever i need to take pictures of people in an auditorium where flash is not allowed. if you take pictures of fast moving people, get wider ap, want people that don't move (or for landscape and other things that can't move), get the IS, if you have the money, find a wide ap with IS

[GyRob]

i tend to leve IS on all the time and 95% of my shots are at least twice the focal lenth speed sometimes even 5 times the FL speed and thats including the alowance for the crop factor mostly for birds in flight so im swinging around a 500f4is hand held surely it has to help having IS on no matter what .
Rob

[Crypto]

IMHO- IS with slower shutter speeds is of little or no help if your subject is not still life. With a fast aperture, you'll have a better chance of getting the shutter speed you need to capture moving subjects. I'm not really sold on the technology personally. You still have to get a shutter speed that is pretty fast for the IS to be effective, in fact, with my 100-400 at 400mm, I need at least 200 and up to get consistently sharp images. I can handhold it with a shutter speed of 300 and get sharp images with no IS. That's a small window of use in my opinion. With that said, it works great when you need it.
And then there is the DOF issue mentioned above. Photography seems to be about one trade off after the other :)

[FlashZebra]

I do not shoot any landscape without tripod. So for me, larger aperture, sharpness and contrast of the lens are of prime importance.
Soumya

www.mitraphoto.com (http://www.mitraphoto.com)
I have not encountered landscape photographers were "larger aperture" was of any grand importance.

Enjoy! Lon

[GNMink]

I prefer a monopod and fast lens personally

[Cobra351]

I must be missing something with this topic, please let me know if I am. Many claim that faster, brighter glass is better than having IS. Ok, so I have two lenses, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 IS. The shot I want is, say 50mm and to get the DOF I want for the particular shot I need to shoot at about f/11 or so. And it's in a relatively dark place, allowing maybe 1/20 second of a shot.

So how in this scenario (representative of most of my shooting, from what I've found) will the 24-70 f/2.8 be better than using the IS (remember, both lenses at same 50mm and f/11). A blanket statement that a faster lens will most always be better than using IS in a slower lens just doesn't make sense to me (like a lot I guess!:confused: ). What am I not getting?!

[RikWriter]

I'd rather have fast glass, particularly on long lenses. IS can make YOU more stable, but it can't keep the animal/person you're taking the picture of more stable. Animals are prone to doing things like breathing, eating and moving, things that require faster shutter speeds, not slower ones with image stabilization.

[SkipD]

Animals are prone to doing things like breathing, eating and moving, things that require faster shutter speeds, not slower ones with image stabilization.However, a fast lens with IS is the real ticket....

[Jon]

The 10D (as well as other CCD cameras) loves light, so give it what it needs. Shallower depth of field shots are a kick as well.

Eric
Just to note the 10D is a CMOS sensor for image capture. The only comon EOS that isn't is the original 1D. I believe they all use CCD focussing sensors, though that's not a major point of discussion.

[mrfourcows]

However, a fast lens with IS is the real ticket....

ha! the ef-s 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

[mrfourcows]

I must be missing something with this topic, please let me know if I am. Many claim that faster, brighter glass is better than having IS. Ok, so I have two lenses, the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 IS. The shot I want is, say 50mm and to get the DOF I want for the particular shot I need to shoot at about f/11 or so. And it's in a relatively dark place, allowing maybe 1/20 second of a shot.

So how in this scenario (representative of most of my shooting, from what I've found) will the 24-70 f/2.8 be better than using the IS (remember, both lenses at same 50mm and f/11). A blanket statement that a faster lens will most always be better than using IS in a slower lens just doesn't make sense to me (like a lot I guess!:confused: ). What am I not getting?!

well, the point of having large aperture lenses is to be able to capture images fast and in low lighting. so in most cases, ppl would rather have their target object frozen, and not blurry. thus, large aperture lenses are more favorable.

yet, in your case, without a monopod or tripod, then i guess the IS would be more handy. which is why it depends on what you shoot. if you want to work with large aperture lenses, then bring a support. if not, then use the IS. its up to the individual!

[mspringfield]

I will have to go with the "there is no substitute for aperture" crowd. I think too many people have the wrong idea about IS. it is not the magic that people think that it is and it is certainly no substitute for good camera holding technique. Many people will tell you that the non-IS version of lenses give a sharper image than the IS version.

Michael

[Scuff]

I will have to go with the "there is no substitute for aperture" crowd. I think too many people have the wrong idea about IS. it is not the magic that people think that it is and it is certainly no substitute for good camera holding technique. Many people will tell you that the non-IS version of lenses give a sharper image than the IS version.

Michael

There is always camera shake in images, no matter how fast your shutter speed. Obviously the faster the shutter speed the less the camera movement is noticed in the image.

So how can the perfect camera hold be improved? - Turn on the IS !!!

[EOS_JD]

Interesting to note some say one over another. My thoughts are that both have their place and depend a lot on the photographers style (and budget).

I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a Canon 24-105f4L IS. To be honest the Tamron has not been on my camera since I bought the Canon. IS is that good (to me).

[ScottE]

There is always camera shake in images, no matter how fast your shutter speed. Obviously the faster the shutter speed the less the camera movement is noticed in the image.

So how can the perfect camera hold be improved? - Turn on the IS !!!
The best way to improve camera hold is to put the camera on a tripod. IS is better than no-IS, but no where near as good as a solid tripod.

It is not a question of image stabilization vs. large aperture. These are two different tools for different purposes.

Image stabilization lets you hand hold a camera as slower shutter speeds, regardless of what the maximum aperture of the lens is. It is just as useful on a large aperture lens as on a small aperture lens.

A large aperture allows you to limit depth of field. It also allows a higher shutter speed when subject motion makes that important and improves the performance of both auto and manual focus. If you need to shoot at f/11 to get adequate depth of field for the composition you want, it doesn't matter whether the lens' maximum aperture is f/1.4 or f/5.6 (assuming comparable optical quality).

[Wilt]

Consider this...in low light the faster aperture helps you to freeze action better than IS. On the other hand, when both lenses are zoomed to their max focal length and used at the same aperture, the IS lens gives you a steadier shot with less lens motion degrading the shot.

[steved110]

I think having IS on a fast lens f/2.8 - like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS - is just the cherry on the cake, it allows more options. Given how good these DSLRs are at high ISO anyway, the real benefit of the wider aperture is more for autofocus speed and accuracy IMO.
i tend to use flash in darker situations, so I would not often be trying to handhold at slow shutter speeds.

[Jon]

I want 'em both. Tripods don't help in airplanes or on boats. And, no matter how good you are at hand-holding there is always some shake. Anything I can do to damp it out, I want.

[red hot sheep]

Again,. Big brite fast glass is really allways better.

IS was designed and implented to make less "Big, brite fast" glass function "Almost as if it were" "big, brite, fast" glass.

IS "tries" to give you those extra stops under certain conditions where as a larger aperture obviously actually DOES give you those extra stops!

So you really can't compare the two,.

That said,. it doesn't hurt either. Canon is equipping a few models with fast f/2.8 apertures with IS. So every little bit helps. (of course you don't see IS on any f/2.8 wider and than the 70-200,.. so it probably stops having a benifit, they did not put IS on the new 24-70mm f/2.8 when it replaced the 28-70mm)

Not really; say you like taking landscape shots at f16 with a standard lens. Your Canon 24-70 f2.8 will give same shutter time as Canon 17-85mm, but the shutter speed may simply be too slow for the L if you don't like carrying around a tripod. The extra stops here do not help. Their are some situations were IS is actually superior. Plus at these apertures the performances of these lenses will not be so marked.

Granted, for portraits and low light action, IS does not help as much as the extra stops, but it does have exclusive uses.

[malla1962]

It is nice to have both in one lens.;)

[Tom W]

I want 'em both. Tripods don't help in airplanes or on boats. And, no matter how good you are at hand-holding there is always some shake. Anything I can do to damp it out, I want.

I want them both as well! :)