Is the IS Lens necesssary?

[mxride]

Well after alot of reading , shopping and comparing I got me the 300D rebel and alrerady having a blast with it. I got the kit lens and my first major upgrade will be a telephto lens for MX pics. I have read alot of good stuff about the IS lenses but wonder if they are really necessary when you are shooting in bright sun with higher shutter speeds that I would be doing at the races.I could get a 75-300EF for under $200.

[jimlp]

Well after alot of reading , shopping and comparing I got me the 300D rebel and alrerady having a blast with it. I got the kit lens and my first major upgrade will be a telephto lens for MX pics. I have read alot of good stuff about the IS lenses but wonder if they are really necessary when you are shooting in bright sun with higher shutter speeds that I would be doing at the races.I could get a 75-300EF for under $200.

If you shoot that lens at 300mm you will have a 480mm FOV, you need IS with a lens that length. For the kind of shooting you want to do the only IS lenses that I feel are worth getting are the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400L, IS with mediocre glass accomlpishes nothing.

[MrChad]

Well after alot of reading , shopping and comparing I got me the 300D rebel and alrerady having a blast with it. I got the kit lens and my first major upgrade will be a telephto lens for MX pics. I have read alot of good stuff about the IS lenses but wonder if they are really necessary when you are shooting in bright sun with higher shutter speeds that I would be doing at the races.I could get a 75-300EF for under $200.


I have the 75-300 IS lens but if it's sunny and I'm shooting races I turn the IS off for panning, the nicer lenses you don't need too. If this is your situation I'd get the 70-200 F4 lens, with a monopod. But for shots were the camera is stationary I love my IS lens..reguardless of what some folks think around here I like the lens. I don't have thousands of dollars to dump on gear for a hobby like many others do. In a dream world I'd get the 70-200 IS lens but I have bette things to spend $1600 on like 4 mo. of car payments....

And because I'm so pleased with the IS zoom I may upgrade my normal zoom to the 28-135 IS lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

No IS is not neccesary.

IS helps in times when you would normally tend to rely on a tripod.

[RichardtheSane]

If you shoot that lens at 300mm you will have a 480mm FOV, you need IS with a lens that length. For the kind of shooting you want to do the only IS lenses that I feel are worth getting are the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400L, IS with mediocre glass accomlpishes nothing.

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree here.

You don't need IS for a lens than length, you need good technique and preferably high shutter speeds.

I also disagree with your statement that IS with mediocre glass accomplishes nothing. That is wrong, as it still allows sharp images at lower shutter speeds - exactly what it is designed for

I have a 100-400 L IS and I quite often shoot with the IS turned off as I don't find in necessary in most circumstances. That is down to good technique (which I learned from a few individuals on this forum - thanks :) ).

[tim]

If you shoot that lens at 300mm you will have a 480mm FOV, you need IS with a lens that length. For the kind of shooting you want to do the only IS lenses that I feel are worth getting are the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400L, IS with mediocre glass accomlpishes nothing.

480mm FOV is not the same as a 480mm focal length - remember it's a crop factor not a magnificiation factor.

[CyberDyneSystems]

jimlp,...

Are you saying that the
300mm f/2.8L IS
400mm f/2.8L IS
500mm f/4L IS
600mm f/4L IS

.... are all ... not worth getting?

the only IS lenses that I feel are worth getting are the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400L, IS with mediocre glass accomlpishes nothing.

[Pyromaniac]

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree here.

You don't need IS for a lens than length, you need good technique and preferably high shutter speeds.

.I agree with Richard about good technique. I don't have any IS lenses. I would like to have some of teh lenses that have the IS but more for image quality than anything.

I think you shold learn to get the good pic's with useing the IS so that you don't become dependant on it. In some situations it's a good tool but for the most part I have only ever come across a few time I would have needed it.

[GenEOS]

Once you go IS, you will never go back. Borrow or rent one for a weekend and then go to your non-IS lens and see what you think for yourself.

[jimlp]

jimlp,...

Are you saying that the
300mm f/2.8L IS
400mm f/2.8L IS
500mm f/4L IS
600mm f/4L IS

.... are all ... not worth getting?

I should have been more clear, plus I realized after re-reading my answer that I sounded like a pompous ass. All the lenses CDS listed are fantastic lenses that I would love to own myself but they would be way out of mxride's (as well as my own)budget. I realize that there is no magnification factor but isn't the rule with longer lenses that you will need an extra stop of speed over what you would use with a film body? I can see more camera shake with my zoom at 200mm on my 20D than I do on my EOS-1v. Sorry if I sounded rude, it was unintentional.

[pcasciola]

Sorry if I sounded rude, it was unintentional. Nah. I understood exactly what you meant. I think CDS should re-read your post, though, because he took it a little out of context.

For the kind of shooting you want to do the only IS lenses that I feel are worth getting are the 70-200 f2.8 and the 100-400L, IS with mediocre glass accomlpishes nothing. I agree. I'm not sure the 500mm or the 600mm would be worth getting in this situation, a 300D for MX pics. The 100-400mm and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS would probably be good choices. They both have IS panning mode too, which will help you take those really cool looking shots where you pan with the motorcycle or dirtbike and get the motion blur on the background. Probably my favorite type of motorcycle racing shot. I'm pretty sure the 75-300mm IS does not have this mode though.

[CyberDyneSystems]

O-kay I see..

No I was not sure I had the "gist" of it at all.. thus I asked the question ;)

I was in no way trying to be cheeky :) I was really curious of that was how you felt :o
Now that I reread it with the helpfull boldface it is clearer :lol:

[Jon]

480mm FOV is not the same as a 480mm focal length - remember it's a crop factor not a magnificiation factor.
Doesn't matter which you call it - you still have the same steadiness requirements as on a full frame 35 with a 480 mm lens.

[ron chappel]

I just recently aquired the 75-300 IS version after using the non is model , the 100-300 usm and many others.
Frankly i don't think the IS feature is worth it on that particular lens for the great majority of users.
On the plus side it allows smaller apertures which help fight the softness of tha optics at longer focal lengths plus the IS feature is usefull in general.
On the minus side it costs alot,the optics are cheap for what you are paying and the focus is too slow for MX.I also don't think the IS feature is very much use for sport-just theorizing as i havent had the chance to try mine at it yet

[ron chappel]

I should have added...

I also am having doubts about IS in general.I was thinking it was the next big thing i wanted to buy-the cure-all for so many ills.Having used the lens in a wide range of lighting situations i now think it's allmost useless for me.
The IS can't even come close to coping with the night stadium sports i wanted to try round here (rodeo's, supercross,hockey,etc)
And in normal (non sport) use with a digital camera it's dead easy to take several shots then pick the sharpest.A kind of cheap image stabilization method :)

[Bodryn]

I can't say about the IS lenses on EOS but for those who doubt IS in general, I can say that my Canon S1 IS with the built-in IS at 10x optical zoom is fantastic. I can snap handheld pictures of birds a hundred yards out without a tripod that would be impossible without IS. Over 1900 pix so far with no motion blur. I don't always have my tripod along - and who wants to take the time to put a tripod on when the bird may be long gone in seconds? That's where IS really comes into its own.

[gail]

Well ,I can say I got mine in today and I love it. I have never shot with the IS and was amazed at how good the Image came out. If I had tried to do that with my reg- 75-300 lens it would have been blurry. And with the 75-300 IS it was prefect. Maybe a Little soft but who cares. As "Daniel Tunstall " GenEOS, stated once you go IS you will never go back ha.

And thats true for me anyway I love it. Now I want to buy lenses that has the IS on it if not I don't want ha. Well not all of them. I love my 50mm also it's a great little lens for low light and candid shots works really good for that. It's a wonderful little lens I use it quit offend too. But I think now the 75-300 IS will stay on my camera more than any of the lens I have. I went out today test shooting when it arrived and was just amazed" at the results of this lens. I think you want go wrong with any of the IS lenses. Try it for your self I bet you keep it. And I'm a shaky hand person anyway and the IS helps me out a great deal. I took some pictures today with it and showed them to my husband and he couldn't believe it. he said OMG that is awesome. :-)

I will post one it's nothing special but just a quicky with IS on this old church is like 300 yards from my front porch and I shot this today and focus on the lettering on the sign and it's a little fading but it's as clear as a bell. And I couldn't have done it with out the IS because I have tired it before and all my shots came out blurry.

And heres this one of the sign it was about the same distance maybe just a little closer and I have shot this sign before with my old 75-300 non IS lens and it came out really blurry. But I guess for some of you that know what your doing and have been shooting for a long time could do this with out the IS. But it sure makes it easier on someone like me with a shaky hands.

heres the pictures...
this one I focus on the lettering on the bottom of the sign
reading "Pastor Horace Barnes" with my reg- 75-300mm zoom all the way out it would have been blurry. at 300mm the IS helped me a great deal there.

Image #1
http://photos.imageevent.com/gailsgallery/miscthisandthat/websize/sign.jpg

Sign "Road 1139 Lee County" with IS and zoom 300mm this sign was like 300 feet from me if not further. That's My opinion though, but I love my lens. And will shot more as the weather permits and I will post them with the IS on and off.

if you zoom in on the lettering on the sign you can see it's very clear just fading from the weather.
Image #2
http://photos.imageevent.com/gailsgallery/miscthisandthat/websize/church%20sign.JPG

cropped image
http://photos.imageevent.com/gailsgallery/miscthisandthat/websize/church%20sign%20crop.JPG

Hope this helps you decide. But I think you will love it. It's a good lens for a beginner.
Cheers..... :-) :-)

[Redbird_xo]

mxride, just to give you a sample of EF 75-300 USM III, which was taken handheld on a sunny day with shutter at 1/1250, f11, ISO400. It's been resized from original with no post processing.

Pardon me for the small size due to the upload limitation. Hope this helps.

[HKFEVER]

Hi REDBIRD_XO.

Which building did you shoot this picture from?

It is very hard to find users from HK in this forum.

[Longwatcher]

No specific lens or capability is necessary. What IS gives you is more flexability.
IS is useless for when the target of the scene is moving in an abrut manner (such as most sports) although it can be usefull in some panning situations if that lens has that capability.

However, the main purpose for IS is steadying the image when the camera itself is moving. It allows for a slower shutter speed then you might otherwise be able to get without IS. In some case you might need both IS and good hand holding techniques to make that shot.

I took one recent shot in vegas at night at 1/10th hand held at ISO 1600, f2.8 because that was the only way to get it sharp enough to meet my criteria. Without IS I would have had to go to 1/30th because of hand shake and the ISO at 3200 still would not have helped a lot. I could have pulled out the 50/1.4, but then I would have not gotten the view I wanted.

There are times when IS is worth it and times when it is a waste of money. Just depends. Me I like it as it gives me flexability and I am willing to pay for that when I can.

Just my opinion,

[redbutt]

480mm FOV is not the same as a 480mm focal length - remember it's a crop factor not a magnificiation factor.

THANK YOU!!! I am getting so tired of people misunderstanding this. It's been how long now since the the first DSLR came out? Why do people still not get this?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Don't Go there girlfreind! :lol:

You DON'T want to see this thread get added to the "Sticky of Shame"


-=CROP FACTOR=- 10,000 posts on the X-Factor (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45388)

[westone]

I'm brand new to SLR photography. Like the original poster I purchased an EOS300D from a dealer in my town. I purchased additional lenses with the camera, and because of the rebate program offered by Canon I chose the 28-135 and 75-300 IS lenses. Because of the rebate program, these lenses plus the 300D all together cost only about $100 more than the camera plus the 2 non IS equivelent lenses. Just made sense to me.

Being a novice, I'm in no position to render an opinion on the value of IS. I can say this about my experience thus far though. I have already encountered one situation where the IS was useful: Just before dawn, I was on the boundary of the international airport here. I wanted to get a shot of the runway lights lighting the low overcast. It was necessary to set up the tripod on top of my car to get a shot over the fence at the property line. The wind was blowing the car. Without IS, the image of the runway lights was blurry from movement of the car. With IS, I took a 20 second exposure at 200 ISO and it came out sharp.

Normally, I leave the IS off (per instructions) unless hand shooting longer exposure times, where it does what it is designed to do.

So, to sum up, I'm happy with it so far.

[eosster]

I hope to get one of those IS lens soon, but which one, lol.

[aam1234]

I find IS an annoyance except when photographing something stationary or very slow moving.

[eosster]

The best IS is your tripod, I've heard this from somewhere, lol.

[Jon]

. . . as long as you're not somewhere tripods and monopods aren't banned.

[MarkH]

THANK YOU!!! I am getting so tired of people misunderstanding this. It's been how long now since the the first DSLR came out? Why do people still not get this?

I think that over 90% of people here understand that the Focal Length Multiplier is used to calculate the FoV you will get on a D-SLR compared to the FoV you would get on a FF SLR, and that the FoV difference is due to a crop.

BUT:
Not only should a 300mm on a 1.6x D-SLR be used at the same shutter speeds as a 480mm on a FF SLR, you should also use faster shutter speeds if you plan to crop and enlarge later on any SLR. That means that on a 1Ds MkII you can crop the picture to use the centre 3000x2000 area and you will have pretty much the same image as my 10D has, and you need the same shutter speed as my 10D does.

Also remember that you don't need as fast a shutter speed if you will use the image to make a 6x4 as you would need to make a 20x30.

Whether you need IS depends on the shutter speed you need to get acceptable results and the shutter speed you can get in the situations that you shoot in.


Remember that a 300mm lens is a 300mm regardless of sensor size, but the FoV captured is not meaningless, in fact the FoV captured is the most important factor for required shutter speed.

[MarkH]

. . . as long as you're not somewhere tripods and monopods aren't banned.

Or in one of the many situations where a tripod is not suitable.

How many people walk through the bush holding a tripod with a camera attached, looking for wildlife to photograph?

I find a tripod very useful when taking a photo of a waterfall at a slow shutter speed, but I don't always carry a tripod, because I find it unnecessary for a lot of what I photograph. But the IS switch is pretty convenient and adds very little weight to my camera+lens.

[bubba zanetti]

I find IS an annoyance except when photographing something stationary or very slow moving.
In what way is it a annoyance aam ? I read that you can turn the horizontal IS off so you can pan & shoot sideways having only the verticle plain IS working.

[aam1234]

I only have one lens with an IS which is the 100-400. I use it for birds mostly, and you know how fast these evils move. So I turn off the IS with them because by the time the IS settles (a fraction of a second) these suckers have already moved (I love birds, don't mind my discription of them :D )

[Mark Kemp]

IS gives you one more option when the light starts to fade. Sometimes a tripod is a good idea. Sometimes an f2.8 lens is the best tool. Occasionally flash is the way to go. A lot of the time its not so dark that you need any of them. I have IS on a couple of lenses and sometimes it has served me well. I got one image on a city street at dusk where a tripod wasn't practical and flash would have ruined the shot. The image has no camera shake because of IS and it won me a nice ribbon in a national competition, that I wouldn't have got without it. So.. is it necessary...no, but there are times when its useful.