Is "Image Stabalization" that important?

[Columbus Photo]

I do alot of walk around portraits where i am constantly moving and setting up on weird angels just to get the right shot. Would it pay off to have IS lenses(28-135) or would the better glass be more worth it without IS? Thanks for everybodies input!

[HJMinard]

IS enables sharper images at slower shutter speeds. Based on the description of your needs, it's difficult to determine if it would be particulary beneficial. If you often shoot in low light situations, it might be helpful ... but then a faster ... Tamron 28-75/2.8 or Canon 24-70/2.8 ... lens might be even better in those situations.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Columbus,.. really .. no.
IS is really a great added tool,. it especially helps in situations where you'd be inclined to want a tripod,, but realities make a tripod cumbersome or even impossible.

It is a tool like any other.
I happen to love IS as do most people that have IS lenses...
that said, all my very best lenses, and most often used ones still don't have IS.

I get by just fine. Using a tripod, monopod or hand held. If I had the option of IS on them would I use it? You bet!

[Medic1]

I had one of the same questions not that long ago.....check out this link, it may help you out.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is2.html

Good Luck!!

[Mike Panic]

if you shoot in low light situations where you dont want to crank your iso - it can help tons

[ScottE]

A faster lens may help in certain situations, but if you need f/11 to get enough depth of field an f/2.8 lens is not going to be any better for hand holding than an f/5.6 lens. In those situations, image stabilization is a useful tool.

The real answer to low light, small aperture shots is to learn to use a tripod. As useful as image stabilization is, it does not compare to the results you can get if the camera is held rock solid.

Scott

[Phil V]

IS is different than a fast lens is different than a tripod, if you understand your shooting style and you needs, the answer will appear to you. Scott is right a fast lens won't give you a hand held shot at f11, but then 50mm at f4.5 wont isolate a subject like f1.8 will. Like I say, it depends what your needs are.
I know what my needs are, and my next lenses will be fast primes.

[Jack W.]

As I'm 55, and have some weakness in my left arm because of herniated discs, IS is extremely important to me. A lens could be quick as greased lightening, but if I can't hold steady, it won't help me.
Not as easy to hold steady as it once was. heh heh

[R1 Kid]

Just another point. If your subject is moving then IS will not help your situation. IS helps YOU take a better shot while minimizing YOUR movement. It can not do anything about your subjects movement. Which is where the faster lens comes into play. Don't know if this helps with your question.

[RJSorensen]

We all just want Fast lenses with IS . . . at a low price of course.

[pcasciola]

I find it helpful or anything under the 1/(focal length * multiplication factor), which in my case is 1/400th with my one 300mm IS lens, so for the 28-135 I would imagine in normal situations it would help mostly for stationary subjects at 1/60 - 1/125 or slower depending on your focal length.

However, if you are setting up at weird angles like you mentioned, which may make it harder to hold the camera steady, it may help you at somewhat higher shutter speeds, yes.

[Columbus Photo]

Ok...this is what I need to know..I am planning on investing in a couple "fast" lenses so just trying to decided if IS would be beneficial. I believe as most of you have implied is it will help in the right circumstance which I will only know at the time of the shoot!

[MrChad]

Does anyone make a fast, IS normal zoom?

I love IS on the tele's to steady them, but I'd never give up f2.8 on a normal zoom just to get IS. The f4-5.6 was a big turn off for me on the 17-85mm EFS IS, especially when it was selling for MSRP of ~$600.

[txdude35]

I just bought the 28-135, and quite honestly I'm not that thrilled with it. It has taken some nice shots at the the 28-40mm range in low light, but over that I haven't really seen a big difference in this lens and my others(kit lens and 75-300). I thought it would help me with indoor shots of my kid's concerts, but it's SOOO slow, my shots come out just as blurred as they did before. Of course, being a beginner, it could very well be user error as much as anything else. Any tips would be be appreciated, as always.

[MrChad]

My problem in low light is always freezing the action so the movement of the subject aren't blurry....a flash or a fast lens (to the get the shutter I need.) are the only solutions I've found. Have you tried the 420EX at the concerts, I've been able to freeze action at night time HS football games mid field with my 75-300IS and my 420EX from the sidelines...I was impressed by the 420EX aptitude in my case.

[txdude35]

All flash is prohibited at the concerts. That's why I thought the IS would come in- gym lighting, no flash. Don't get me wrong- the lens takes great pics, but not in the application for which I hoping to get the most use out of it. I'm investing in a monopod, and that should help.