How does Image Stabilisation work on the Telephoto lenses?

[Tharaka]

I sort of understand how it works in point and shoot cameras, but I always thought it would have to be a feature built into the camera, not the lens.

[stevekwiz]

I suppose you can try to read the physics of the thing. Personally, I don't know and I don't care. All I know is that when I have my 100-400 L with image stabilzer off at the 400 end, you can see the shake. Switch it to IS and press the focus half way, and - voila - you see the image lock into place!

[symes]

I will post a couple later..It is unreal the way it helps your photos...I was able to take a pretty decent shot from 200mm at a shutter speed of 1/8. Yeah there is a little tiny bit of blur but the photos still looks sharp..

Cheers...

[Tharaka]

So it's well worth getting one with IS?

[jimlp]

So it's well worth getting one with IS?

This is a topic that seems to invite controversy. If the lens is long and heavy (70-200 f2.8, 100-400L....) that you will be hand holding I personally believe the IS is necessary, that comment usually brings out the detractors that say it is not true. I base my comments on MY experiences with the 70-200 f2.8 IS, I can't hand hold the lens on a 1.6x camera at 200mm below 1/500 and get an acceptable number of keepers with IS off. Other people may have much steadier hands than me but I have a hard time believing that that they are as much as 3 stops steadier than I am, maybe I am in denial.

[Tharaka]

If you have a lens like the 70-200, and a tripod, would IS still be necessary?

[GeForceFX]

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/f_index.html
here you can see how IS works

[Tharaka]

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/f_index.html
here you can see how IS works
thanks for that

[GeForceFX]

If you have a lens like the 70-200, and a tripod, would IS still be necessary?


not if you always will use it with the tripod.

[robertwgross]

The general opinion is that I.S. will allow you to shoot two stops (shutter) slower than normal and still get a steady image.

In other words, if you were using a focal length of 100mm, you would feel it necessary to shoot with a shutter of 1/100 or faster. With I.S. you could drop down to about 1/25.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

This is a topic that seems to invite controversy. If the lens is long and heavy (70-200 f2.8, 100-400L....) that you will be hand holding I personally believe the IS is necessary, that comment usually brings out the detractors that say it is not true.

It's just that "necessary" is such a strong choice of word,. who's meaning I am nt at all sure you understand if you use it to decribe IS.

By saying it is necessary,. is tantamount to saying it is impossible to take a photo with a 100-400mm IS lens with the IS turned off.

Me I love IS,. and thus can hardly be labled as a "detractor".. but I have a host of lenses that do not have IS, and I spent that last two years doing all my wildlife photography with a 500mm prime that had no IS.

So I have two years and thousands of images that refute the claim that IS is "necessary"

But DAMN it does HELP!!! :) :) :) :) :)

[SkipD]

A simplified description of how IS works, taken from Canon's lens brochure:

Optical shake is detected by gyro sensors which provide the data necessary to shift the image-stabilizing lens group in parallel to neutralize the shake. This increases the usable shutter speed range by up to 3 full steps for hand-held shooting.

The "gyro" in their explanation is a gyroscope.