Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #1
finn61
Member
 
finn61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posts: 31
Question do you need image stabilization?

I am looking to get a new 70-300mm lens either the canon 70-300/IS or tamron 70-300 (no is) But there is a very significant difference in price I can get the canon second hand at around 280 and the tamron at 80 but I don't want to spend unnecessary amount of money on something I don't need such as the IS. I have a hama 75 tripod which is pretty stable and I use that a lot of the time but it is quite impractical to carry about,
Anyone help me please?
finn61 is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #2
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
 
JeffreyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 14,273
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn61 View Post
I use that a lot of the time but it is quite impractical to carry about,
There is the answer. IS is a very handy thing to have, and the longer the focal length of the lens, the more situations in which you will find it to be handy. Is is great when tripods are banned. IS is great when you left the tripod at home, or in the car because it was too heavy. IS is great when you have a camera with you and you didn't think you would need a tripod, but now you do.

If you can afford a lens with IS over one without it, then get the IS equipped lens. If you can't afford the IS equipped lens, use a tripod.
__________________
My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jngirbach/sets/
Commercial sports:http://girbach.zenfolio.com/
I use a Canon 5D and 1DIV and a Panasonic GF-1 Gear List: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...postcount=1550
JeffreyG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #3
RandyMN
Goldmember
 
RandyMN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,129
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

Obviously it will not help with a tripod, but I always prefer IS.
It will add an f-stop to your ability to hand hold the camera and lens, and sometimes this can be a large difference when less light is available. You said you do not always carry the tripod, so with 300 mm IS will make a lot of difference and well worth the money spent.
RandyMN is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #4
DennisW1
Senior Member
 
DennisW1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL area
Posts: 1,802
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

And what are you shooting? IS won't do squat for motion blur caused by too slow shutter speeds on moving people, cars, pets, toddlers or airplanes, to name a few.

I know that should be obvious but to a lot of people it isn't. In situations where you're hand holding the camera at slow shutter speeds and shooting stationary objects it's a great advantage to have.
DennisW1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #5
jimewall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,716
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

Do I need IS? no! Do I like, find it useful , convenient, helpful (especially as I get older)? Yes! Heck -I prefer IS/OS/VR on any lens, if I can get it (but especially telephotos). But it is not a deal breaker for me yet!

The question I can't answer is, do you need it!
__________________
Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim

GEAR
jimewall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #6
LV Moose
Silly Wonka
 
LV Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 13,438
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

I find IS invaluable, especially on my 70-200. I also like having it on shorter focal lengths, but my hands aren't very steady. I recently bought a 35mm non-IS... and I miss it even on that .
__________________
. . . . ---Moose--- . . . .

Gear... Flickr...Macro...Hummingbirds
LV Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #7
ed rader
"I am not the final word"
 
ed rader's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: silicon valley
Posts: 21,926
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisW1 View Post
And what are you shooting? IS won't do squat for motion blur caused by too slow shutter speeds on moving people, cars, pets, toddlers or airplanes, to name a few.

I know that should be obvious but to a lot of people it isn't. In situations where you're hand holding the camera at slow shutter speeds and shooting stationary objects it's a great advantage to have.

unless you want motion blur, which i often do.
__________________
Yellowstone September 2014 http://erader.zenfolio.com/p285251459

5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro
ed rader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #8
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
 
JeffreyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 14,273
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ed rader View Post
unless you want motion blur, which i often do.
Yes, these are the times when IS is absolutely the most useful. Bicycles, propellor aircraft, waterfalls etc. etc.
__________________
My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jngirbach/sets/
Commercial sports:http://girbach.zenfolio.com/
I use a Canon 5D and 1DIV and a Panasonic GF-1 Gear List: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...postcount=1550
JeffreyG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #9
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
 
RPCrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Diego County, California, USA
Posts: 7,374
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

I would wonder if the Tamron (at 80 GBP) is equal to the Canon (at 280 GBP) in all aspects except IS. I would seriously doubt that the lenses are equal in parameters such as auto focus and image quality. However, they might be.

I do know that the two Canon 70-200mm f/4L (IS and non-IS) are not totally equal except for the IS. The IS model has better weather sealing, slightly better IQ and nicer bokeh due to the rounded apeture blades.

This is not to mean that the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) nor the Tamron are not nice lenses. However, I have owned the 70-200mm f/4L in both versions and far prefer the IS model. As opposed to a lens of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS focal length in which IS is really icing on the cake, a telephoto zoom can really benefit from stabilization. I use my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens 4-5x more often than I was ever able to use the non-IS version because I can hand hold it in lower light levels...

I bought the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L lens when there was not the selection of stabilized tele zoom lenses that are available today. The Canon 75-300mm IS was crappy and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was heavy, expensive and the IQ was not as great as the present Mk ii model provides. Even the present model Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens had problems when it was originally offered. It was not sharp between 200mm and 300mm when IS was turned on and the camera was in the portrait position. That problem has since been corrected.

Regarding the post by Dennis: "And what are you shooting? IS won't do squat for motion blur caused by too slow shutter speeds on moving people, cars, pets, toddlers or airplanes, to name a few."

Image stabilization, if it has dual modes, will help stabilize panned shots at slower shutter speeds to achieve motion blur. Additionally, if your entire image is blurred due to camera movement subject movement is a moot point...
__________________
See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/
EQUIPMENT: Two Canon 7D cameras plus Canon D60 camera modified for full-time IR; Tokina 12-24mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus, 70-200mm f/4L IS, 300mm f/4L IS, and 400mm f/5.6L lenses;

Last edited by RPCrowe : 17th of March 2013 (Sun) at 15:26.
RPCrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #10
rivas8409
Goldmember
 
rivas8409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Lemoore, California
Posts: 2,370
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

The question is do YOU need IS? If you can keep your shutte speed high IS is less of a factor. However, considering that those lenses are variable aperature at the long end and as slow as the lends will get that may be an issue.
__________________
Body: Canon 5DmkII│50D
Glass: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8│Canon 50mm f/1.8 I│Canon 85mm f/1.8│Canon 24-105mm f/4L│Canon 135mm f/2L
Lights: Canon 540EZ│YN 560II│AB800
Results: WEBSITEFACEBOOK
rivas8409 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #11
maverick75
Goldmember
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
Posts: 3,636
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

Do I need it? No. Do I want it, absolutely.
__________________
- Alex Corona
Flickr - 500px - Website - Gearlist
maverick75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #12
bps
Cream of the Crop
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,786
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

I'm a huge fan of IS, especially at the longer focal lengths. Image Stabilization is a cheap investment once you realize how handy it is at the longer focal lengths.

The only reason to avoid buying it is if you absolutely positively cannot afford it.

Bryan
__________________
My Gear List
bps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #13
noisejammer
Senior Member
 
noisejammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto ON
Posts: 1,053
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

I use a monopod... this gives me about 2 stops more exposure. Using the monopod, I can get away without IS for most shots when the exposure (in seconds) is about 2/f (in millimeters). This means 1/10 sec at 21mm, 1/25 sec at 50mm, 1/50 sec at 100mm.

Without a monopod, it's 1/2f... so 1/40 sec at 21mm, 1/200 sec at 100mm and for 1/600 sec at 300mm.

If you have enough light to allow for 1/600 sec exposures, then you don't need IS for the 70-300. If you don't, you either need IS or a monopod.
__________________
Several cameras and more glass than I will admit to.
Flickr
noisejammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #14
finn61
Member
 
finn61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posts: 31
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

But as I said before, is it really worth the extra money? When the tamron seems to have good IQ at the same focal length for a lot less. But at 300mm will having a tripod have the same effect as having image stabilization? Or should I just save up for the canon?
Thanks in advance
finn61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th of March 2013 (Sun)   #15
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
 
JeffreyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 14,273
Default Re: do you need image stabilization?

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn61 View Post
But at 300mm will having a tripod have the same effect as having image stabilization?
When you can use a tripod, a tripod is better than IS.

But when you cannot use a tripod (or do not want to), IS is better than no IS.

Value of IS is subjective and depends on how wealthy you are overall and what you are shooting. If you shoot a lot of sports and action, IS is not all that important. If you shoot airshows or waterfalls or generally slow moving things, IS is very handy.
__________________
My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jngirbach/sets/
Commercial sports:http://girbach.zenfolio.com/
I use a Canon 5D and 1DIV and a Panasonic GF-1 Gear List: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...postcount=1550
JeffreyG is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does Image Stabilization decrease image quality? Robcassell Small Compact Digitals by Canon 4 1st of January 2010 (Fri) 14:25
24-70 image stabilization miguels Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 6 26th of December 2009 (Sat) 10:37
Image Stabilization? rennwerkes Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 13 26th of September 2007 (Wed) 17:17
how much would you pay for image stabilization? bowlesbe Lens Rumors and Predictions 13 5th of February 2007 (Mon) 06:43
Image Stabilization ?s bwegner Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 3 3rd of May 2006 (Wed) 12:04


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.