LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


do you need image stabilization?

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 17 Mar 2013 (Sunday) 14:39   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
finn61
Member
finn61's Avatar
Joined Mar 2013
31 posts
High Wycombe, England
[MORE/SHARE]

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?

Post #1, Mar 17, 2013 14:39:42




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
14,421 posts
Detroit, MI
[MORE/SHARE]

finn61 wrote in post #15725134external link
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.

Post #2, Mar 17, 2013 14:42:41


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/external link
Commercial sports:http://girbach.zenfoli​o.com/external link
I use a Canon 5DIII and 1DIV and a Panasonic GF-1

LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
Joined Aug 2005
3,130 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #3, Mar 17, 2013 14:44:24




LOG IN TO REPLY
DennisW1
Goldmember
DennisW1's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
1,802 posts
Chicago, IL area
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #4, Mar 17, 2013 14:47:53




LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
Joined May 2008
1,764 posts
Cleveland, Ohio
[MORE/SHARE]

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!

Post #5, Mar 17, 2013 14:51:51 as a reply to JeffreyG's post 9 minutes earlier.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
LV ­ Moose
Silly Wonka
LV Moose's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
13,840 posts
Out in the freakin' desert :/
[MORE/SHARE]

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 :confused:.

Post #6, Mar 17, 2013 15:05:45 as a reply to jimewall's post 13 minutes earlier.


. . . . ---Moose--- . . . .

Gear... Flickrexternal link...Macroexternal link...Hummingbirdsexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
Joined May 2005
22,033 posts
silicon valley
[MORE/SHARE]

DennisW1 wrote in post #15725165external link
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.

Post #7, Mar 17, 2013 15:07:19


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/external link
http://erader.zenfolio​.com/external link
5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 24mm f2.8 ef-s, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
14,421 posts
Detroit, MI
[MORE/SHARE]

ed rader wrote in post #15725214external link
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.

Post #8, Mar 17, 2013 15:11:58


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/external link
Commercial sports:http://girbach.zenfoli​o.com/external link
I use a Canon 5DIII and 1DIV and a Panasonic GF-1

LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
RPCrowe's Avatar
Joined Nov 2005
7,383 posts
San Diego County, California, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

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...

Post #9, Mar 17, 2013 15:15:45 as a reply to jimewall's post 23 minutes earlier.


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/external link
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;

LOG IN TO REPLY
rivas8409
Goldmember
rivas8409's Avatar
Joined Mar 2011
2,377 posts
Lemoore, California
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #10, Mar 17, 2013 15:32:30


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: WEBSITEexternal linkFACEBOOKexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Goldmember
Joined May 2012
3,787 posts
Riverside,California
[MORE/SHARE]

Do I need it? No. Do I want it, absolutely.

Post #11, Mar 17, 2013 15:35:16


- Alex Corona
Flickrexternal link - 500pxexternal link - Websiteexternal link - Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
bps
Cream of the Crop
Joined Mar 2007
6,736 posts
Northern California
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #12, Mar 17, 2013 15:41:39


My Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
noisejammer
Goldmember
noisejammer's Avatar
Joined May 2010
1,053 posts
Toronto ON
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #13, Mar 17, 2013 15:48:08


Several cameras and more glass than I will admit to.
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
finn61
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
finn61's Avatar
Joined Mar 2013
31 posts
High Wycombe, England
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Post #14, Mar 17, 2013 16:24:48 as a reply to noisejammer's post 36 minutes earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
14,421 posts
Detroit, MI
[MORE/SHARE]

finn61 wrote in post #15725452external link
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.

Post #15, Mar 17, 2013 16:27:16


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/external link
Commercial sports:http://girbach.zenfoli​o.com/external link
I use a Canon 5DIII and 1DIV and a Panasonic GF-1

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
3,957 views & 0 likes for this thread
do you need image stabilization?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.0013 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
901 guests, 802 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Chanotrevino

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.