Do you really need IS?

If you can afford it, IS is absolutely beneficial. Maybe not exactly for sports shooting, as you need fast shutter speeds anyway, but for anything moving somewhat slowly, you'll notice an improvement by leaps and bounds. If you're into trying some panned shots, IS will help you out even in the sports shooting department.

I can hardly get a sharp image at 1/125th at 200mm without IS, but I've had good keepers at 1/25th at 200mm before, hand held with IS! At 200mm, I need 1/200th second to be safe without IS, but really I only need about 1/50th to get my shot with IS. In low light this will save your life.

For walk-around hand-held shooting, it's halfway to having a tripod. It's really that good.

Naturalist wrote in post #14096054
While IS may be good for the longer focal lengths when you cannot shoot at higher shutter speeds (which is rare with DSLR as you can always up the ISO) it most certainly is not needed for shorter focal lengths like the 24 or 28 mm lenses that just came out with IS.....CANON.

<Rant On>
Nothing like adding another $300 to the price of a 24mm or 28mm lens by adding an unnecessary feature that can fail (IS) to a short focal length length that would not benefit from the additional feature.

Just because you CAN build IS into a lens does not mean you SHOULD, Canon.

<Rant off>

Have you ever compared an IS to non-IS lens when shooting video? The difference is ridiculous. Any sort of shake makes video very hard to watch. Canon is clearly not all about stills... video and cine is a crucial part of their business plan.

Showjumper91 wrote in post #14095613
Hey,
Just wondering if you really need IS on a lens.
I am going to buy a Canon 70-200mm f4 lens but am not sure if I want to spend extra on one with IS.
I am planning to do sports photography (equestrian, jumping, eventing, etc.). I do have a fairly steady hand but I have never owned a lens before so I don't know what they are like.
I don't exactly want to spend so much on one with IS so I won't buy one unless it is absolutely essential for what I'm doing.

Thanks

do you really "need" air conditioning? no, but i would never buy a car that doesn't have it.

ed rader

h4ppydaze wrote in post #14097724
.

Have you ever compared an IS to non-IS lens when shooting video? The difference is ridiculous. Any sort of shake makes video very hard to watch. Canon is clearly not all about stills... video and cine is a crucial part of their business plan.

That's the main reason I would consider an IS lens would be for video and the IS lenses do work wonders for hand held video shots. But for stills IS does come in handy in low light areas without any movement though.

Kind regards
Raymond

melcat wrote in post #14095683
On a 1.6 crop camera, you have to shoot 1.6 times faster at the same focal length, but that's still 1/320s.

Ugh, this misinformation is so widespread and it really irks me.

The 1.6 factor of a crop sensor is a result of cropping the field of view, not of increasing the magnification. Therefore, the same amount of handshake will affect the same lens the same way regardless of whether it is mounted on a FF or Crop sensor body.

Cliff notes: If you have a 200mm lens, the rule remains 1/200 shutter speed or faster, regardless of the sensor size that it is mounted in front of.

I have been debated dumping my 70-200 2.8 non IS for a IS but since it's mainly for sports I have yet to see the need to switch.....for you guys that have the IS version what is the slowest you can hand hold it ?

ed rader wrote in post #14097949
do you really "need" air conditioning? no, but i would never buy a car that doesn't have it.

ed rader

The metaphor doesn't even work .
If you couldn't afford a car with air-conditioning in the future , does this mean you will walk / use public transport instead ?


Just state your reasons for "needing" IS .

ktownhero wrote in post #14098008
Ugh, this misinformation is so widespread and it really irks me.

The 1.6 factor of a crop sensor is a result of cropping the field of view, not of increasing the magnification. Therefore, the same amount of handshake will affect the same lens the same way regardless of whether it is mounted on a FF or Crop sensor body.

Cliff notes: If you have a 200mm lens, the rule remains 1/200 shutter speed or faster, regardless of the sensor size that it is mounted in front of.

cropping is actually equivalent to magnifying in the model of camera shake

so you definitely want to consider crop factor.

perryj wrote in post #14098020
I have been debated dumping my 70-200 2.8 non IS for a IS but since it's mainly for sports I have yet to see the need to switch.....for you guys that have the IS version what is the slowest you can hand hold it ?

I've gotten good results as slow as 1/30th or less

ktownhero wrote in post #14098008
Ugh, this misinformation is so widespread and it really irks me.

The 1.6 factor of a crop sensor is a result of cropping the field of view, not of increasing the magnification. Therefore, the same amount of handshake will affect the same lens the same way regardless of whether it is mounted on a FF or Crop sensor body.

Cliff notes: If you have a 200mm lens, the rule remains 1/200 shutter speed or faster, regardless of the sensor size that it is mounted in front of.

i disagree...if you've ever shot with a P&S superzoom you'd see that even though the actual physical length of the lens is like 100mm, you need faster shutters than 1/100 to avoid handshake...

Foggiest wrote in post #14098046
The metaphor doesn't even work .
If you couldn't afford a car with air-conditioning in the future , does this mean you will walk / use public transport instead ?

or buy an older car with no AC...just because it's been around longer it's become common place on all cars...the same way IS is probably going to be found on all new lenses....

h4ppydaze wrote in post #14098160
I've gotten good results as slow as 1/30th or less

1/15th @200mm with extension tubes (i.e. close-up). My keeper rate with this is about 1 in 4, it would probably be more if I wasn't doing semi-macro.

OK. This is why I like IS: 70-200 f4 + 1.4x TC 280mm @ f5.6 1/15s ISO6400 5DII. So I'm maxed out on ISO and aperture, taking a shot at 280mm of something moving. yes, many shots had movement, but the 5DII is only 4fps and a still got a lot of sharp shots (at least compared to the noise using ISO6400). Wihtout IS - no way 1/15s at 280mm? No way.

But to the OP, purely for action where you need shutter speeds of 1/400s or more you are probably going to want to turn it off anyway unless panning and using the panning mode IS. For 1/100s - 1/200s I find it is still useful, but you don't gain much.

First shot is a modest crop (maybe 1.4x), second is a big crop - close to 70-100%. They both have had NR and sharpening.

Showjumper91 wrote in post #14095613
....I am going to buy a Canon 70-200mm f4 lens but am not sure if I want to spend extra on one with IS....I don't exactly want to spend so much on one with IS so I won't buy one unless it is absolutely essential for what I'm doing.
Thanks

IS is (I sound like Clinton) not absolutely necessary. The OP's question concerns cost as well, and a lot of it. If I need another +1,000 dollars to get a 'feature' from a lens to get my shots, I might as well have someone else take the pictures. Of course if I were loaded, I'd be speaking differently. lol I say try out the non-IS version and see where you're at and then make your determination, or rent one first.

Also with a proper video support rig, you can take plenty of good video with non-IS lenses.

If I were quite a bit more knowledgeable, it would be fairly easy to produce a graph that incorporates shutter speed, lens length, and hand steadiness to show the stabilization advantage. Ok, I've faked it (and probably have some of the curves and relationships wrong) just to help myself think it through.

I have a hard time with the concept that IS becomes useless at high shutter speeds and low focal lengths. To me that would be like saying that in some circumstances it doesn't matter if you hold your camera steady. Sure, it's more important with slower shutter speeds and longer focal lengths, but it's always better to hold the camera still, isn't it?

cacawcacaw wrote in post #14099072
I have a hard time with the concept that IS becomes useless at high shutter speeds and low focal lengths. To me that would be like saying that in some circumstances it doesn't matter if you hold your camera steady.

Holding the camera steady does make a difference and consequently at certain shutter speeds and certain focal lengths IS does become "useless". If you have a hard time with the concept try taking a few shots with the IS on, then turn it off and take a few pics. See the difference? Or perhaps you don't see a difference

To the original poster, NO, you don't need IS for what you plan to photograph with the lens you mention. However I would buy the IS model, I've owned both and the optics on the IS model are superb, they seem better than those on the non IS version. I have owned both and that's just my opinion though. You can turn off the IS for the action shots and turn it back on for other stuff. I used the 70-200 F4 IS for portraits and landscape and even flowers. beautiful lens and worth every cent.

ktownhero wrote in post #14098008
Ugh, this misinformation is so widespread and it really irks me.

The 1.6 factor of a crop sensor is a result of cropping the field of view, not of increasing the magnification. Therefore, the same amount of handshake will affect the same lens the same way regardless of whether it is mounted on a FF or Crop sensor body.

Cliff notes: If you have a 200mm lens, the rule remains 1/200 shutter speed or faster, regardless of the sensor size that it is mounted in front of.

Actually, the original information was correct, and your correction is wrong.

You state that the 'crop' factor comes from a cropped field of view and not from additional magnification.

But there is actually a point where the image from the smaller format is magnified more, and that is the step from sensor to print (or monitor, if you prefer).

If you make an 8x10 print from a FF sensor, you enlarge the image about 8X from sensor to print.

Make that same 8x10 print from a 1.6X sensor and you are enlarging the image 13X from sensor to print.

Since the blur from equal motion shake is going to be the same size on the sensor, the additional enlargement going on with the smaller format will increase the blur in the final image.

In other words, you need a higher shutter speed with a smaller format when using the same focal length, in order to get the same amount of blur in the final image.