Image Stabilizer vs a tripod. . You're Thoughts Please.

I was thinking on wether I should get an older L lens with a tripod or an L lens with the IS function. I prefer to shoot landscapes and family photos and whould like to know what you folks think would be more practical for my situation. Of course, I am going for the sharper photo quality type. Thank you.

My thoughts

If you are going to compare IS to a tripod, then the tripod wins hands down. A tripod will help you slow down and consider your shot, although it can be cumbersome to haul around and set up. IS wasn't and still isn't an option for the tools used by arguably the best landscape photographer around: Ansel Adams. Adams hauled a huge view camera around with a tripod to record his images. Most of Canons lenses that have a non IS and IS version, the non IS version is usually sharper.
IS is for situations where you can't use a tripod, or if you don't want to carry a tripod around. I own one IS lens, the 28-135, I bought it specifically for use in aerial photography, to tone down the vibrations of the airplane. All of my other lenses are non IS and I lug a tripod and remote release to get the sharpest photos possible.

If you plan on doing landscape, you'll want a tripod regardless of what kind of lenses you have. The IS can be nice in situations where you can't use a tripod, but it sounds like that shouldn't be a common problem for you.

Both is good,.

You have to decide based on who much you use a tripod now (and want to.) How many of your pix are tossed becasue you did shake the camera? Some people are better than others.

Tripods are fine....if you want to schlepp one around with you...but not so convenient for the 'ol family pics...I love the IS on my Canon lenses....when you want to react and shoot, they are the answer...

MP

Tripod wins hands down every time. Your shooting scenario would be satisfied by the 17-40L. Check out the reviews on fredmiranda.com, all its owners love it.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Both is good,.

Uh huh, whole heartly agreed, unless you aren't the photographer who runs into spontatenous situations.

IS is fast to use, tripod is slow.
IS will get you 2-3 stops of slower shutter speed when shooting stagnant objects, the tripod will get you all the slow shutter speed you want.

IS lenses can be used on tripods with the IS turned off (left on with a few lenses).

It's a tradeoff - match the advantages and disadvantages of each to your intended use.

Thanks a lot everyone, I got all the answers I needed. Y' all helped me a great deal in resolving my issue.

Many sports/news photographers using large Canon lenses (both IS and non IS) use a monopod. A monopod is lighter and cheaper than a tripod and in some cases very useful when a tripod would be impractical i.e. the Superbowl. A monopod can also be used as a hiking assist in the field.

I wouldn't bother with IS for landscapes, but it's fantastic when hand-holding at 300mm. For me, it's at the longer focal lengths where IS comes into its own. I often shoot at wildlife parks, where a tripod is not really very practical - the animal in question will have wandered off before I've set the shot up! With IS I can usually get a steady shot hand-holding with no problem. I've tried switching the IS off to see what it does and it's then much harder shooting at 300mm. A monopod is a good compromise, you see them a lot at motorsport events, but a tripod is much better for landscapes.

I have 3 Canon lenses with IS:
The 17-85, the 300f/4, and the new 70-300. I also have the Sigma 80-400 with OS (their version of IS).
I also have a Manfrotto tripod, which is fairly compact for travel, and a Giottos monopod.
I use the monopod most of the time along with the lens IS switched on. Great combination.
Jack

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Both is good,.

What he said.

You'll want a tripod, but if you have the moolah, spring for the IS lens anyway. I am impressed with how much it can help.

John

Tripod. Image Stablizer is ideal if you're doing some panning shots. I take my tripod everywhere I go.