image stabalization question

Hey all, I'm new here and new to live music photography. I'm looking into a new lens or two and would like some opinions on the necessity of image stabilization.
Is it worth the rather substantial investment or is it a "nice added feature".
I'm currently shooting with a T5i and 50mm f1.8 w/ stabilization.
Any expert advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

not really, unless you are shooting at a long focal length, or if you have terribly shaky hands.

but for static (ie, seated folksinger types) performers, it can be helpful.

The longer the lens, the greater necessity for IS. The rule of thumb for handhoding without IS is 1/focal x1.6. So you can safely handhold a 50 at 1/80 of a second without motion blur. But as you can see it becomes an issue as you use longer lenses. A 200 mm lens would be 1/320 to prevent camera shake. As mentioned above if you are shooting at faster shutter speeds to freeze subject motion then IS may not be a factor. What brand is your 50 1.8 IS?

My 50mm is a Canon.
So on a 28-75mm f2.8 IS would not be needed to capture concert photography,
and a 70-200 f2.8 IS would be needed if I understand?

stratoholic wrote in post #17201504
My 50mm is a Canon.
So on a 28-75mm f2.8 IS would not be needed to capture concert photography,
and a 70-200 f2.8 IS would be needed if I understand?

Canon doesnt make an IS 50. IS is almost always useful, but yes I would agree with that line of thinking.

stratoholic wrote in post #17201504
My 50mm is a Canon.
So on a 28-75mm f2.8 IS would not be needed to capture concert photography,
and a 70-200 f2.8 IS would be needed if I understand?

What's your normal shutter speed range? Live music as in a piano soloist is pretty different from catching David Lee Roth in a mid-air split. If it's normally over 320 anyway then IS won't help much even at 200mm.

stratoholic wrote in post #17200632
Hey all, I'm new here and new to live music photography. I'm looking into a new lens or two and would like some opinions on the necessity of image stabilization.
Is it worth the rather substantial investment or is it a "nice added feature".
I'm currently shooting with a T5i and 50mm f1.8 w/ stabilization.
Any expert advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

As mentioned, the need for lens stabilization can, fairly or unfairly, depend on physical skills, lighting, framing and camera settings.

These sample images from stage presentations all used a non-stabilized 70-200mm lens set at 200mm. They demonstrate that, with experience and a steady hand, stabilization is not needed.

I have shaky hands that no amount of proper technique will compensate for. I'll take stabilization on any length lens. I'd have it on my drinking glasses if I could.

Even if you have no similar issues, better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Of course your budget must come into play as well.

I'm shooting live bands in unfriendly lighting conditions. So, more DLR jumping than classical guitar player not moving.
Budget is the issue with my dilemma. Of course I would take IS if the price were right, but non IS is mo betta on the fragile wallet!

stratoholic wrote in post #17201666
I'm shooting live bands in unfriendly lighting conditions. So, more DLR jumping than classical guitar player not moving.
Budget is the issue with my dilemma. Of course I would take IS if the price were right, but non IS is mo betta on the fragile wallet!

So you likely already need high shutter speed. In the case where you can afford great optics with no IS or lower quality optics with IS, I would* go for no IS.

(And have so perhaps my opinion has some confirmation bias in it. Case in point I use my 70-200 to shoot sports, I have to have at least 1/500 so stabalization really doesn't come into it. But since I have to have the faster shutter I often need more light. So for me the 2.8 was a better fit than the f4IS.)