To IS...or NOT to IS....

Well...I wasn't disappointed with the number of opinions here. Thanks

I am curious about one thing that has been brought up..and that is having an IS allows you to shoot at a lower ISO? Someone care to explain that to me?

For example...I got into shooting night football here at our high school. I find myself shooting at around 1600 ISO and shutter speeds at about 1/400 @ 2.8 Depending on jersey colors that night, I might get some shots in at 1/500th. I shoot at that speed to freeze the action, wanting crisp action shots. So how/why will the IS allow me to shoot at a lower ISO? That doesn't make sense to me.

stratos wrote in post #2238319
Well a lot my photofrapher friends that used to shot events at night all they purcased IS lenses and couple of weeks later slod theyre IS lenses

they said IS didnt done much difrence to them and that is loses sharpness

so id say go for the sigma ... want low shuter speed ? buy a good tripod or monopod

i've never used a IS lens so im no thalking by own experience but from other experince

( anyway all this is my opinion and im n00b xD )

I do agree with some of your points.

I think IS is useful if your doing events or something with lighting that can be horrid. I also think though that IS is useless to a lot of people and people get hyped up with the words IS. If your shooting sports or something I don't see the IS helping you because your shooting at ridiculously high shutter speeds to freeze motion. If your shooting wild life and trying to get a capture of a animal sleeping or something at night or whatever you may have it, IS will definitley help.

At the end of the day, for me it's a number of factors. I'm sure I can hold my 70-200 F/4L much better then I could ever hold a 70-200 f2.8 due to the weight difference. I wouldn't decline IS lenses if I had the oppertunity to get them, but at the same time I'm not willing to shell out the extra dough that could pay for faster lenses (primes!)

Catching up, it will not help you shoot at lower ISOS in that case. I believe people are trying to say if you are shooting a subject with little to no movement where you can play with shutter speeds, then you can use IS to drop your shutter speed a few stops and lower your ISO a few stops. IS also helps break the rule that you should shoot at a shutter speed equal to at least your focal length (i.e. shooting a 200mm lens 1/200). If you don't need to freeze action or something, then with IS you will probably be able to easily break that rule. Although I personally have always found that I can shoot at shutter speeds below the focal length of my lens without blur problems.

Hi CatchingUp,

I have the Canon 100-400 IS and based on that experience I'd say you don't need IS.

Its been mentioned before that IS only stabilizes camera shake which is useful at longer focal lengths. It will NOT HELP FREEZE ACTION.

If your subject is not moving much you will be able to lower the ISO and still be able to get a clear shot even at the slower shutter speed. Of course if your subject is moving alot then it will still be motion blurred due to the slower shutter speed.

By the way, you can add a stabilizer to your camera that will work with all lenses.
This is what the pros use... Its bulky, heavy and of course it aint cheap
$2,300 for the SLR size:

http://www.ken-lab.com/html/rafferty_​1.html

CatchingUp wrote in post #2238911
Well...I wasn't disappointed with the number of opinions here. Thanks

I am curious about one thing that has been brought up..and that is having an IS allows you to shoot at a lower ISO? Someone care to explain that to me?

For example...I got into shooting night football here at our high school. I find myself shooting at around 1600 ISO and shutter speeds at about 1/400 @ 2.8 Depending on jersey colors that night, I might get some shots in at 1/500th. I shoot at that speed to freeze the action, wanting crisp action shots. So how/why will the IS allow me to shoot at a lower ISO? That doesn't make sense to me.

By reducing the effect of camera shake IS allows you the luxury of two or even three extra stops of exposure lattitute. Think of a 'stop' being the amount of change required in your exposure settings to halve or double the amount of light hitting the sensor for a properly exposed shot. This can be accomplished by changing any of the three parameters that determine exposure - shutter speed, f/stop or ISO. I think which parameter you choose to 'benefit' from is based on the type of shot you are taking, for the high school football example you would generally be best to leave the ISO alone and benefit from faster shutter speeds.

evandavies wrote in post #2239005
By the way, you can add a stabilizer to your camera that will work will all lenses.
This is what the pros use... Its bulky and of course it aint cheap
$2,300 for the SLR size:

http://www.ken-lab.com/html/rafferty_​1.html

Blimey!! I never knew such a thing existed, its like having an air compressor cylinder attached to your camera,

Nick

evandavies wrote in post #2239005
Hi CatchingUp,

I have the Canon 100-400 IS and based on that experience I'd say you don't need IS.

I agree totally. Spend the extra money on a faster lens.

I have two lenses with IS. The 100-400L just got back from Canon, where they replaced the whole IS unit and calibrated it for another $200 or so. My 28-135 IS needs to go in for calibration and who knows what else as it's also soft.

Let me put this another way...

I now have four IS lenses.

Never,. NEVER have I turned IS "Off" since getting them.

"Need" is a poor choice of words in any such discussion as we simply don't need all the bells and whistles. We could make due with a pinhole camera..

but IS will make a difference and it will increase your keeper ratio.

I agree that IS would be a benefit for general shooting without a tripod or mono pod but would not help shooting indoor volleyball or night soccer as 'CatchingUp' was talking about.

Very true,. I should have been clear about that in my own post... which was more commenting on IS as a tool in general,. not for the specific application.

I often make the mistake of missing the context of the Original Post when thread get to page 2...

To rephrase, "in general, IS will make a difference and it will increase your keeper ratio, but it will not help stop subject motion"

lol i NEED is esp for a 70-200MM.. im as unsteady as hell and IS has saved me...wish I could afford more IS lenses to go with my 28-135! Ahhh someday!

Since everyone is being more specific...

The concept of IS is great. When it works, it works great. They are heavier, and it's more to go wrong, and eventually, will go wrong. Looking at thousands of posts here, taken with IS lenses, and comparing them with the non-IS lenses, and using a very unscientific formula involving memory only, I have to say that half of the pics shot with IS lenses that I've seen, are soft, or to be blunt, out of focus, while virtually all of the non-IS lens shots are nice and sharp.

You'll have to decide for yourself how your luck is running, but so far, mine is 100% bad, 2 for 2 in getting a not quite up to snuff copy of lenses with IS.

canonloader wrote in post #2239726
...Looking at thousands of posts here, taken with IS lenses, and comparing them with the non-IS lenses, and using a very unscientific formula involving memory only, I have to say that half of the pics shot with IS lenses that I've seen, are soft, or to be blunt, out of focus, while virtually all of the non-IS lens shots are nice and sharp...

Let's not go crazy, here. There's a barely discernible difference between IS and non-IS IQ. If you see it, you're pixel peeping and will never be happy anyway.

Mitch, that's just the weirdest post I've read on this forum in years.

I'm sorry your own experiences with IS have been bad, but most of the best images we see on a daily basis in the Bird, and nature forums are taken with IS lenses.

I would never argue that IS lenses are to be attributed to the fact that the photographers get these fantastic shots, but I just don't see how you can generalize all these fine works as "soft" or "OOF"?

Your certainly not seeing the same images I am.

Not all, I said half, and an unscientific poll to be sure. Maybe I'm looking for things your not. Being totally unhappy [Before the repair] with my copy, I had reason to pixel peep.

zacker wrote in post #2239689
lol i NEED is esp for a 70-200MM.. im as unsteady as hell and IS has saved me...wish I could afford more IS lenses to go with my 28-135! Ahhh someday!

You know, I've found that you can save a ton of money by cutting down on the caffeine and taking otc sleeping meds when you have trouble getting sleep.

CDS, perhaps he meant the IS versions of lenses are sometimes softer? I remember reading multiple times the 300 F4 NON-IS is apparently sharper then the IS version of the lens.