benefits of IS, help.....

nicksan wrote in post #6043670
2 stop IS will allow you to use 2 stops SLOWER shutter speed than without IS, and still be able to handhold the lens without handshake coming into play.

Let's pick the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens for instance. Assume we are shooting at 200mm

On a crop body, the rule-of-thumb shutter speed for handholding the lens would be.

1/(Focal Length x crop factor) = 1/(200 x 1.6) = 1/320

So 1/320 is the slowest speed you should be using to prevent handshake from causing blur...this is WITHOUT taking IS into consideration. YMMV.

Now enter the 3 stop IS system this lens has. This means you can use up to 3 stops SLOWER shutter speed than usual. So...

1/320 -> 1/160->1/80->1/40

So you can use 1/40 instead of 1/320, which may or may not be useful. It won't be useful when trying to stop subject motion b/c 1/40 is just too slow to do that. But it's great for shooting static subjects, indoors, etc...

i think i skipped over this before...
thts very helpful info.
makes even more sense to me know
thanks

In2Photos wrote in post #6044274
You might want to read this thread:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=543806

While the non-IS version has great IQ there is the possibility that if something happens to the lens it could not be fixed.

/reading
......

dam, i guess i will have to work for a long time to get the IS version
thanks for the link

mackidbrendan wrote in post #6044192
i would probably be using a monopod anyways. so the IS would not be necessary.

Sorry. But that's wrong.

IS is even beneficial on higher shutter speeds, and on monopods, or on beanbags, or even on tripods when they're used "loose" to track and pan subjects. I by it.

Yeah, I managed to shoot without IS for 20+ years, but having used it now since 2001 when I switched to a Canon system, I'd really not want to be without IS on lenses 100 or 135mm and longer, if at all possible.

I don't care what anyone else tells you... It is very useful for sports, and for 1/500 & up, and for monopod/tripod work. Even on a tripod, I'm using a gimbal head (Wimberley Sidekick to be precise) often with tilt axis and pan axis loosened so I can follow moving subjects. IS continues to work.

So, I'm very glad to have IS on 70-200, 300mm and 500mm lenses I use. With it, I can get shots I otherwise couldn't, and it improves many of my shots overall.

Shorter lenses are another matter.

I really don't care much and, if possible, wouldn't want to pay extra for IS on lenses shorter than, say, 100mm. Simply due to years of practice, I can usually manage to handhold "sharp enough" at least a stop faster than the old 1/xxx shutter speed rule of thumb with most short lenses, even on 1.6X. Of course, as I get older that may not always be the case!

If a shorter lens has IS, fine, that's a bonus. If not, well, so long as I can pretty effectively handhold a 24mm at 1/15, I'm generally happy. For example, I chose a 24-70/2.8 for the f2.8 aperture, over a similarly priced 24-105/4 IS. Other folks might do just the opposite, and that's perfectly understandable to me too.

On those longer lenses, IS is very much worth the extra expense to me.

apersson850 wrote in post #6044691
The kind of sports I shoot often involve panning, to follow the movement. Then IS mode 2 comes in handy, as it will still stabilize the vertical movement, but leave the panning alone.
The mode 2 setting is available on some lenses for manual selection, and some other will detect it automatically.

Bingo!

The argument that IS is not useful for sports only holds water if your goal is to always freeze action, for example permanently hanging that jump shot b'ball player in mid air or stopping that 200 mph formula one car dead in it's tracks.

However, panning techniques and background motion blur can often make for a much more interesting action shot. And here IS is once again very useful

Next time you are shooting sports with that 70-200 at the longest setting, try it for yourself. Take some shots at 1/320 or faster without IS. Then take a series at 1/40 or 1/60 with IS. See which you like better. Well, even if you like them equally, at least now you have options that you wouldn't have without IS.

By the way, don't expect a 100% keeper rate when panning. It can be hard for AF to keep up or even to get the perfect composition in every frame. There are always going to be more garbage can shots, when panning.

For another interesting technique, add fill flash while panning. The flash pops at about 1/750 approx., so will freeze movement of a closer subject somewhat, while ambient light still gives some motion blur around the subject, and even more in the background.

amfoto1 wrote in post #6045097
Sorry. But that's wrong.

IS is even beneficial on higher shutter speeds, and on monopods, or on beanbags, or even on tripods when they're used "loose" to track and pan subjects. I by it.

Yeah, I managed to shoot without IS for 20+ years, but having used it now since 2001 when I switched to a Canon system, I'd really not want to be without IS on lenses 100 or 135mm and longer, if at all possible.

I don't care what anyone else tells you... It is very useful for sports, and for 1/500 & up, and for monopod/tripod work. Even on a tripod, I'm using a gimbal head (Wimberley Sidekick to be precise) often with tilt axis and pan axis loosened so I can follow moving subjects. IS continues to work.

So, I'm very glad to have IS on 70-200, 300mm and 500mm lenses I use. With it, I can get shots I otherwise couldn't, and it improves many of my shots overall.

Shorter lenses are another matter.

I really don't care much and, if possible, wouldn't want to pay extra for IS on lenses shorter than, say, 100mm. Simply due to years of practice, I can usually manage to handhold "sharp enough" at least a stop faster than the old 1/xxx shutter speed rule of thumb with most short lenses, even on 1.6X. Of course, as I get older that may not always be the case!

If a shorter lens has IS, fine, that's a bonus. If not, well, so long as I can pretty effectively handhold a 24mm at 1/15, I'm generally happy. For example, I chose a 24-70/2.8 for the f2.8 aperture, over a similarly priced 24-105/4 IS. Other folks might do just the opposite, and that's perfectly understandable to me too.

On those longer lenses, IS is very much worth the extra expense to me.

i was only saying i could get away without because i couldn't afford the IS version of the 300. but i read the post about not being able to get the non IS version fixed so i will save up for the 300 2.8 IS i would love to have IS on all the lens i buy but sometimes the $$ has an effect on my choice.