Does IS really Matter

<p>DA, This Christmas the first thing I want would be a zoom lens. I have searched a lot and I found Sigma 70-300mm DG APO 4-5.6f on my budget. It’s a second hand claiming to be ‘Used – like new’. Would be a decent lens flowers and birds for 125 British Pound. Only thing I miss is the IS which sigma doesn’t have and no chance of IS on such ridiculous budget</p>

<p>IS makes a HUGE difference, esp. with longer focal lenghts, unless you always use a tripod. I would not buy any tele zoom or lens without IS.</p>

<p>Yes, here's a good post from this site <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/</a></p>

before IS tripods were used much more even for casual shots at, say, 30th-125th second. now, IS covers you in most situations. i'd miss half the stuff i shoot if i didn't have IS.

<p>Unless you mainly shoot from the tripod or shoot mostly active subjects in good light (where IS won't help and you can keep the shutter speed high) IS is generally valuable with longer lenses.</p>

<p>It really would be worth spending the extra £30 to buy a brand new 55-250 IS. </p>

<p>IS is important just as flash or faster aperture meaning when you need it, its important. It does not help with moving subjects so its not the end all feature but it will help for static shots or for letting in ambient light. I too would suggest the Canon 55-250 IS over the Sigma.</p>

<p>I don't suffer from Parkinson's so would never have a need for IS.</p>

<p>Those of us who are old enough managed without IS for years.</p>

<p>it is nice to have and it does help alot but keep in mind moose petterson shot many a great photo with a 300 2.8 handheld and the photos were tack sharp. technique? yes but then again like anything regarding technique you make adjustments based on your equipment. if you NEED IS then that answers your own question but if you take great photos without it, well there you go. the never ending quest for the perfect camera kit.</p>

<p>Yes</p>

<p>We all managed without a lot of things until they became available. Doesn't mean they aren't extremely useful or very valuable to those who need them. Cell phones and flat panel monitors come to mind. Is IS essential to photography? No. Does it make a difference in photography? Absolutely. Is it worth the extra money? Your mileage may vary, but I consider it a very nice addition to my lenses that have it.</p>

<p> I don't have the steadiest hands... So it helps me out a lot.<br>

I envy the folks with hands that don't shake rattle and roll.<br>

For me IS is a must, with my 24-105 it gets me keepers when I would otherwise miss the shot.</p>

<p>Another no! If you find yourself in lowlight with still subjects, on a very regular basis, then IS could be useful. </p>

<p>The newest myth that I see on a regular basis is that if you have a telephoto lens that you have to have IS, no matter what the lighting, unless you have a tripod. Typical shutter speed that one needs to handhold a 300mm lens (for film or full frame) is 1/350 to 1/500. Using the sunny 16 rule, at ISO 100 and f5.6 you would have a shutter speed of 1/500, leaving some room for late day or overcast. For heavily overcast or sunrise/sunset photography bumping to a 200 or 400 ISO film may be necessary.</p>

<p>IS doesn't stop subject movement and neither does a tripod. Up your ISO to get a respectable shutter speed and enjoy the new used lens. IS can also cause lost shots if you need to point, frame and shoot all in an instant. If the IS has not settled in that instant the shot will be blurred.</p>

<p>Have a merry Christmas.</p>

 

<p>I feel naked without a tripod, IS or no IS. It might be nice to have IS for the 1% of shots when a tripod is not available or is inconvenient. Whether that 1% is worth the cost of IS is debatable. I have IS on several of my lenses, and it is hardly ever used -- tripods do a better job, and I can see the amount of stabilization I'm going to have.</p>

<p>IS caused me some troubles, I am now more happy with fast primes:</p>

<ul>

<li>it does not stabilize people (and especially children)</li>

<li>when using focus recompose, it gives you a "double image" if you shoot too fast without waiting for about 1 stable second.</li>

</ul>

<p>Nevertheless, on the plus side:</p>

<ul>

<li>The viewfinder or LiveView image is stabilized</li>

<li>It enables handholdable smaller apertures</li>

</ul>

<p>There are lots of things that you could choose to live without but which nevertheless are beneficial and useful. I have file upon file of interiors taken where no tripod was possible and where I wouldn't have had a hope of keeping the images sharp without IS on zooms. Seems a bit dumb to me to dismiss something thats useful just because you grew up without it and could if pressed do without it again.</p>

<p>IS is useful whenever you want to or need to operate in the area where hand-held sharpness appropriate to your purpose might be compromised. If you don't go there you don't need it. So if you can use a tripod all the time, or just don't photograph unless light is bright enough to ensure sharpness, you don't need it. For me its the difference between being able to work quickly and hand held to produce images that pass commercial scrutiny, and not getting those images much of the time. Bear in mind that you get an improvement in shots that may look OK on a screen without IS, but would nevertheless not make a large print without it. </p>

<p>Of course IS tempts you into making photographs that turn out to be noisy, but thats another story.</p>

<p>I use a 400mm F5.6 L on the 7D with no problems. The focus acquisition is very fast. All you do is keep a fast enough shutter speed. I shoot Tv mode with auto ISO on. <br /> So IS is not required.<br>

I also use the 300mm F4 L IS, and have used the 70-200 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F4 IS, 55-250 IS, and 24-105 IS. <br /> Sometimes IS can show down catching a fast subject. I notice this on the 300 & have seen it on the 70-200 lenses. There is a delay for the IS to stabalize, along with the normal focus delay. Turn off the IS in these situations and you catch the fast subject quicker. <br /> While IS is not required, IS can be handy to stabalize the viewfinder for still shots with longer lenses.<br>

IS is also handy to make those shots with blur/ghost images of people. you know, when somone uses IS with a slow shutter speed and people in the image. The surroundings are sharp and the people ghosted or blurred if they are moving.<br>

A lens is just a tool. Use IS if you like it. I find fast primes more useful. <br>

to each their own</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sometimes when I hike, I still manage with Canon 70-200 L Non-IS + 1.4x TC, as its a light weight package compared to 100-400mm IS.<br>

But as it gets darker, even pushing ISO to 1600 on my XTi does not give me fast enough shutter speed.<br>

I almost always 'try' to make sure my shutter speed is least 1/400th of a second. And hold as steady as possible and take multiple shots (in cont. drive mode) to increase my chances of getting a shaper image.<br>

Having a tripod is great, but you may not have time to setup your tripod for lurking birds. And you have to make sure to use a ball-head, otherwise its difficult shoot birds on a tripod.</p>

<p>Have you considered Canon 55-250mm IS? It seems to have decent reviews (don't take my word for it, checkout some reviews), it costs about 250+ USD</p>

 

<p>IS will increase the number of keepers and is highly useful in a lens of this focal length. I find IS sharpens up photos even if you shoot with shutter speeds arouind the 1/focal lenght rule.<br>

I too would also recomend the EF-S 55-250 f4-5.6 IS. It is very good optically and has a very effective IS system. I speak from experience as I own one, alongside some $1000 lenses. It is small and light. It really is a great value lens.</p>

<p>When the market is saturated with IS the major camera makers will come out with IS built into the DSLR, is IS necessary no, does it come in handy some times yes.</p>

<p>I shoot with a Sigma 150-500mm with OS (IS). I could not use this lens realistically without a tripod, were it not for OS. Sigma's OS is very good (a real 3-4 stop advantage). If you're shooting hand-held you'll want OS.</p>

<p>I agree with Geoff. Everyone thinks that IS or VR only helps at very slow shutter speeds, but it also helps at 1/250 second when shooting with a 300mm lens and so on. Yes it doesn't help freeze a moving subject, but it freezes your hand's movement on the shutter release which could potentially ruin a shot of a moving subject. I shoot with a Nikon 200-400 VR handheld all the time as I stalk creatures through forests (I'm a fairly big guy and this is about as big a lens as I'd attempt to use handheld). I used to use a tripod to do the same thing with an equivalent non VR lens. By the time you set the tripod, aim and shoot, the moment is often times gone. VR has completely revolutionized the way I shoot and I get way more keepers these days. That being said, I still use a tripod when I have the luxury of time and am shooting somewhere where I don't have to hike for hours, or if using slow shutter speeds for landscapes.</p>

<p>Hand held it becomes useful at shutter speeds less than the reciprocal of the focal length. Good hand holding technique will define your personal lowest acceptable shutter speed for any given focal length.<br>

Good technique with a good tripod is still the hardest to beat.<br>

However, I mainly shoot sport and rarely have that luxury. Under conditions of low light brought about by dark backgrounds, overcast skies or poor indoor lighting IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon) eliminates camera shake and allows me to attempt shots that previously would have been a waste of time. It does not "freeze" action that the shutter speed is not able to freeze, but with good panning technique one can still "slow" the action to an accetable level of sharpness.</p>