Jump to content

Is "IS" that important?


nadiaduchemin

Recommended Posts

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I'm currently looking for a used lens to upgrade my photography bag. On Keh, there's one a 55-200mm that looks interesting with a price I can afford, however the lens don't have the "IS" on it. <br />I will be using the lens mostly with no tripod. <br />Do you absolutely need IS on a lens?<br />My camera is a Rebel XS.<br>

Thank you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Look at <em>which</em> lens are offered with IS. The preponderance is at the telephoto end. Normal focal length and normal zooms are more split, some with, some without, though the newer offerings tend towards IS. The wide angles, both primes and zooms, are pretty much as a class <em>not</em> IS.</p>

<p>Since the lens are designed with market demands, that pretty much sums up the need for IS: the longer the lens, the more indespensable IS becomes. One exception might be panning shots with a telephoto, ie: following a moving subject, say a runner or race car. Even there IS can help: many of the Canon telephotos have an IS setting for use when panning: only stabilizing vertically.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You want IS if you have a problem with holding the camera steady enough for clear shots. This will tend to be more of a problem with telephoto shots, which are more sensitive to camera motion because of their greater magnification.</p>

<p>I rarely shoot anything longer than 200mm, and I try to keep my shutter speed faster than or equal to the reciprocal of my focal length (1/50 at 50mm, 1/200 at 200mm, etc.), which I find generally is good enough to prevent blur caused by camera shake. When I can't do that, I brace myself or the camera against something, or I use a tripod. I don't remember the last time I used IS. I don't think I even own any IS lenses anymore. I don't miss it.</p>

<p>This is not to deny that some people find IS useful. It can allow you to get some shots hand-held that otherwise might require a tripod. But only if camera shake is the reason for your shots not being sharp in the first place.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Absolutely yes for handheld telephotos and telephoto zooms. There will be others who will absolutely disagree with me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps not "absolutely yes" (as Craig's post implies), but I certainly find IS to be <em>nearly indispensible</em> in my longer telephotos, given that I do most of my shooting handheld. Apart from considerations of cost, I cannot see a compelling reason why anyone wouldn't want IS in a telephoto prime or zoom.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IS on telephotos became an important once cameras with crop sensors and higher than 12MP started to saturate the market. Denser pixel structures tend to magnify movement as do crop factor sensors (by decreasing the angle of view, they are in effect magnifying the image)-also, on these types of cameras, the inverse rule mentioned above becomes skewed. It's been my experience that a 300mm lens without IS become very difficult to handhold with consistently clear results at shutter speeds below 1/800 on a 1.6 crop body w/18MP.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You don't need IS on a lens if--</p>

 

<ul>

<li>You use a tripod all the time or</li>

<li>You habitually shoot in bright light with fast shutter speeds</li>

<li>You don't use long lenses , which are difficult to keep steady even at fast shutter speeds</li>

<li>Sharpness isn't particularly important to you. </li>

</ul>

<p>If any of the above aren't true, then some of your photographs (not all) will be visibly improved by IS. Personally, even though I'm using a tripod much of the time, I don't see myself buying a lens without IS unless maybe a very wide angle.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use a 135L and do not find IS would be at all useful in 90% of situations for portrait work, any blur is almost always due to the difficulty shooting with f/2 and its very shallow DOF. However I use a 24-105L for the few landscapes I try and find IS essential throughout the range, a real lifesaver in fact. Everyone will have a different opinion on this one I imagine</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A lot of good advice in these postings, but it might help to refocus on your original question. It all depends on what you are shooting. If you are going to be doing handheld shots with that equipment at 200mm and will want a shutter speed of less than 1/320 or so, you will want IS. Personally, <em>for what I shoot</em>, I find IS on a 200mm lens tremendously valuable and would not buy one without it, even though I have two shorter lenses without IS that I use for other purposes, and I have virtually never felt the absence. Keep in mind that because IS helps only with hand motion, not subject motion, the question is in part whether you are shooting images (e.g., not kids in a race) that would allow a shutter speed slower than that anyway.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Before IS and hi ISO came along we all struggled to keep our long lenses steady. IS would have been indispensible then. Generally if you can get shutter speeds up over 1/1000th you won't need IS. It's pretty obvious that this is still not always possible for low light shots so I'd say IS is necessary for low light, but not essential for good light. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If my budget could by any means be stretched to afford the IS on a given medium to long focal length, I would always buy the lens with the feature. I have fairly steady grip and shoot lots of longer legacy lenses without any real problem, but the IS gives you an edge.</p>

<p>In most cases, given my kind of shooting, I'd buy the IS lens over a faster (aperture) lens without IS.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am considering the 80-200 f4 L as a travel tele zoom. I use field expedients such as handy guard rails, trees, utility poles, etc, as well as the higher ISO's of which recent DSLR's are capable. I also use a monopod or tripod occasionally. Add to that a lens that is acceptably sharp wide open, and I don't feel I need IS.<br>

If I shot sports or PJ for a living, and someone else was footing the bill for IS, of course., I'd shell out for it. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>With my 5D MkII I find myself taking advantage of its excellent IQ at ISO 6400, but, even then, I shoot at handheld speeds as low as 1/15th second for night street scenes. The IS in my 24-105mm allows me to do such things almost effortlessly. With my 500mm f/4 in the dark woods, I'll occasionally shoot as slow as 1/160th second, hand held. Once again IS is invaluable. I own tripods and monopods, but they're not always with me and they can be a negative when trying to do candid street shooting.</p>

<p>If you'll never do any of the above, then IS would be a waste. For me, IS opens up new possibilities.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have many lenses none of which have IS and I don't miss it a bit. However, I strongly believe nothing beats an monopod or tripod. I realy like my Gitso Monopod it is very light, makes a good walking stick, or baton for protecting my 5D Mark II and bag of L-series primes. Also, because my lenses are all F2.8 or faster they are big and heavy. I like the monopod just to take the weight of the camera off my neck and arms when shooting fashion shows or other events where I am waiting for the shot for a long time. I think too many people don't use tripods or monopods which to me make a huge difference in both video and photo qualitiy.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At first I thought IS would be vital but quickly understood that it isn't.<br /> <br /> "IS is useful for teles" is what people say. Long lenses are often used for portraits, wildlife and sports. In all those cases you need a short shutter to freeze the subject, so IS becomes obsolete. <br /> <br /> I use 135/2 and 1/125". IS wouldn't add much. IS is useful for handheld macro shots though.</p>

<p>In summary, IS is useful but if it comes at a high price tag, I'd rather put that money in a larger aperture.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hocus Focus would be right for you if all you are doing is portraiture - where maybe a good tripod is better anyhow than either wider aperture (unless for 'bokeh') or IS.<br>

Actually, IS is not so great for sports either, unless you are going for the blurred motion effect, since the IS <strong>only</strong> handles motion on the <strong>near</strong> side of the camera, and will not help stop blur from motion by the subject.</p>

<p>However, for the great mass of the pictures that most of us take, the IS gives from 2-3 stops advantage in stopping camera/user blur.<br>

If you are looking at a 55-200mm, you really owe it to yourself to look at Canon's own EF-S 55-250mm IS lens. It's very inexpensive (I think it's a kind of 'loss-leader' to get you sucked into buying Canon glass), and is by every test I've seen astonishingly good (see http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/411-canon_55250_456is_50d ).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let me rephrase:<br /> <strong>IS is useful for slow consumer lenses (f/5.6, f/4) and less useful the larger the aperture gets (f/2.8 - f/1.4).</strong><br /> Ever wondered why the expensive primes (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2...) don't come with IS? Because they don't need it.</p>

<p>For portraits, wildlife, sports, concerts, wedding, events... the large aperture produces a more pleasing picture than a slow lens with IS in my opinion.</p>

<p>I find IS useful when using a small aperture, like for macro, landscape and travel when you don't haul a tripod.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IS is so useful with the 500/f4 that I'm seriously considering updating to the new Series II 500mm only because it offers another two stops of IS performance over my current lens that's only one-year old. The premium is around $3000, but that's one IS lens to a newer IS lens. Losing a full pound in weight doesn't hurt either.</p>

<p>I shoot 99% handheld with my 500/f4, finding that it greatly increases my keeper-rate over using a tripod, particularly for birds in flight; however, some people almost never shoot their 500/f4s hand held, so for them the extra money would be a waster.</p>

<p>The decision, whether with a 500mm or a 24mm, depends on how you use your lenses and camera(s). I find IS very useful from wide to super-tele.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Ever wondered why the expensive primes (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2...) don't come with IS? Because they don't need it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For reasons already discussed elsewhere, short normal to wide lenses can do well enough without the feature because camera shake contributes only a small percentage of the total picture. In those cases, while the IS would improve the image somewhat, you wouldn't notice it anyway.<br>

The rest of them don't have it because they are relatively ancient designs predating the availability of modern IS - introduced in the Canon 75-300mm IS lens of way back. You will note that even the fastest new 70-200, etc zooms have IS. The feature is omitted only as a cost-saving measure for people who think like Hocus Pocus and those who always use a tripod anyway. :)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>135mm and 85mm being normal to wide?</p>

<p>There are people who shoot and there are people who read online forums. I'd get my advice from someone who shoots.</p>

<p>The noob will tell you "get the longest zoom with IS" and the pro will say "pick the focal length you need with the widest aperture you can afford". There is of course the middle road with large aperture zooms to which 55-200 doesn't belong.</p>

<p>If you need a supertele, 70-300 IS is a better tool on crop. And if you need a regular tele, 85/1.8 on crop performs much better than either at a similar price.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...