Use with or without Support

[lauren_macintosh]

I have been doing a lot of reading here and there, I have come to the

concluesion that IS on any long lens Is a waste of money in my Mind:

Heres why, shooting a long lens It is 99.9% of the time is attached to a

monopod or a Tripod ,I rarely see long lens with out some type of support:

I can see the IS on any Prime Lens up to a point 185mm-macro but after that I

can not see it of any value other than a gimmick to charge more for a lens?

 

so How many of you with long lens actualy shoot you lens with out any type of

Support and honestly how good are your results [example] 300mm L F4 just for

grins and giggles! your shot requires a F16 @1/500 of a sec: what are you

chances of getting a good shot? now lets try 300mm F4 L IS again at F8 @

1/125sec now lets say the ISO is 100 :

So does the IS real matter at all? I not here to start a WAR but just learn

and see if this is really worth it||Lauren

[sattler123]

I use a 100-400IS lens and I use it often without any support and the results are outstanding. You can read as much as you want, until you actually get to use the equipment you will not know how great IS is. I would not buy a long lens without IS. Even the IS on the 24-105L is extremely useful. I can take pictures with lots of depth of field handheld - not possible with a non-IS lens. I wish they'd make a macro lens with IS - that would be my dream.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>IS on a monopod is an excellent combination. If you've ever used a monopod, you're aware that it supports the weight of the lens and somewhat reduces motion, but doesn't come anywhere near totally eliminating motion. IS cleans up a lot of the motion that's left.</p>

 

<p>On a tripod, IS could be useful in a couple of instances. One is on the IS superteles, which have a special IS mode for tripod use, in which IS tries to correct for the motion caused by mirror slap. I don't have one of these lenses so I can't say from personal experience how useful it is, but the reviews and comments I've seen of these lenses indicate that it is useful. The other is that even with a tripod, the lens is not always perfectly stable. The tripod could be a bit flimsy. It could be on an unstable platform (a floating dock, for instance). Or if it's a blustery day, there's pretty much nothing you can do to keep a big lens from catching plenty of wind and being shaken by the wind. For all of these cases, IS is useful.</p>

 

<p>And for handholding, you suggest that anything longer than 185 is too big and heavy to handhold. This may be true for some people but I can assure you it is not true for everyone. I am not a clone of Governor Schwarzenegger (I'm about 175 cm and 75 kg, or 5'9" and 165 lb. in archaic measurements) and yet I had no difficulty at all handholding the very lens you mentioned (300/4L IS USM, which I owned for a few years and used both with film and with 1.6-crop digital). I also had no difficulty handholding it with a 1.4x teleconverter attached, yielding a 420mm lens.</p>

[aaron_lam]

Ditto Steve's response. Right on the money. Photography equipment has a lot of gimmicks but IS is not one of them.

[mark u]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/

[michael_ziegler2]

I hand hold my 70-200 2.8 IS most of the time with excellent sharpness. I usually keep the lens support attachment in my bag.

[ernie_targonski]

I use the 300mm f4 IS hand held all the time with great results. It's great at the zoo and for bird flight shots..... especially with the IS set to panning mode.

I also use the 28-135 IS as my walk around lens. Love it.

IS is no gimmick. It's a tool that you decide when to use or not use.

[bjornholland]

Juergen,

 

Try Nikon - they've got a VR (virbation reduction) macro. Or wait for Canon to release

something similar. I'm sure it won't take long... they could make a killing on a IS macro

lens, and they must know that. Also, I can't imagine Canon likes the fact that Nikon is

ahead of the game for now (with their huge R&D department, compared to Nikon, it

should be a walk in the park).

I've just come from the Nikon camp, and Nikon's macro VR made me think twice before I

changed system...

[bobatkins]

It works and it is useful.

 

For examples see http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is2.html

 

Even with a 600mm lens on a tripod it can be useful. Have you ever tried shooting a 600mm lens at 1/90s in a 20mph wind? If you're at f4 and ISO 3200, you have nowhere else to go.

 

Essential - no. I have a 300/4L (non-IS) and a 500/4.5L (non-IS). I get good results but at times IS would be useful.

 

With a 300mm consumer zoom, I'd say IS is even MORE useful since such lenses are rarely used on a tripod.

[m_barbu1]

I used to use a monopod, but stopped because there was no discernable difference in quality (to me) between using it and not using it, with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I've used this lens, hand-held, at ISO 800, f/2.8, and 1/60 sec with very acceptable results. I've tried shooting in the same lighting conditions with IS turned off and the difference is night and day. I'm not sure upon what you've based your conclusion that IS on a long lens is a waste of money, but IMHO, it's flawed. If your situation requires a fast shutter speed, that certain will lessen (if not cancel out) the benefits of IS, but it's certainly not the focal length that does so.

[pjmeade]

I use my 300/f4 IS hand held almost all the time, often with the 1.4 extender. I'm either walking around and changing lenses a lot, or somewhere a tripod or monopod would not be allowed. IS helps.

 

My 2p

 

Pete

[casey mcallister]

Take a 70-200 IS to a wedding and bang away...then you'll know why people rave about IS. Tripods are ok for planned shots, anytime you need split second and/or mobile shooting IS can't be beat.

[mark u]

Don't get too over-excited about IS/VR on macro lenses. I've actually used the Nikon 105mm VR lens (on my father's D200) - which they claim offers up to 4 stop improvement at subject distances over 3m, which I find credible. However, in the macro regime, the benefit is much less - perhaps one stop at life size at best. This is down to the fact that for normal distance telephoto work, angular shake dominates in causing image blur, but at macro distances any movement in any direction will cause blur - angular shake has much the same effect, but other kinds of camera movement can be recorded at life size too, rather than the sharply reduced magnification involved at normal subject distances. It's a very nice lens, but it doesn't work on EOS cameras (being a G lens with no aperture ring):

 

http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

[eric merrill]

Lauren:

 

"Heres why, shooting a long lens It is 99.9% of the time is attached to a monopod or a Tripod ,I rarely see long lens with out some type of support"

 

Don't go by what you see. Go by what you do.

 

I bought an IS lens so I wouldn't have to lug a tripod around all the time. (Yes, I have a monopod.) So far, I'm impressed. With a 300m lens, I'd count on being able to shoot sharp images at 1/500. And that's assuming I'm calm and able to be steady. I just don't like the sharpness I get below that, handheld.

 

I got the 300/4 IS. The instructions claim 3 stops. It's most effective for 1/30, 1/60, 1/125. I'm impressed with what I see at 1/60. Actually, I'm impressed with what I see at 1/15. If I were only making 4x6 prints, 1/15 is pretty dang sharp, all things considered. That said, I probably will not routinely go below 1/125 because of subject movement. If what you're shooting is standing still, 1/60 isn't a problem.

 

I haven't had a chance to test it on my monopod yet. I'll probably have to try that, just to see how low I can go. :)

 

For my money, IS is worth it. And I've only had this lens a week.

 

 

Eric

[alan_myers]

Hi Lauren,

 

I've been using I.S. lenses for over 6 years and swear by them. IMHO, it's the biggest innovation in still photography in decades and I'd rather do without auto focus and many of the other features of modern cameras, if I had to choose between any of them and I.S.

 

Okay, okay. The digital revolution might be a little bigger innovation. But that's about it, IMHO.

 

Lenses with I.S. I've used a lot include:

 

EF 28-135 I.S. - Nearly always handheld. Good on full frame film cameras, very good on the 1.6X crop cameras that use its "sweet spot". A little slow at f5.6 at the long end, I dislike the design and construction (needs a zoom lock and is too plasticky, in particular)), but overall image quality has pleasantly surprised me. Plus it's a very handy "normal to 200mm" focal length range on D-Rebel, 10/20/30D. I think I recall that this lens has a less sophisticated form of I.S. than is found in the more expensive L-series lenses, but it still works very well in most situations.

 

EF 70-200/2.8 I.S. - Mostly handheld, occasionally on a monopod, only on a tripod in rare instances, such as when using it for near-macro closeups. Superb quality. Easily my most used lens (sports, events, wildlife). I've considered getting a second as a backup, in case this one ever needs to go in for service.

 

EF 300/2.8 I.S. - Occasionally handheld or on a monopod, more often on a tripod. Didn't know how good a lens could be until I used this one, and I.S. is an essential part of that equation, as far as I'm concerned. Some say the I.S. version is slightly less sharp than the non-I.S., but I can hardly imagine that.

 

EF 500/4 I.S. - Another fantastic lens, in part due to I.S. I've only very rarely used it handheld (and never for very long!) or even on a monopod, nearly always on a tripod.

 

In addition, I use 1.4X II and 2.0X II Extenders with the two primes, and the 1.4X with the 70-200. This puts even more demand on the I.S. system.

 

In fact, I never turn off I.S. At least not deliberately, occasionally have done so by accident... Say if I forget to put gaffer's tape over the switch.

 

But, I really should explain that on a tripod I hardly ever lock it all down. I use a gymbal-style head (Wimberley Sidekick with a Kirk BH-1 ballhead on a Gitzo 1325) that balances the lens. This allows panning and tilting to follow moving subjects, but still give the support necessary. I've used this same technique with non-I.S. lenses in the past and figure I.S. increases the number of "keepers" by 3X or more.

 

At this point, I simply wouldn't buy a 300mm or longer lens without I.S. In fact, on 1.6X or 1.5X cameras, I'd revise that to 200mm and up, for certain, and with any format would strongly prefer to have it on 85 to 135mm lenses, too.

 

Finally, I have many years of practice, have learned a lot of useful techniques and can handhold a shot as well as most people... Maybe even better than some. But, I ain't gonna get any steadier in coming years, and don't plan to give up shooting. So don't get between me and my I.S. ;-)

[KenPapai]

"your shot requires a F16 @1/500 of a sec" [sic]

 

Straw man argument. Long lens means fast shutter speeds. f/16 on a long lens in good light? You'd have to be out of your mind.

 

Another thing, I've never seen a question so bizarrely haphazardly formatted before as yours.

 

"does the IS real matter at all? I not here to start a WAR but just learn..." [sic]

 

Duh... I.S. in long lenses is a BOON to photographers. I don't sue it or rely on it, but am smart enough to realize its obvious benefits in the telephoto realm.

[delwyn_ching]

I use a 70-200 2.8 IS without a tripod or monopod with no problems. If it was a gimmick that didn't work I wouldn't have bought it.I also have a 24-105 IS and the 28-135 IS which by the way was my first experience with IS.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i> I have been doing a lot of reading here and there, I have come to the concluesion that IS on any long lens Is a waste of money in my Mind: Heres why, shooting a long lens It is 99.9% of the time is attached to a monopod or a Tripod ,I rarely see long lens with out some type of support.</i> </p>

<p> <ul> Well, it is obvious that you have not been reading enough. For instance, <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml">that article in LL</a>. </ul> </p>

<p> <ul> "Some people ask - is IS really necessary when one is using a tripod? The answer is a resounding yes. A 500mm or 600mm lens has 10X and 12X magnification respectively. Even the resting of ones hands on a tripod mounted lens this long causes vibration, and if there's a wind blowing then that's another contributor to camera shake. It needs to be borne in mind that when shooting wildlife, at least, one is usually working in low light levels, early and late in the day, which means sometimes shooting at 1/60th or even slower. I have done this successfully with the 500mm and 600mm IS lenses but not so successfully with earlier long non-IS telephotos". </ul> </p>

 

<p> <ul> Like most posters here, I often use my IS (70-200/2.8 IS, 70-300 IS, 300/4 IS) lenses handheld, rarely on a monopod and never on a tripod. Have a look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EsnE&tag=">this thread</a> as an example of IS power. </ul> </p>

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

[lester_wareham]

"Don't get too over-excited about IS/VR on macro lenses. I've actually used the Nikon 105mm VR lens (on my father's D200) - which they claim offers up to 4 stop improvement at subject distances over 3m, which I find credible. However, in the macro regime, the benefit is much less - perhaps one stop at life size at best. "

 

Yes I agree, Outdoor Photographer magazine reviewed the Nikon IS macro lens and found at life size the VR did very little.

 

However IS can be very useful, I too use my 300 f4 IS handheld a lot and with the EF 1.4X and EF 2X. It also workes very well with extension tubes for moderate magnification macro and is certanly very effective up to ~0.6X magnification, not used it any higher.

 

Using the 300mm with a monopod improves the advantage further http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_300mm_f4L_IS_no_tc/index.htm

 

At the other end the 24-105 f4L IS is also very effective http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_24_105mm_f4L_IS/index.htm

 

The 300mm has older IS that can't be used on a tripod but some of the other super tele lenses with IS can be, aparantly with a very long lens even on a sturdy tripod the IS can be a benefit.

[grant g]

"I have come to the concluesion..."

 

...meaning you *have* a clue? j/k...

 

 

Lauren,

 

I don't think I could disagree with you more. Sometimes I shoot in conditions where I do not need IS on teles, but in lower light, IS is the main reason for the keepers. And that's both handheld and on tripod/monopod. For me, I use most teles on tripod/monopod less than 25% of the time.

[pavel_olavich]

Lauren, you need to get all the facts about IS before you draw conclusions. I have IS on the 70-200L and the 100-400L and use these lenses handheld all the time with excellent sharpness. Without IS I could not do this with these focal ranges.

[yakim_peled1]

Why would VR be less efficient in macro mode? BTW, I looked at the article but was unable to find it.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[lester_wareham]

"Why would VR be less efficient in macro mode? BTW, I looked at the article but was unable to find it. "

 

Its long been theorised this might be an issue by myself and others.

 

There are two reasons:

1) The VR/IS system is optomised for a particular angle of view, as the magnification increases the AOV is reduced making the VR/IS system sub-optimal. [The AOV effect is a factor of 2 with a linear extension focused lens at life size, but will be less with an internal focus lens due to the shortening of the focal length at close focus].

 

2) Many of the stability issues at closeup distances are to do with the plane of focus (along then lens axis) rather than angular movement. The VR/IS system can't help with the along axis direction.

 

The article does not go into any theorising however. It can be found in Outdoor Photography Oct 2006 #79 page 78.

 

This is the UK magazine published by the GMC group http://www.thegmcgroup.com/item--Outdoor-Photography--1006OP.html

 

The conclussions were "The VR system was unsutable at high magnifications" In the article he said he "had to use a tripod" at high magnifications to get a crisp image.

 

So not a scientific analysis but the writer seemed to know what he was doing.

[yakim_peled1]

1. I don't understand. For a 100mm macro with IF the AoV difference goes from 100mm to about 75mm in macro mode. That is a 25% decrease. The VR is suppose to have a 4 stop compensation so that 25% loss will translate to a 3 stop compensation. That is still a lot.

 

2. IIUC, that impacts tripod mounted cameras as well so it's not relevant.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[lester_wareham]

"1. I don't understand. For a 100mm macro with IF the AoV difference goes from 100mm to about 75mm in macro mode. That is a 25% decrease. The VR is suppose to have a 4 stop compensation so that 25% loss will translate to a 3 stop compensation. That is still a lot.

2. IIUC, that impacts tripod mounted cameras as well so it's not relevant. "

 

Hi Yakim

 

Of course these are my rationalisations for this, you don't have to believe me, but being of a technical background they seem rather obvious to me.

 

1. Yes the internal focus lens makes an internal focal length reduction of about 25% but the movement of the rear nodal point (the actual reason for the reduction in focal length) is what gives the close focus. Life size reproduction with OLE gives (by definition) a 50% reduction in AOV, so for an internal focus lens the reduction is probably about 25%.

 

Without getting in to too much technicality the VR/IS system is a feedback control loop that will have a loop bandwidth optomised for reducing the spectrum of vibrations from handholding that most effect picture IQ. The result of the magnification is the higher frequency componets of the vibration will have more effect and picture IQ, and are probably less well stabalised due to the design tradeoffs one normally has with control loops (ie limiting broadband noise vs tracking the 'signal' accuratly, in this case the vibration is the signal).

 

If you measure the performance of a IS Zoom lens you see the picture IQ charactersistic are quite different at the wide end to the long end, so although the above is conjector I think there are real issues although possibly secondary in this case.

 

However, I suspect that 2 is the main reason, most experienced macro workers that I have talked who, operate handheld by natural light, consider stability of the plane of focus to be the limiting factor to shutter speed rather than traditional shake, ie angular displacement.

 

I can't understand why would say this affects a tripod also, the camera will be stable in all directions on a tripod. Handheld the lens axis is free to move. No mater how effective the VR/IS is it will not stabalize that source of blur.

 

To further pickup of you comments about the 3-4 stops of advanatge with VR/IS that is a rather simplified view and typical Canon/Nikon marketing speak. Taking a look at the recent 24-105 f4L IS the actual advantage varies sepending on the sharpness criteria.

 

"It can be seen that the Canon specified handheld 3 stop advantage only occurs at relatively soft sharpness levels for the 24mm case, a more useful expectation is 2 stops but only 0.5 stop to get close to the lenses capability. For the 105mm case an almost constant 2 stop advantage is seen."

http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/IS_Tests/EF_24_105mm_f4L_IS/index.htm

 

I can confirm IS is useful at modist levels of magnification, I regularly use a 300 f4L IS with tubes up to 0.5-0.6X. However I can't devise a method to formaly evalute how effective it is at high magnifications.

 

It would be very interesting if Canon brought out an IS stabalised macro lens, I am sure I would try and find the budget to get one. But I would expect it to be more useful at lower level levels of magnification than life size, mostly due to reason 2.

 

Hope you find this interesting.