How important is IS?

[nilangsu mahanty]

I primarily shoot landscape and use wide-angle lenses. Recently, I was

shooting portraits with the 50/1.8 Mark II ( effectively 80 mm on the 350D),

and found that the biggest reason why my pictures were sometimes unusable when

I was shooting at 1/100 s or slower was handshake-induced blur. I am looking

for a good standard zoom and have zeroed in on the Tamron 17-50/2.8 that seems

a very good value-for-money lens. Then again, of what use are good optics if

handshake spoils the pictures? And tripods are not convenient always.

 

I was wondering whether IS is really worth it, even in this focal-length range.

High ISO is an option, but not the best option with a 350D.

 

I am not convinced about the optics of the 17-85 IS, and the 17-55 IS is way

too costly, has average build, dust issues and flare problems. Should I still

opt for one of these two?

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

[ronaldo_r]

"...1/100 s or slower was handshake-induced blur..."

 

Alternatively, learn a proper hand-holding technique. You know, similar to gun holding techniques. Helped me.

[les]

It is a Godsend - when shooting stationary subjects in poor light. It is useless when shooting fast moving subjects (although some lenses allow for panning with IS switched ON). In general - it is better to have IS than not.

[danield]

Be aware however that the 17-85 is only f/5.6 at 50mm which pretty much negates any 2-3 stop advantage from IS over f/2.8. If your subject is also moving, you'll be worse off. I'd still use the 50/1.8 or the Tamron for portraits. The 17-55 IS would be the cat's meow, if you can afford it.

[jcolwell]

I find IS a great advantage for handheld shooting at focal lengths of about 100mm and up. For low light shooting with my 17-40L and 24-70L, I often use a monopod (the one-hand operation Neo-Tec is great for this, but it doesn't fold up into a very small package). For wide angle landscapes, I generally use manual focus Zeiss and Pentax lenses on a tripod with MLU; if a tripod is not convenient, then I either find a place to rest the camera and use the self-timer, or I accept the fact that the photo may suffer because of my lack of discipline (same for long telephoto shots).

[georg_langs]

With 50mm and portraits, I find, that the subjects movement is almost as relevant as the handshake.

 

If you buy an IS lens, currently there is non with an aperture of 1.8, so you will have to use slower shutter speeds. The IS will probably take care of your hand-shake, but the subject movement will most likely be worse than with your current lens if you tend to use it wide open.

[nilangsu mahanty]

Thanks a lot. For portraits, which are what I got unstuck with, subject movement is not that critical an issue. The point that f/5.6 of the 17-85 practically negates the IS advantage is valid and noted.

 

Is the 17-55 (which Daniel describes as the cat's meow :-) )worth its price only because of the IS then?

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

[mike_stemberg]

Just a note from me about shooting landscapes (with an IS lens) especially in low light.(night etc..) In these cases, where one needs slower speeds (say 1/30 and slower) at smaller apertures, the use of a tripod is recommended and IS is not recommeded at these times, thus negating the use of stablized lens as such.

[mike_earussi1]

IS makes a huge difference! But also get a good lens. The 17-85 has poor edge sharpness and is an overall inferior lens to the 17-55. But if you primarily plan on shooting at f5.6 then you might also consider the 24-105 f4 L IS since it has a better zoom range for portraits.

[donald_weston1]

I will offer a different view, before you buy a new lens, buy a Bogen tripod and decent head for about $100-150. Mount your camera and lens on it. Use a medium fstop like F/8 or 11, set the self timer and shoot some of your typical landscapes with your current gear. If you can use RAW settings and convert even better. I do basic sharpening in RAW under detail in CS2 during conversion. IF going to shoot landscapes, and details are important then you should first optimize your shooting techniques. I like IS lenses for what they are good for, i.e. when time or shooting conditions do not allow a tripod, else no IS will ever equal good basic technique...fwiw, jmho, ymmv...

[nilangsu mahanty]

Since you have written about tripods, Donald, let me tell you about my experience. I have an aluminium tripod manufactured by Velbon. When I shoot portraits, the tripod needs to be extended to my height, which makes the vertical column stick out and vibrate like a trampoline when the mirror slaps up. It's difficult to time the shot with MLU, when you are shooting people. The tripod frustrated me so much that I thought of investing in a good tripod (the Bogen 3021) and ball-head. Then again, I wondered whether a built-in tripod (a.k.a IS) is going to be a more intelligent option.

 

Which brings me back to my original question.:-)

 

Thanks a lot for the responses.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

[peter_rowe]

I think that if you are having handholding problems with an F1.8 lenses, they will not be fixed with an F2.8 lens. The value of IS is immense. Typically it's a number of stops which can get you into the sweet spot of the lens, but what is not factored into this is the total elimination of any high frequency shake that a lot of us have, and also that it allows you to get to the 'sweet spot' of the lens more easily. I had the Canon 70-200m F4 "L" and I had to sell it because I just couldn't handhold it consistently. I bought the Canon 70-300mm IS and I can get far better results. I had the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 and just couldn't get consistent shots, I replaced it with the Canon 17-85mm IS and now have crystal clear shots. So the argument that the slowness of the IS lens over a faster one sounds great in theory but in reality things are quite different.

 

I'm not sure the Canon 17-85mm is right for you though, it sounds like you have reservations and landscapes may bring out one of it's weaknesses - distortion at the wide end. Maybe you could rent it and see what you think.

 

Best of luck!

[William Michael]

>>> I primarily shoot landscape and use wide-angle lenses. Recently, I was shooting portraits with the 50/1.8 Mark II [?] my pictures were unusable [?] at 1/100 s or slower was handshake blur. I am looking for a good standard zoom [?] And tripods are not convenient always [...] I was wondering whether IS is really worth it, even in this focal-length range. <<<

 

Yes IS is useful at this FL. eg shooting inside where flash and pods are not allowed, at shutter speeds sub 1/50th and one is rushed and each shot counts 100%.

 

But at 50mm @ 1/100 sec camera shake is a result of poor technique.

 

At 50mm FL a photographer should endeavour to master 1/15 sec at 80% success.

 

I was about to cut and paste an excerpts from this thread isolating the technique bits, but the whole thread is interesting.

 

Thomas Sullivan outlines good technique for the slower shutter speeds, and I also make comment in this regard.

 

But there is a lot more knowledge contained, if you care to avail yourself of it:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Kyko

 

WW

[donald_weston1]

I guess I am a little confused here. NM are you saying you are having two separate issues that are important for you. One being landscapes, the other being portraits? Or are you shooting environmental portraits? Different advice for different issues. For static traditional landscapes a tripod will still be your best bet. If you are taller then your tripod is by a good margin, or are physically limited in how you stand or stoop over, then the IS will be your next best option, other than a bigger tripod. Only you will have to try and see just how it works for you. If you are shooting people, then automatically a tripod becomes almost worthless, unless you are shooting posed portraits where the subject can NOT move around too much to change camera to subject distances. If you are shooting static portraits, then a tripod may still be your best bet, unless you use strobe. If you are using strobe, then in most cases subject or camera motion will be meaningless. This was not what I assumed you were doing. I know photographers who have tremors from various medical reasons and they still work using tripods or other camera supports. I do not know if they would be able to work with this way with IS or not. With all technology there are limits to how much it will help, IS is good within these limits, but some get the idea you can not get a blurred image with IS, THIS is not the case.Is may help alleviate some of the blur but in some more extreme blur cases, more strict measures may still be required, like old fashion support of an appropriately tall and sturdy tripod. AS WW has said above, with out such a tremor issue, poor camera technique will never optimize your images. Just my 2 bits worth of opinion....

 

PS - also any tripod will give poor results with center column extended, that is why the gurus advice removing center column and getting a fixed head to mount camera on. I have not had to go this far yet, do to the limited telephotos I use and specific circumstances I have shot with so far, but it sounds like you are not using the best tripod technique either. I realize that there are always compromises, I and others have suggested what is best, only you can judge if this is not going to work for you, if you rule out a good tripod and proper use of it, then you have to settle for whatever the next best option is, which is IS, but as said above there are limits....

[nilangsu mahanty]

Thanks, Donald, William and others for your patience and interest. I'll try to be clearer. I am a landscape photographer primarily and for such photography, I use an EF-S UWA lens almost exclusively and get away with decent handheld shots when shooting at 10-20 mm focal lengths and 1/50 s or faster shutter speeds. Recently, for a change, I was doing portraits handheld where the subjects were deliberately static. In that shoot and subsequently as well, a considerably larger percentage of shots than usual has turned out to be unusable due to hand-shake blur, and many required heavy unsharp masking . It was frustrating and since I was considering buying a standard zoom, the IS options seemed naturally interesting. However, I 'm not willing to make optical compromises. Hence the Tamron, that is reputed to be stellar, was on my list. But, no IS ! So, the burning question is : do I invest in a good tripod, or get the superb but astronomically priced 17-55/2.8 IS ?

 

I'll look up the thread that you've linked, William. Thank you so much. PN is a consulting paradise.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

[arie_vandervelden1]

I've got a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and my photos come out great when shooting outdoors in daylight handheld. Very few photos come out blurred due to camera shake (my sucess ratio with my 90/2.8 is lower, with my 200/2.8 it is much lower, less than 25%). Even overcast skies and early dusk are no problem with the 17-50/2.8. However if you like shooting indoors without flash then the 17-55/2.8 IS is the ticket.

[nilangsu mahanty]

I'll make a note of that, Arie.

 

"..if you like shooting indoors without flash then the 17-55/2.8 IS is the ticket".

 

No,indoors, I'd use flash.

[geoff_foale]

If you are using a good quality tripod with mirror lock up and cable release you do not need IS. For handheld, lightweight tripods or monopods IS really does make a difference particularly with longer lenses. Try an IS lens before you buy and see what you think.

[William Michael]

>>> I use an EF-S UWA lens almost exclusively and get away with decent handheld shots when shooting at 10-20 mm focal lengths and 1/50 s or faster shutter speeds. <<<

 

One point I did not make is the maths of it.

 

Forgive repetition if this point has been made, I have not read all the answers and I am pushed for time, at the moment.

 

Consider two lenses: one 15mm and the other 50mm.

 

You have one and your identical twin has the other. You both shoot a scene (people in it or not, does not matter), at 1/50 sec with exactly the same 0.1mm sideways camera movement when the shutter is open and you both look at the two full frame images in 10 x 8 inch prints at arms length.

 

So the ONLY difference is the focal length of the lens used.

 

(Now I am making a point here, in an hurry so the actual maths of the camera movement is rough and a guess), but the bottom line is that the large field of view of the 15mm lens renders the camera movement imperceptible, BY COMPARISON.

 

So the 15mm FL print LOOKS sharp and the 50mm one LOOKS blurry: BUT there was exactly the same poor Hand Held technique and actual CAMERA blur, consistent to both images.

 

I think this fact could be figuring in this particular equation.

 

WW

[w_t1]

"So, the burning question is : do I invest in a good tripod, or get the superb but astronomically priced 17-55/2.8 IS ? " Only you can answer that.

 

I don't shoot serious landscapes without a tripod. 35mm, digital, 120 or 4x5. What Donald said about tripod ctr column stabliity etc. It's hard to do artsy things like painting with light, star trails etc. without a tripod.

[geoffm]

Out hiking the other day:

 

17-85 IS set at 26mm, hand held at 1/4 sec.

 

Only an IS lens can do that (for me at least!)

[donald_weston1]

Nilangsu- thanks for the better description. I think you have two choices for the portraits and the blurring. First borrow or test without purchase an IS lens, if you go the less expensive route, with the 17-85mmIS, you may be limited in image effect, i.e. no large f stop to blur intentionally the background, but it may tell you something important, that the IS will help you. If the subjects come out sharp, albeit at a smaller fstop say, 5.6, then you will know that you will be fine with either lens with IS. If you invest in the more expensive 2.8 version, you can most likely rest assured that the combo of higher shutter speed, 2 stops faster then the 5.6, and IS will fix your problem. IF it doesn't help, then you either have to test the 2.8 lens, or use some flash fill or tripod. With flash fill or tripod this will indeed limit candid shooting, but as you describe things, the subject is more static and most likely aware the pictures are being taken anyway. There are many ways to "skin a cat", but not unlimited ways unfortunately....good luck.

[nilangsu mahanty]

There are indeed many ways, and I'll have to take one before long. Thanks so much, Donald, for your thoughtful inputs.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu