To IS or not to IS

[tobycline]

<p>Hamlet. Act three, scene one.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Well Ken you are not pushing yourself, and your limits of handholdability, then (is that an echo I hear?). How could you not, even occasionally, want to handhold an effective 390mm at 1/80, or as Barry says a 70-200 at 1/30 or less?</p>

<p>Andres, read this thread as a short cut to this one :-) http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VEiO</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Toby,</p>

<p>I believe even Hamlet, mad though he was, did end up getting a Pentax with in body stabalisation :-)<br>

He does, of course, mention it in his most famous speech, though the meanings of his ramblings, like Nostradamus and his ambiguous predictions (he predicted IS and these threads), are discussed and whether he was for or against IS is still in dispute. The contested point is the meaning of line 30 and its beginning.</p>

<p>Happy holidays everyone, Scott.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthijs]

KING CLAUDIUS

 

    And can you, by no drift of circumstance,

    Get from him why he puts on this confusion,

    Grating so harshly all his days of quiet

    With turbulent and dangerous lunacy?

 

ROSENCRANTZ

 

    He does confess he feels himself distracted;

    But from what cause he will by no means speak.

 

Toby, what do you mean by this?

That the poster that dislikes IS is confused?

Kinda roundabout way to say that.

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>In film days battery drain may have been a problem, since then IS was one of the biggest power consumers in the system. Nowadays with DSLRs with rechargeable batteries I do not consider this an issue: The other electronics in the system is also draining the battery so IS does not add that much to the total power consumption.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"...you are not pushing yourself, and your limits of handholdability, then (is that an echo I hear?). How could you not, even occasionally, want to handhold an effective 390mm at 1/80..."</em></p>

<p>Yes, an echo, indeed! ;-)<br>

Redo your math: it's an effective 320mm for the APS-C. If you can handhold a 200mm lens on an APS-C at 1/45 (or even 1/80) and get "sharp" then you've sold me!</p>

<p><strong>However ISO 800 at 1/320 = ISO 100 at 1/40.</strong></p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite<br />jest, of most excellent fancy who favoured not IS. He hath bore me on his back a<br />thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination does the softness of his pictures tell!<br />My gorge rises at it.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>I have sold you then. I wasn't talking about Barry's experience but my own. I often post this image as a plus for IS. Taken with a 300mm f2.8 IS, it was on a 1.3 crop camera so effective 390mm from a camera shake point of view, no tripods or monopods allowed so hand held at 1/80 sec. Yes a 390mm handheld at 1/80 sec and this is not a "make do" image or anything like it, it is tack sharp and prints perfectly.</p>

<p>IS is very useful for many things and on many occasions.</p><div></div>

[tobycline]

<p>You guys are too creative and way over my head. The thread title reminded me of Hamlet . . . </p>

<p>I'd get the IS/VR version.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Scott, that's an excellent example of what IS can do. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... use a Nikon 70-200 and with the VR (IS) can hand hold down 1/30 and have snuck usable shots down to 1/15 if I didn't have a 2nd cup o coffee."</em><br>

THAT is amazing. Quite a testament indeed. What focal length though? 70mm? 200mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With my 100-400 IS I have gotten sharp photos at 1/50 (full frame, 400mm) but not consistently. At 1/100 at 400mm the pictures are always sharp. I have had similar results with my 70-200 (at 200mm) and 24-105 IS lenses. However it should be said that the amount of improvement one gets is dependent on you. If you have very steady hands a 3 or maybe even 4 stop improvement is likely. In my case it is 2, sometimes 3 stops. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>a heavy lens even heavier!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 70-200 F2.8 IS is 3.2lbs. The tripod collar add 0.3lbs making it 3.5lbs. The none IS version is 2.8lbs (the B&H web site doesn't say if that is with or without the collar. The F4 version is 1.56lbs without IS and 1.71lbs with IS. The IS system doesn't add significantly to the weight of the lens. The weight is trivial when compared to the weight of a good tripod. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>more moving parts to go wrong</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Over the last couple of years I have only seen one post about a IS failure. I have lost track on how many focusing problem posts I have seen.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>battery drain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On a fully charged battery I can go all day with IS on. The increase in battery drain does not appear to have a significant effect on battery life. The only time I had a problem was when I forgot to charge the only battery I had with me. The battery was almost dead. The camera worked fine without IS, but when IS was and I hit the shutter the camera would turn off. </p>

<p>IS is well worth the money.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Toby, Geoff,</p>

<p> "<em>And thus the native hue of resolution <br /> <strong> IS</strong> sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, <br /> And enterprises of great pith and moment" </em> </p>

<p>Steven,</p>

<p>Thanks for the compliment. The usefulness of IS has been so well proven I don't understand how people can not recommend it in these situations. Sure if there are other priorities (f2.8 non IS over f4 with IS) or simply never using your camera not on a tripod there is no point but otherwise I can't see how most people would not benefit sooner or later by having it.<br /> </p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>Scott,<br>

I thought for image stabilization purposes the focal length that is being stabilized is 300 mm even though the image is cropped to 390 mm. If the same lens was fitted to a 1.6x body, the IS would still only apply to the 300 mm focal length, even though the image is now cropped to 480 mm. <br>

I think it is misleading to say that IS applies to the "35 mm equivalent" focal lengths of 390 mm or 480 mm. <br>

However, I do agree that the sharpness resulting in these images will be a true reflection of the image quality that IS is able to achieve.<br>

Andres,<br>

This shot taken at handheld at 300 mm and 1/3 second @ f/8 and ISO 1600 using the D200 fitted with the Nikkor AF-S 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED demonstrates the value of IS (or VR in Nikon terminology). The effective crop is 1.5x or viewing angle equivalent to 450 mm. The original image was horizontal. While I would not normally chose to shoot in this way, the shot (without flash) was made possible because of VR technology (see EXIF data in image for full details of camera settings). It was the difference between no shot or a shot.<br>

So yes, it is worthwhile to have IS for situations such as these.<br>

 

 

</p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Greg,</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree.</p>

<p>Camera movement is magnified due to the increased enlargement. Camera shake, just as coc, is a function of enlargement. If I had taken the same image with a 400mm and a FF it would have had the identical sharpness characteristics. A 300mm on a 1.3 crop is the same (from a camera shake point of view) as a 400mm on a ff. Why? Because to get the same image size (coc/sharpness) the crop camera image has to be enlarged much more than the ff one, but the ff image has more camera shake blur in it in the first place, it is just not so apparent because it is enlarged less.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I get up to four stops when shooting at distance with the Canon 100 f/2.8 IS Macro. Together with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I can cover just about any situation in plays and concerts in a pretty dark theater without either a flash or a tripod--which is good since in those places I typically cannot use either.</p>

<p>I always run out of card space before I run out of battery power on the full-frame Canons. I know the limitations of IS, but those who do not acknowledge its enormous strengths have never seriously used it.</p>

<p>If one combines IS with very good low-light/high ISO performance, then one gets a glimpse, I believe, of the photography of the future, a future in which tripods will be less and less necessary for many types of shots. I own the best tripods I can buy (Gitzo and Manfrotto) as well as the best mounts (Arca-Swiss, Wimberley gimbal, Manfrotto, etc.) that I can get--and I use them--but there are times when they are simply no longer necessary. Not to see and exploit the implications of that fact is to live in a kind of denial, I think. Yes, IS is expensive, but it can be worth its weight in gold in the right situations.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[alcb1310]

<p>After reading all of your responses to my question, I think I will finally buy the IS version of this lens. Thank you all for your input.<br>

Finally I want to take this time to wish all of you a merry christmas and an excelent 2010</p>

<p>Andres</p>

[xavier_henri]

<blockquote>

<p>

<p>Yes, IS is expensive, but it can be worth its weight in gold in the right situations.</p>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Completely right, but not as many situations as one would think at first. Oh, and did you ever try the statistical stabilizer (<a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EOS5D2TipsE.php">4th tip here</a>) ?</p>

[seancrane]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9314021-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="452" />I see this question asked over and over again and every time there seems to be someone who says that IS/VR has no use if the subject is moving. This is untrue. Sure it won't help motion blur if the subject is moving and the shutter speed is too slow to freeze the action, but neither will a tripod. But it will help with the blur that comes from hand/camera movement. You can freeze a moving subject at 1/250th of a second with a 400mm lens but still get blur from camera movement if not on a tripod or if not using IS/VR. VR has completely revolutionized the way I shoot and I'm just shocked that this is still a debate. Yes, if you always take a tripod with you where ever you go and only shoot subjects that wait around long enough for you to set up the tripod, compose and shoot, then you don't need it. Otherwise it's the best thing that happened since the digital sensor. And I don't know how IS works, but with my two Nikon lenses with VR, it doesn't matter if the VR is left on or not while on a tripod. I think it actually helps in instances when I still use my tripod. Also, the split second it takes for VR to engage I hardly even notice. That's not really an issue. Here's a shot I took at 360mm on a D300, so in effect 540mm. The shutter speed was 1/15 of a second. You can see the motion blur from the monkey's hand movement, but the eyes are sharply focused. A second after taking the shot, the monkey was gone</p>

[seancrane]

<p>Here's another shot at 600mm at 1/30th of a second handheld with VR.<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8330633-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="451" /></p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>1DMk2n, 500f4 plus TC1.4x plus TC2x - top frame = full frame. Bottom frame crop of the above. Yes IS works!<br>

<img src="http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/Resources/boat2.jpeg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.john.macpherson.btinternet.co.uk/Resources/boat1.jpeg" alt="" /></p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>What body are you using?<br>

Where will you be using the lens?</p>

<p>If you are using an APS-C body then the slightly higher image quality from the non-IS version may be the one to go for.</p>

<p>If you are using it in adverse conditions then the weather sealing of the IS version may make it the better choice.</p>

<p>IS, great for hand-holding, monopods or tripods, even better for iamge quality.<br>

A bit like ECF, some folk loved it, others just didn't get it at all. Thankfully Canon have put a switch on their IS lenses,as the did with their ECF bodies. It's a great thing choice.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I have the lens you seek. It is DEFINITELY worth the extra few hundred dollars. Here's a scenario that you will find common if you shoot outdoors much. You want to zoom in on something, and you set your lens to 200 mm. You are tired, because you've been shooting for two hours. The light is failing, so you have your camera set to ISO 400 already. You don't want to make the photo any grainier by moving up to ISO 800, and you have to use a slow shutter speed of 1/30 sec. because you are trying to get more than just the subject's eyes in focus, so you have the lens set on f8 or f5.6 rather than that amazing f2.8 setting. You shoot five or ten shots. The one that you like best is slightly blurry - too blurry, because you forgot to turn on IS. You have to give your client your second choice image. Hmmm.<br>

Here's another scenario. You're not so old that you shake much, but when you're shooting on a really cold day (this happens to me in Florida, so imagine what it might be like in Wisconsin or New York in the Winter time), and you get chilled. You can't stop your hands from shaking. Now you NEED the IS feature to stabilize the lens, because you're acting like you have advanced Parkinson's disease.<br>

Here's another scenario. You're shooting on a windy day. You brought your heavy duty tripod, but the damn thing is still shaking like crazy in the strong wind, no matter how much you try to shield it with your body. You have an IS lens, which saves you, because you can turn on the IS feature and the lens stabilizes the picture, and combined with shutter speeds of 1/125th and 1/250th you get the shot you're after.<br>

I don't use IS most of the time.<br>

I use IS a lot though.<br>

I've shot thousands of photos with IS that I could not have shot (well, they would have been very blurry) without IS.</p>

<p>It all depends on you, what else you need to buy (we photographers seem to always want something else), and what you will be shooting. If you specialize in shooting something that never needs IS, and you ALWAYS shoot indoors, you might not need IS. If you'e like me, and you shoot in a wide variety of situations, you should definitely have IS on a long lens.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I'll now have to sell my non I.S. zoom to fun the I.S. version. After seeing all these excellent examples of slow shutter speeds at long FL's -- it's simply amazing.</p>

<p>The trumpet player -- 1/3 of a second? Sure? No subject movement either that example. Was he frozen--totally paused?</p>

[horse bodotes]

<p>David Henderson wrote: Does it occur to you that with so many people using IS and so many people responding positively to it ( and not just on this thread) that it has to basically work, and work well?.</p>

<p>That's a silly way to debate. You could just as easily argue "Does it occur to you that with so many people using cocaine and so many people responding positively to it ( and not just on this thread) that it has to basically work, and work well?. "</p>

<p>I have owned both the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 2.8, and the non-IS version is noticeably sharper. Granted, the difference is more important for severely cropped images and large print sizes, but there IS a difference (no pun intended). But also, I shot mostly stage productions, pictorials and landscapes with this lens on a full frame sensor and I almost always am on a tripod. I would undoubtedly feel differently if I was shooting wildlife.</p>

<p>In a nutshell, the IS is better if it's better for you. For me, not so much.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Horse,</p>

<p>Not really, given the parameters David and this thread are talking about, increasing handholdability when using IS, he was merely offering a rebuttal to some of the cynics, some of whom, due to the evidence presented, have now changed their positions. When people say things "like IS is not useful" it does make sense to say, "but lots of people do think it is and it works for them".</p>

<p>To a lot of cocaine users cocaine is good and does make them feel good, so to them it does work. Maybe only in the short term and maybe it is doing them more harm than good though, your analogy does not translate well.</p>

<p>You fall into a small group of users, if you always use a tripod then you have little need for IS, though I do use mine on tripods sometimes too. For you the cost and marginal IQ qualities of the non IS make more sense. The OP, Andre, specifically says, "I shoot hand held only", our recommendations to him should be based on our experiences of his needs, not our experiences of our needs.</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p>Well, as I use a very light tripod for travelling, stabilization is an enormous plus for me in those conditions. Much more than when shooting moving targets in mode II, or focus recomposing in mode I.<br>

With third generation IS at least on a tripod, you need to depress the shutter release halfway, standing still for a full second before fully triggering (time needed by the lens to detect the tripod) => no self-timer.</p>