Image stabilization - is it effective at focal lengths below 50mm?

[darius.tulbure]

<p>Hello!<br>

I have a question that might sound silly - how effective is image stabilization on wide-angle lenses? I'm talking about any focal length below 50mm. Does it improve stability even at 20mm? Or that's going to happen only at higher focal distances?<br>

A little context: I'm planning to buy the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC and I was wondering whether should I go for this version or for the older, non-stabilized, lens. If the 17-50mm 2.8 VC won't help me shoot at slower shooter speeds in the wide range of the lens (17-35), then I'd better go for the cheaper one.<br>

So the question is, will I be capable of shooting at 1/10s @17mm? Or at 24mm? Let's say I'm average-steady.<br>

Thank you for you time,<br>

Darius</p>

[sattler123]

<p>I use the 24-105mm IS from Canon on a ff body and the IS on the wide end is very effective. It allows me to shoot landscapes without a tripod if I chose so. It is just as effective on the short side as it is on the long side of a lens.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>VR was very effective for me throughout the entire focal range with the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR Nikkor. Big difference in my handheld shots below 1/250th when compared side by side with the 18-70 DX Nikkor (both were otherwise very comparable in sharpness, contrast, etc.).</p>

<p><a href=" a handheld pic with VR at 24mm, 1/10th second</a> . If you check the window ledge and details visible through the window, there's little or no motion blur. And I'm not very steady any more, so without VR it's almost impossible for me to handhold without motion blur below 1/125th.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>This shot was taken at 24 mm and 1/5th second using the 24-105/4 IS. The buildings are sharp even printed at 18x12 inches, so yes IS does help at shorter lens lengths.<br>

<a title="Ghent by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/4063710516_722cb075f3.jpg" alt="Ghent" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

[darius.tulbure]

<p>Thank you Juergen, thank you Lex!<br>

The picture you linked to looks pretty neat. That's what I'm looking for from a stabilized lens.</p>

[darius.tulbure]

<p>Peter, that's a fantastic shot - 1/5?! Perhaps the weight of your camera helped you. My light Nikon D80 is shook by the flipping mirror so badly...</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Yes Darius it is effective at all focal lengths as pointed out. It is worth while and I have it on all three of my zoom lens. The 24-105 f4, 17-55 f2,8, and 70-200 f2.8. But as a little tip. When sharpness is your most important goal...turn off the Stabilizer and use a tripod if your shutter is to slow for hand holding. I have found (the hard way) that I get sharper images with the IS turned off when my shutter speed is high enough that I really didn't need it. That seems to be a no brainer, however I used to leave it on all the time think it would not hurt me when I had enough light. I was wrong. Only use when you need it...and it will be very effective.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It can be helpful, sure. <strong><a href="../photo/6692079&size=lg">Here's one</a></strong> at 18mm, shot hand-held. When you see the image at full resolution, you can make out individual paving stones at the bottom of the frame. No question that the VR contributed to that working without a tripod handy.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Yes, it helps even with w/a focal lengths. I have a Nikon 18-200 VR and I've shot at 18mm and 1/8 sec and gotten very good results. Remember 17mm on an APS-C body is equivalent to 27mm on a 35mm or FF body. The old rule-of-thumb would recommend 1/30 sec or faster.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I haven't done scientific tests, but my 16-85 with VR performs better than I would expect at very low shutter speeds. I doubt things would be as crisp without the VR assistance. </p>

<p>I noticed a difference between hand-holding a Nikon F3 vs a Contax G2 that I could get better results from the Contax (no reflex mirror). Now I think I'm doing even better with the 16-85 VR on a D90.</p>

[darius.tulbure]

<p>Jason, I've heard that too - it's recommended to turn it off when you have enough light or when using a tripod. My goal is indeed the sharpness, along with the ability to shoot hand held as mush as possible without a flash. The tripod is an excellent solution, but it's not practical for some types of photography - such as wedding/event photography.</p>

<p>Matt, that's a very sharp, contrasty and colorful image! Did you manipulate it or that's the way it came through the lens? I have the decent Nikkor 18-70mm, but I'm quite dissatisfied with its performance - especially sharpness and contrast are pretty low at all focal distances and apertures. It's surprise to see the 18-200mm perform better.</p>

<p>Mark, 17mm on a DX body is still 17mm. Only that the angle of view is equivalent to the angle you get with a 25.5mm lens on full frame. The focal distance stays the same; instead you get a "cropped" photo. So you don't need to "convert" the rule of thumb; 1/20 sec is enough (theoretically 1/17 sec).</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I have several canon IS lenses and I have found it to be helpful at low shutter speeds regardless of the focal length. Canon recommends not using it when using a tripod and I have found that to be good advise. It can soften images when the camera is attached to a tripod. Now there are some lenses out there that can detect a tripod and turn off IS automatically. However most still on the market cannot. Unless your lens manual specifically says your lens can detect a tripod and have tested it to verify it can, don't trust the camera to automatically turn off IS when using a tripod.</p>

<p>At high shutter speeds I have gotten sharp photos with IS on. Yes it was probably not helping much but I have not found anything in the pictures indicating it caused softening. The only time I have seen IS cause a problem at high shutter speeds was at an air show when a jet did a high speed fly by. I was panning the camera <em>very</em> rapidly left to right. The IS system tried to compensate for the left to right movement but failed and in the end I got a badly distorted background. Some lenses have a panning IS mode. If you are panning the camera switch IS to this panning mode.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Darius: I shoot in RAW format, and so I make decisions about contrast and sharpening whenever I render a JPG from the original. Just choosing the right strategy can make a huge difference, there (Nikon's Capture NX2 is a pleasure to use, in that regard, but to each their own). Everything that comes off the sensor needs some sharpening, curve handling, and attention to color temp and saturation. That's the price we pay for being our own lab!<br /><br />I also have an 18-70 (it came bundled with a body, and I haven't felt any urge to sell it, though it's essentially a virgin). I've shot it side by side with the 18-200VR, and when I'm thoughtful about what I'm doing, they're very similar when used in the same ways. The 18-200 is a walk-about, no-particular-plan lens for me. I'll usually reach for something more particular (or big and heavy!) when I'm up to something purposeful. I was sure glad to have the superzoom on that day in Verona, I can tell you, and the VR paid off several times.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>"The tripod is an excellent solution, but it's not practical for some types of photography - such as wedding/event photography." - Darius</p>

<p>Yep, it is a true life saver for that type of work. That was the number one reason for getting the 17-55 f2.8 IS used on a 40D. That with the 70-200 f2.8 IS on the 5D is a great two camera set up.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>In a word, yes. IS is effective for normal and wideangle lenses.</p>

[darius.tulbure]

<p>Thank you all for your help! Choosing a stabilized lens is a no-brainer now for me.</p>