Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Image Stabilzation -vs- Shutter Speed

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:23:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a question for you experienced indoor sport photographers.

Will having an image stabalized lens help me with taking indoor sports
shots, or should I stick with a non IS 1.8 aperture lens?

I just can't see how IS would help me because in order to stop the
action, I need to have a fairly high shutter speed. And with a higher
shutter speed, the less I would need IS. I realize IS would help in
non-sport low light situations, but I don't really need that
capability.

I currently own the Digital Rebel and the Canon 80 1.8 and the 50 1.8
lenses. Both lenses seem to work well indoors, but I was looking to
get something with zoom capabilities.

Was thinking about a second hand Canon 20-200 2.8L IS, but I don't know
that I need the IS, thus why waste my $ on it. But I don't know for
sure that it's a waste for my situation and that's the reason for the
post.

I have quite a few indoor volleyball shots located here and would very
much appreciate feedback on them as I'm still learning.

http://community.webshots.com/user/jamiemorgan2
Thanks for your recomendations,
Jamie
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 5:36:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "Buzz" upstek@aol.com

>Will having an image stabalized lens help me with taking indoor sports
>shots, or should I stick with a non IS 1.8 aperture lens?
>
>I just can't see how IS would help me because in order to stop the
>action, I need to have a fairly high shutter speed.

You are right, to freeze subject motion you need a fast shutter speed. IS
helps with camera motion, not subject motion.

>And with a higher shutter speed, the less I would need IS. I realize IS
>would help in non-sport low light situations ...

Having IS is still beneficial for those times you can't shoot at high shutter
speeds though, I feel.

>Was thinking about a second hand Canon 20-200 2.8L IS, but I don't know
>that I need the IS, thus why waste my $ on it.

Problably mean 70-200 instead of 20-200? This IS lens is a bit heavier than
the non-IS version and is several hundred $$ more expensive, but worth it if
you get into situations where IS is needed.

I have a couple of IS lenses (500 f/4 L, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L) and a couple of
non-IS tele lenses (400 f/5.6 L, 300 f/4 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L) and while I wish
all of them had IS you learn to live without it. It's easier with digital I
feel since you can check the shutter speed and jack up the ISO a bit if needed,
using noise reduction software to clean up the inevitable increase in noise if
you have to.

Bill
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:11:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Buzz escribio:

> I have a question for you experienced indoor sport photographers.
>
> Will having an image stabalized lens help me with taking indoor sports
> shots, or should I stick with a non IS 1.8 aperture lens?

For sports (when the subject is usually moving fast), you NEED a fast
shutter speed. You DON'T NEED an IS lens, because the camera "stops" the
motion. The IS lens is necesary when you need to take a picture of a
still subject under poor light.

What you need for sports photography under dim light is HIGH ISO, to
get shutter speeds > 1/250 of a second.

--
chidalgo
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:29:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1101997402.138010.117190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Buzz" <upstek@aol.com> wrote:

> I have a question for you experienced indoor sport photographers.
>
> Will having an image stabalized lens help me with taking indoor sports
> shots, or should I stick with a non IS 1.8 aperture lens?
>
> I just can't see how IS would help me because in order to stop the
> action, I need to have a fairly high shutter speed. And with a higher
> shutter speed, the less I would need IS. I realize IS would help in
> non-sport low light situations, but I don't really need that
> capability.
>
> I currently own the Digital Rebel and the Canon 80 1.8 and the 50 1.8
> lenses. Both lenses seem to work well indoors, but I was looking to
> get something with zoom capabilities.
>
> Was thinking about a second hand Canon 20-200 2.8L IS, but I don't know
> that I need the IS, thus why waste my $ on it. But I don't know for
> sure that it's a waste for my situation and that's the reason for the
> post.
>
> I have quite a few indoor volleyball shots located here and would very
> much appreciate feedback on them as I'm still learning.
>
> http://community.webshots.com/user/jamiemorgan2
> Thanks for your recomendations,
> Jamie

IS is for longer exposures only. It might come in handy for dimly lit
performances before and after the game, but not for the game itself.
!