Are IS lenses worth the money?

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

>Are IS lenses worth the money?

If you use the lens, yes.
Last Xmas I bought the Canon rebel kit and the 75-300mm IS lens. With the lens
extended to 300mm(480mm in Canoneese),its almost impossible for me to hold the
camera steady for a clean pic.With the IS turned on, its a cinch. Its well
worth it to me.

Ken C

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

A tripod of course will also do a similar job.

"Dustbunny" <barfco@swill.com> wrote in message
news:9pjus0l5sfks7r4383bu8f2u4t262dk6q5@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking about making the leap to dSLR. Now that the price of the
> bodies is within my reach, it seems the lenses are terribly expensive,
> especially the Image Stabilizing versions. Can someone give me some
> honest input on whether it's worth the cost, or at what length lens it
> makes sense to pay for IS?
>
> Many thanks.

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

In article <9pjus0l5sfks7r4383bu8f2u4t262dk6q5@4ax.com>, barfco@swill.com
says...
> I'm thinking about making the leap to dSLR. Now that the price of the
> bodies is within my reach, it seems the lenses are terribly expensive,
> especially the Image Stabilizing versions. Can someone give me some
> honest input on whether it's worth the cost, or at what length lens it
> makes sense to pay for IS?
>
> Many thanks.
>

The answer to your question is dependant on several thing:

Can you hold the camera steady enough to shoot with a 300mm equivalent lens??
Very few people can do that.. I'm good to about 200mm equivalent (if I have
something to lean on or brace against, and Im not out of breath from hiking
ect, right phase of the moon, good lucky day ect.)

If you hands NEED it (IS) then its worth ANY price, if you dont need it, why
buy it.

You should experiment with long lenses and see what YOU can do.. Ive had
lucky shots where I hand held a monster/heavy 400mm body/lens on a 35mm slr
and got the shot clear as a bell(braced one elbow against my belly, the other
on my knee and breathed OUT slowly while pressing the shutter button), but I
dont think you can count on it (I know I cant).





--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

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

what a great NG, thanks for all the answers. I definitely shoot moving
subjects (race cars, etc). For some reason I wasn't even thinking
about IS helping there, I was just worried about movement for slow
shots (which I also do, indoor, ambient, dive bar lighting!).

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

Dustbunny wrote:

> I'm thinking about making the leap to dSLR. Now that the price of the
> bodies is within my reach, it seems the lenses are terribly expensive,
> especially the Image Stabilizing versions. Can someone give me some
> honest input on whether it's worth the cost, or at what length lens it
> makes sense to pay for IS?

On longer lenses 200mm+ IS is VERY useful in any light.

The generally accepted rule of thumb for maximum handheld shutter
speed is the reciprocal of the focal length. So according to the
formula, at 100mm, the minimum handheld shutter speed should be 1/100th
of a second. In bright daylight, this is no sweat, but as the clouds
roll in or as the sun starts setting, you might not be able to use 1/100.

(Of course this ALL depends on the shooter.. Some people are steadier
than others. It's just a rule of thumb

IS adds a couple of stops.. So you should be able to go down to
around 1/30 second and get the same results as a non-IS lens
at 1/100.

I have a 100-400mm IS lens and I *always* use IS when shooting at
400mm handheld.. Even in bright sunlight. I can clearly see the
difference IS makes.

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

"Dustbunny" <barfco@swill.com> wrote in message
news:3kpus0dtle4ehrmrrmtu4482daie6cn4km@4ax.com...
> what a great NG, thanks for all the answers. I definitely shoot moving
> subjects (race cars, etc). For some reason I wasn't even thinking
> about IS helping there, I was just worried about movement for slow
> shots (which I also do, indoor, ambient, dive bar lighting!).
>
>
This is an interesting write up on the subject

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is.html

Here's an example I did with a 100-400 IS, handheld at 400mm and 1/100 sec.

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.co [...] lican.html

It's small, I know, but the original, in 8x10, is just as sharp.

And one with the same lens, same f/l but somewhat faster shutter, probably
about 1/400, on monopod:

http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi [...] &picture=8

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

Dustbunny wrote:
> I'm thinking about making the leap to dSLR. Now that the price of the
> bodies is within my reach, it seems the lenses are terribly
expensive,
> especially the Image Stabilizing versions. Can someone give me some
> honest input on whether it's worth the cost, or at what length lens
it
> makes sense to pay for IS?

Yes, it does make sense when you can't use a tripod. But don't let IS
make you lazy. Its not replacement for a good & sturty tripod. Use a
tripod wherever you can to get extra sharp pics - IS or no IS.
- Siddhartha

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

Dustbunny wrote:
> I'm thinking about making the leap to dSLR. Now that the price of the
> bodies is within my reach, it seems the lenses are terribly expensive,
> especially the Image Stabilizing versions. Can someone give me some
> honest input on whether it's worth the cost, or at what length lens it
> makes sense to pay for IS?

Even if you aren't moving to DSLR, it makes a lot of sense to choose a
camera with an IS lens, such as the 3.2MP Canon S1 IS, 5MP Panasonic FZ20
or 8MP Nikon 8800. You don't need to pay pocket-emptying prices either.
In fact, as these cameras are more limited in the ISO range they allow
(and hence shutter speed), using an IS lens makes even more sense.

As others have said, it helps a lot with the camera-shake problem, but not
with a moving subject. Some IS will allow horizontal panning whilst still
providing vertical stabilisation.

Cheers,
David

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:41CFC39E.8674B1DA@killspam.127.0.0.1...

> IS is of no use if you are shooting moving targets, or panning the
> camera.

I'll second that Colin. Even with 'mode 2' [the panning mode] on an IS lens
I get more 'good' shots with it switched off than with it on.
--
For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:41CFC39E.8674B1DA@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Dustbunny wrote:
>
> > what a great NG, thanks for all the answers. I definitely shoot moving
> > subjects (race cars, etc). For some reason I wasn't even thinking
> > about IS helping there, I was just worried about movement for slow
> > shots (which I also do, indoor, ambient, dive bar lighting!).
>
> IS is of no use if you are shooting moving targets, or panning the
> camera. It is brilliant for hand-holding slowish shutter speeds, or long
> lenses on stationary (or nearly so) targets.
>
> Colin (eos300D and 17-85mm IS USM lens)

Good gravy!!

There is so much misinfomation being splattered in this thread!!


IS works GREAT with panning in all but a few lens concactions!
The 75-300, 28-135, and 17-85 (I believe) lenses do NOT work with panning,
but all, or nearly all the others DO work.

There is a "mode 2" IS setting which is designed specifically for panning on
my 70-200, and 100-400. All the super-tele IS lenses have a panning mode as
well.

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

Mark² wrote:

> "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:41CFC39E.8674B1DA@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>>IS is of no use if you are shooting moving targets, or panning the
>>camera. It is brilliant for hand-holding slowish shutter speeds, or long
>>lenses on stationary (or nearly so) targets.
>>
>>Colin (eos300D and 17-85mm IS USM lens)
>
>
> Good gravy!!
>
> There is so much misinfomation being splattered in this thread!!
>
>
> IS works GREAT with panning in all but a few lens concactions!
> The 75-300, 28-135, and 17-85 (I believe) lenses do NOT work with panning,
> but all, or nearly all the others DO work.
>
> There is a "mode 2" IS setting which is designed specifically for panning on
> my 70-200, and 100-400. All the super-tele IS lenses have a panning mode as
> well.
>
>

Mark is correct. The IS lenses with the new IS version
do work well with panning. Check out these bird
photos, many flight images, and bear photos, including
fight scenes with lots of movement of the camera to follow
the action:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

ALL the images on these pages used IS ON, except
2 (the last 2 on the bird page). Generally, I use
a Wimberly tripod head on a carbon fiber tripod
holding the 500 mm f/4 L IS lens, often with 1.4 or
2x telextenders. For action work, I keep the
tripod head so the lens swings freely, allowing me
to follow the action. In this situation the IS greatly
improves image quality from the vibrations from
my hands. I have never had a problem with
IS affecting panning, and I use mode 1. IS is critical
at these focal lengths. Image scale with a 500 mm +1.4x
TC is about 2-arc-seconds per pixel on Canon DSLRs like
the 10D, 1D Mark II. That magnification means every
little vibration is magnified to smear the image.

Occasionally, I use stacked 1.4x and 2x TCs on the 500.
For example, I've sold 16x20 inch prints of this one:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleri [...] b-600.html
IS was critical to get the shot.

Many of the bear images were done with stacked 1.4 and 2x TCs,
make excellent 16x20s, and IS was critical to get the shot.
Once I encountered a hawk and grabbed the 500 mm lens, which
had a 1.4x TC on, so I shot this image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleri [...] -600..html
hand held from my car with the engine running.

I was skeptical of the need for shorter focal lenses
with IS. Then I bought 28-135 mm IS lens and it is great.
I image hand held in situations where I couldn't or
didn't have time to set up a tripod, and it simply
makes the images sharper than if I didn't have IS.

Finally, I tested my lenses on test targets with and without
IS on using the methods I use to follow wildlife action, and
found that IS helps my images, and quite significantly.

IS works and is well worth the cost to me.

Roger

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

In message <MPG.1c392c8bdf81c0e6989891@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>You should experiment with long lenses and see what YOU can do..

That depends on the lighting. If you have a camera with low noise at
ISO 800, and are shooting things directly illuminated by the sun, with
wide apertures there is no lens that you can hand-hold that will be
blurred by your shaking hands.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><