Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

[Nathaniel]

Having read so much aboiut the advantages and disadvantages of IS, I am beginning to wonder whether IS is really necessary. Before IS came on the scene many of us got over the problem of "image shake" by using a faster shutter speed. This still holds good. So why spend an extra few hundred GBP's for IS? There was too much shake rattle and roll when I used my 55mm-250mm IS lens- NOW SOLD,(for the 70-200 f4 L non IS lens ) it did make me wonder whether IF something went wrong with the IS mechanism, one is in "trouble"!!!!

What do members think?

Nathaniel

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Nathaniel - I totally agree with you - I hardly ever need IS in reality. If I am in a low light environment I am either using a tripod or flash.

I am seriously considering buying a 70-200 f2.8L non IS - saves about £800 on a feature that I wont use.

[Michael.K]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Nathaniel - I totally agree with you - I hardly ever need IS in reality. If I am in a low light environment I am either using a tripod or flash.

I am seriously considering buying a 70-200 f2.8L non IS - saves about £800 on a feature that I wont use.

So what about a monopod would it be better for 70-200mm f/4 L lens without IS?

[Nathaniel]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Don't get me wrong. The IS with my 55mm-250mm IS worked perfectly well and produced very sharp results. BUT having thought over things, I feel/think with hindsight one can do without it, and still proiduce very sharp images, by using flash/tripod where necessary or increase the SS in good light. I don't believe in spending hard earned dosh in these austerity times by going in for IS if it is really not necessary. Also being the old fashioned type, I think the more gadgets that are squeezed into lenses & camera bodies, the more possibility of things going wrong. So progress in technology is good and much appreciated but too much of it is a question mark for me.

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Nat - the 17-40 I use when Rambling doesn't have IS ... I don't carry a tripod (or even a monopod unless I have a Leki Sierra Walking Pole with me) ... things are probably too distant for flash in the main (although I do sometimes use the popup flash). But do I miss IS ... to be honest no ... it's handy on my 300 ... but on a 17-40 I make do (although I might find a wall or post or some other support if really needed).

Nat - Try turning it off on your 55-250 and see if it makes a difference in normal use ;-)

[Trevoreast]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Forgetting about tripods and flash, the IS is very handy using a 70-200 up around 200mm end, with shutterspeeds under 1/200 for static subjects.

That’s primarily were IS earns its keep imho.

It’s quite challenging to get sharp images with longer focal lengths with slower shutterspeeds.

To overcome this you need to develop a reasonably good handholding technique, and always be prepared to increase the ISO to get the shutter speed you need for fairly sharp hand held images.

Trev

[Nathaniel]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Nat - the 17-40 I use when Rambling doesn't have IS ... I don't carry a tripod (or even a monopod unless I have a Leki Sierra Walking Pole with me) ... things are probably too distant for flash in the main (although I do sometimes use the popup flash). But do I miss IS ... to be honest no ... it's handy on my 300 ... but on a 17-40 I make do (although I might find a wall or post or some other support if really needed).

Nat - Try turning it off on your 55-250 and see if it makes a difference in normal use ;-)

MX5- I have already sold my 55-250mm IS lens as I am expecting the Canon 70-200 f4 lens, hopefully tomorrow. The lens I sold was very good for my purposes but I could not use an extender with it, and I am sure my new lens will be as sharp as ever. I boiught this on the advice of, once again, Forum members. I have still not got to the business of taking photos due to my present rather unsettled state due to house move etc. Anyway, I will be back in the groove hopefully before too long.

Thanks Trev. I will get back to you if and when I hit the "buffers".

Nat

[DrJon]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I personally vote yes for IS being worth having, for example is very handy indoors and when the sun isn't around as an alternative to cranking the ISO up.
Indoors on a gray day (EV6 to its friends, perhaps a church or antiquity where flash is frowned on) works out at 1/8 at f4 (ISO100) so at 70mm you want ISO800+ or a flash (or both). A 4-stop stabiliser might allow ISO100, if you're a stable person... (plus take several shots).
Obviously there is no substitute for shutter speed if stuff is moving around, but even at 1/200 it will still help. (The 1/focal length for shutter speed is a guide to the minimum to aim for, it doesn't guarantee a sharp shot.)
It isn't a panacea, but I find it very useful.
John

[@imagesBV]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

IS is a real benefit only when circumstances dictate...but when they do it saves the day!

[Longshot]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Maybe not quite in tune with this thread. I bought a 70-200 L f4 IS as a walk about, less weight than 2.8. Now I've bought a 24-105 L and a 1.4 extender for the 70-200. Question, I've added weight to the f4 70-200 so will use 24-105 as a walk about, therefore should I now go for the 2.8 70-200 L IS with extenders as I've bumped the weight up on the f4 and not using as walk about.
This should prove a very a interesting discussion for the experts but thanks.
Graham

[colin C]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Most of my lenses have IS. I didn't have any choice in the matter, all except one are only made with IS.

IS is of no advantage to me whatsoever if something is moving in the shot, so the only benefit is still life, landscapes etc. Do you want to take landscapes in very dull light? Most landscape photographers and still life/studio photographers will normally use a tripod, so where is the benefit of IS if you are using a tripod?

I may be biased against it, because the majority of my stuff is normally moving quite fast, but I tend to put it in the same category as self parking cars ..... it was invented and the marketing people grabbed the idea as a major breakthrough and sold it well. There is even the misconception that IS will suddenly make all of our shots sharp.

I pride myself that I can park a car well, but SWMBO thought it was a car that could parallel park was a wonderful idea .............. yet I know that she would never release control and let the car park itself. The fear of system failure and a crash would far outweigh the benefits to her of self parking.

I fear I may have rambled on a bit. I have IS by default, seldom if ever use it.

Colin

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

So IS is a Marmite feature (I must ask my walking friends how they are getting on with their new Toyota Pilesus ... it self parks ... and we'll not talk about stop-start and adaptive cruise control!)

The trick is knowing when to use features. When I take a panorama ... I go manual everything (exposure, focus, WB, ...) that way the camera doesn't try to be helpful.

[colin C]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

... and we'll not talk about stop-start and adaptive cruise control!)

I have those on my car and really like them.

Colin

[X-ray-spex]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I'd rather have it, than not have it ........... even if you only use it seldomly

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I'd rather have it, than not have it ........... even if you only use it seldomly

Ed Zackerly ... like ABS on cars