Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

[Woolley]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Which puts you in pretty much the same position as me. Photography is only occasionally my primary reason for a trip so having one lens with IS allows me to keep shooting in lighting where it might not otherwise be possible, which I suspect is the reason for it in the first place. Reasons of convenience or airline baggage restrictions may dictate travelling light.

If taking photos is the reason for being there, or you have particular needs for the image you're after then you're going to want to carry either a tripod or flash(es) if at all possible, which seems a perfectly reasonable approach.

None of these approaches are right or wrong, they're just different, which is the joy of photography - there's more than one way to skin a cat. Or even to photograph one.

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Which puts you in pretty much the same position as me. Photography is only occasionally my primary reason for a trip so having one lens with IS allows me to keep shooting in lighting where it might not otherwise be possible, which I suspect is the reason for it in the first place. Reasons of convenience or airline baggage restrictions may dictate travelling light.

If taking photos is the reason for being there, or you have particular needs for the image you're after then you're going to want to carry either a tripod or flash(es) if at all possible, which seems a perfectly reasonable approach.

None of these approaches are right or wrong, they're just different, which is the joy of photography - there's more than one way to skin a cat. Or even to photograph one.

Good post Wooley. Sometimes even if you do have the kit, there isn't the time to set things up as you would like (like during a wedding where the vicar says you can't use flash). So it's a fast lens on one body and usually an IS lens on the other.

Looks like we all agree the same finally :) Just how you approach the shot may be different dependant on the large number of variables.

[colin C]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

............. but if you have IS, it adds to the solutions you can choose from.

Colin

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

...... and if you can set IS mode as well .... then even more choice ....

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

yip :)

[Nathaniel]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I am not quite sure having read about members having problems with their IS. I also wouldn't pay extra dosh for IS if it is not absolutely necessary. The good thing is that members have a choice.

[Trevoreast]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I also wouldn't pay extra dosh for IS

Even though the non is version is a compromise, it can be a very smart compromise, based on you intended usage; of course.

Mention of IS faults etc, makes me think you're seeking to blur distinction between a ‘smart compromise’ and ‘the ideal choice’ ?
LOL

Trev

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I don't know how we got by in the past, no IS, having to focus by eye using your hand to turn the focus ring, setting aperture and shutter speed, loading film, no elfin'n'safety rules, sensible hygiene precautions, long sunny summers, proper grammer and spelling, ... ah the joys of being a grumpy old man (== ME).

[DrJon]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I have never had an IS problem nor do I know anyone who has, so I think it's pretty reliable. Like anything technical it won't be perfect though...

[Nathaniel]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Even though the non is version is a compromise, it can be a very smart compromise, based on you intended usage; of course.

Mention of IS faults etc, makes me think you're seeking to blur distinction between a ‘smart compromise’ and ‘the ideal choice’ ?
LOL

Trev

Not quite Trev. I am not very sure if it is MUST for me but others have different opinions and so one is free to make one's choice.

[MX5]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Nat - I think you need to decide which lens (in terms of focal length(s), f/2.8 or f/4, EF or EF-S) first and then if its got IS ... well you can switch it off or on. IMHO doing a first slice based on IS isn't the way I'd select a lens.

I'm another who hasn't heard of IS faults.

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

Nat - I think you need to decide which lens (in terms of focal length(s), f/2.8 or f/4, EF or EF-S) first and then if its got IS ... well you can switch it off or on. IMHO doing a first slice based on IS isn't the way I'd select a lens.

I'm another who hasn't heard of IS faults.

Budget is likely the fist limiting factor and IS does cost a lot more in some lenses.

[Woolley]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I've just got it on one lens, so if I'm out in the evening that's the one that usually goes on the camera. If I know there's going to be some decent light about (usually if I'm staying somewhere and will be out again another night) then I'll swap for the 17-50 f/2.8 just to change the option.

If I were buying the 70-200 f/4 again, would I choose the IS? Only if I could comfortably afford it. I wouldn't make an effort to save up the difference. On the other hand, if I'd bought the 24-70 instead of the 24-105 IS, then I'd be more likely to want IS on the other lens.

[George Bear]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

So the consensus seems to be that no snap of photographers will be in agreement as to the worth of IS?

[briansquibb]

Re: Is Image Stabilsation really necessary?

I thought the consensus was that we didn't find IS necessary but on occasions nice to have?