Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

  1. #1

    Default When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    I'm new to the DSLR camera, thinking of buying tele zoom lens and been reading on the PhotoZone on IS (Image Stabilator). It make me wonder when does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

  2. #2

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    This all depends on what shutter speed you'll be using....which is depended on when and what you're shooting.

    First familiarize yourself with the 1/focal length guideline. This just states that the shutter speed you can handhold a lens is 1/focal length. so for example: if you use a 100mm lens the shutter speed you should use is 1/100 or faster to maintain sharpness. now this is just a guideline and you should find out on average if you can handhold slower or faster shutter speeds.

    But in general, if you're planning on stopping action you'll probably need a shutter speed of at least 1/100. so this would mean you can use up to 100mm telephoto

    moving to a 200mm you'd need to up the speed to 1/200... now proper exposure all depends on ambient light. IS comes in handy when you cant get that proper exposure


    in my experience I've used my telephoto for candid shots, so i did not have the need to stop action. i was shooting 300mm with a shutter speed of 1/30... so IS was extremely useful for me.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    117

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    hey bro, basics basics so wad camera you bought??
    Photography & Audiophile Addict :lovegrin:

  4. #4

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    I got Canon EOS 400D but been always using auto setting.

    Thanks bro dw2chan, 1/focal length guideline first time heard about it .... I'm newbie ... I should try it out.
    Last edited by Shad0w; 1st January 2008 at 09:32 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member creampuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Dover
    Posts
    5,116

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    I find IS necessary for any lens, especially in fading light. That's why I use a camera with built-in stabilization in the body. It really helps a lot.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bt Timah
    Posts
    453

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    a common misconception that some ppl have is that IS can stop action, so dun need to buy f/2.8 lens or better. Remember that IS compensates for your own hand-shaking. To stop the subject, the only way is a faster shutter speed.

    back to the need for IS in telephoto lens, i would say, very good to have. Now the new EF-S lens, 55-250 has IS as well? can consider that
    Canon: 5DMkIII, 7D, 2470f2.8L, 50f1.8, 70200f2.8L IS II, 430EX II, 600EX
    kineticexpressions.org

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shad0w View Post
    I'm new to the DSLR camera, thinking of buying tele zoom lens and been reading on the PhotoZone on IS (Image Stabilator). It make me wonder when does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?
    Don't forget that IS can never replace a tripod. IS is only useful if u want to minimise handshake when taking in lower shutter speeds especially in longer lenses.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  8. #8

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    I was just thinking since tele lense use to take far object, slight hand movement will be amplify by the object distance. Problem is those IS lens can be quite expensive compare to the non IS cousin. For newbie with limited budget, if I can figure it out when IS become really great help, I might save some money.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    IS is gd to have but not necessary. It is only more necessary on tele lenses.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  10. #10
    Senior Member creampuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Dover
    Posts
    5,116

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoweagle View Post
    IS is gd to have but not necessary. It is only more necessary on tele lenses.
    How wrong you are.

  11. #11

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    The golden rule of 1/focus length that dw2chan mentioned is a very useful tip for beginner.
    Sometime using 100mm but can't use 1/100 sec due to low light condition, you will need to use higher ISO or longer shutter speed.

    I am no expert myself, but I believe many of us are still learning to master these after years of taking photos.
    In photography, the following factors are important for a good picture and how you can manipulate them for different situation.

    (1) Lighting (eg. brighter lighting condition will allow high shutter speed)
    (2) ISO (eg. setting higher ISO on camera help you to use high shutter speed in low light)
    (3) Aperture (eg. wider aperture let you use high shutter speed)
    (4) Shutter Speed (eg. this very much depends on the above)


    So, start reading forums or make a trip to the library to read more photography books.
    Useful link: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html
    And most important, take more pics with different settings and keep experimenting

    IS lens is expensive but it is a good investment especially if you have problem with handshake while taking picture. Some photographer have steady hands while other not.
    Night photography with long exposure will need Tripod and not IS.
    Canon5D 50mm/100mm (macro)/24-105mm/100-400mm
    My flickr

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by creampuff View Post
    How wrong you are.
    There's no right or wrong. It's just a suggestion. If u think IS is so great that it's a must, then u're wrong.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  13. #13

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by thomasq View Post
    So, start reading forums or make a trip to the library to read more photography books.
    Useful link: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html
    And most important, take more pics with different settings and keep experimenting

    IS lens is expensive but it is a good investment especially if you have problem with handshake while taking picture. Some photographer have steady hands while other not.
    Night photography with long exposure will need Tripod and not IS.
    Thanks for the link, did some reading and come to the conclusion that need to try . I can understand the theory but applying it in real shot is different story

  14. #14

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoweagle View Post
    There's no right or wrong. It's just a suggestion. If u think IS is so great that it's a must, then u're wrong.
    er, i think creampuff meant that you were wrong about it being better on tele lenses

    to be honest, i think is is a good to have for almost any focal length, even 10mm. when i was on my latest trip i didn't bring my tripod, could do some night shots (which haven't been posted up yet) with reasonably small apertures (instead of resorting to wide open) and moderate iso settings handheld. without is, i would think this would not be possible. i hope you get what i mean, but nonetheless, T.O.P had mentioned more on this idea/concept in greater detail in one of their not-so-recent articles.

    of course, that said, nothing beats a tripod, but a tripod is not so convenient in less static situations.
    Last edited by night86mare; 2nd January 2008 at 09:20 AM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Thanks for all the response, I come to the conclution that it is good to have but not to die for . I guess I should buy tele lens without IS first, try it out and get more experience. I'm too newbie on DSLR

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    er, i think creampuff meant that you were wrong about it being better on tele lenses

    to be honest, i think is is a good to have for almost any focal length, even 10mm. when i was on my latest trip i didn't bring my tripod, could do some night shots (which haven't been posted up yet) with reasonably small apertures (instead of resorting to wide open) and moderate iso settings handheld. without is, i would think this would not be possible. i hope you get what i mean, but nonetheless, T.O.P had mentioned more on this idea/concept in greater detail in one of their not-so-recent articles.

    of course, that said, nothing beats a tripod, but a tripod is not so convenient in less static situations.
    I find it more justifiable on tele lenses unless u really take under very low lighting with low shutter speeds most of the time, then IS is gd in general. Take for example my 17-40. Though no IS, but very usable in very low light conditions with low shutter speeds. My record for taking night scenes handheld at Av mode, f/4 and ISO 400, the shutter speed is 1/4 and is still sharp, of cos it's at 17mm end lah.

    The bottom line is. Yes, IS is gd to have, but the extra cost for it is just not worth it.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  17. #17
    Member unseenshadows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Marine Parade, Singapore
    Posts
    724

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoweagle View Post
    I find it more justifiable on tele lenses unless u really take under very low lighting with low shutter speeds most of the time, then IS is gd in general. Take for example my 17-40. Though no IS, but very usable in very low light conditions with low shutter speeds. My record for taking night scenes handheld at Av mode, f/4 and ISO 400, the shutter speed is 1/4 and is still sharp, of cos it's at 17mm end lah.

    The bottom line is. Yes, IS is gd to have, but the extra cost for it is just not worth it.
    I fully agree with Snoweagle.

    The worst thing about IS is that people expect IS to be a miracle worker for poor handholding skills, poor photography techniques. But in your case your want of an IS lens is definitely justificable.

    Just bear in mind that IS is never a replacement for a tripod.

    For tele lens with IS, if you're on a budget, consider the EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Definitely cheaper than a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS
    I shoot film.

  18. #18

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoweagle View Post
    I find it more justifiable on tele lenses unless u really take under very low lighting with low shutter speeds most of the time, then IS is gd in general. Take for example my 17-40. Though no IS, but very usable in very low light conditions with low shutter speeds. My record for taking night scenes handheld at Av mode, f/4 and ISO 400, the shutter speed is 1/4 and is still sharp, of cos it's at 17mm end lah.

    The bottom line is. Yes, IS is gd to have, but the extra cost for it is just not worth it.
    yes, of course, it is more justifiable on tele lens, but then again you could say that if you use tele lens you can also use tripod, no? that is my point, that is is good to have. in any case it is never a must-have. nonetheless, i would think that a system with built-in is in the body would have many advantages, because whether you like it or not at least you have the option in that extra situation where you happen not to have a tripod, nothing to brace on, and you need low shutter speed in low lighting. is could help you produce a relatively sharp picture, better than no picture at all. which is why people also purchase stuff like faster lenses.. it isn't just for the sake of throwing bucks away (since when you purchase the same focal length with just perhaps half a stop faster for maximum aperture, don't know how to put it, you pay a lot more), or because they are gearheads, and i highly doubt it is purely for the thinner dof.
    Last edited by night86mare; 4th January 2008 at 09:02 PM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by unseenshadows View Post
    I fully agree with Snoweagle.

    The worst thing about IS is that people expect IS to be a miracle worker for poor handholding skills, poor photography techniques. But in your case your want of an IS lens is definitely justificable.

    Just bear in mind that IS is never a replacement for a tripod.

    For tele lens with IS, if you're on a budget, consider the EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Definitely cheaper than a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS
    For me i now planning to use all L glass so non-Ls i won't consider anymore. IS is just convenient to use for low-lightings or low shutter speeds but not to the extreme. Though in some cases having IS is gd (i've tried it myself) but overall for the things i'm taking, IS is a waste of money.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: When does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    yes, of course, it is more justifiable on tele lens, but then again you could say that if you use tele lens you can also use tripod, no? that is my point, that is is good to have. in any case it is never a must-have. nonetheless, i would think that a system with built-in is in the body would have many advantages, because whether you like it or not at least you have the option in that extra situation where you happen not to have a tripod, nothing to brace on, and you need low shutter speed in low lighting. is could help you produce a relatively sharp picture, better than no picture at all. which is why people also purchase stuff like faster lenses.. it isn't just for the sake of throwing bucks away (since when you purchase the same focal length with just perhaps half a stop faster for maximum aperture, don't know how to put it, you pay a lot more), or because they are gearheads, and i highly doubt it is purely for the thinner dof.
    Unfortunately Canon only have IS built in lenses so it's the only way. For me teles i will use tripod. Yes if only it's 300mm and above, else i can still handhold it. I give u another scenario. Recently i was at the Xtreme Nights event at the Expo shooting the models and those who went know how low the lighting is. In the first half i shot with my 17-40 at M mode, ISO 800 and shutter speed at 1/20 with flash, so it's not a problem. Then later i use my 70-200 to take with the same settings but now the shutter speed increased to 1/30 and zoomed in at 100+ mm focal length. The result is still very sharp but of cos sacrifice some ambient light.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •