How useful is IS?

[koljaho]

I was doing comparison between IS and non IS version of those zoom L lenses. I was quite surprised that without IS and at maximum zoom, they are able to achieve very sharp images. So I was wondering, how much ( to what extent) the IS actually help in avoiding motion from handshakes.

One more thing that start me wondering whether the IS of canon 17-55 f2.8 is actually userful enough for me to upgrade my tamron. Will like to hear views from the knowledgeable community here.

PS: Pardon me if this is a question that has been asked countless times.

[ridehomewithme]

Originally Posted by koljaho I was doing comparison between IS and non IS version of those zoom L lenses. I was quite surprised that without IS and at maximum zoom, they are able to achieve very sharp images. So I was wondering, how much ( to what extent) the IS actually help in avoiding motion from handshakes. One more thing that start me wondering whether the IS of canon 17-55 f2.8 is actually userful enough for me to upgrade my tamron. Will like to hear views from the knowledgeable community here. PS: Pardon me if this is a question that has been asked countless times.

i've been wondering about the same thing too.

like just comparing the f4 IS and the f2.8 for the 70-200. the 2.8 gives you the ability to freeze motion with the fast aperture and compensate for handshake with a fast shutter speed, yet also allow good performance in low light.

then i looked at the f4 IS. okay it's lighter and is one stop slower, but it has IS which helps in low light shooting. but you lack of one stop of light doesnt allow you to freeze motion.

so is it more practical to get a lens with a faster aperture or to get one which has IS?

[koljaho]

haha. we are on the same boat. For now, common sense tells me f4 IS will be a better choice. I don't think you need the f2.8 to freeze motion in broad day light. taking in low light for zoom lens is not so common from my perspective. So F4 IS seems good enough. But i was just wondering how much does it really help in holding motion shakes.....Maybe there is some kind of review?

[yrh0413]

Originally Posted by ridehomewithme i've been wondering about the same thing too. like just comparing the f4 IS and the f2.8 for the 70-200. the 2.8 gives you the ability to freeze motion with the fast aperture and compensate for handshake with a fast shutter speed, yet also allow good performance in low light. then i looked at the f4 IS. okay it's lighter and is one stop slower, but it has IS which helps in low light shooting. but you lack of one stop of light doesnt allow you to freeze motion. so is it more practical to get a lens with a faster aperture or to get one which has IS?

IS is useful only to freeze your hands, not your subjects. Compare both versions of 70-200 f/4 IS and f/2.8 non IS:

With F/2.8, your viewfinder will be bright and your camera's AF system will work very well. It is crucial especially when you need to get high AF accuracy. Moreover you get nicer bokeh on f/2.8.

f/4 IS on the other hand, allow you to use a slower shutter speed to achieve sharp images. That's the only advantage, other than the reduced weight on the lens itself.

One stop difference in f-stop DOES make a difference. Imagine you can only freeze a subject at 1/60s, f/2.8 at ISO3200. You can't crank the ISO higher as you need a clean photo with minimal noise. There is NO WAY you can take a sharp photo of that moment with a f/4 lens.

[soken]

at low light, very!

[nottipiglet]

With 3rd generation IS, I can handhold right down to 1/60s at 200mm and achieve very sharp images CONSISTENTLY... If you don't need to shoot at challenging shutter speeds at the long tele end while handholding, then IS is useless. If you do, then it is useful. It is as simple as that.

Or... some people argue that they like to do the horse-stance training like Jackie Chan every day, until their handholding technique is rock-solid... and IS is not necessary... Well, there are freaks of nature out there, but that does not apply to most of us.

Or... some people say they shoot with tripod all the time... and so IS is useless. Again, good that you like to take static subjects that will wait patiently for you to deploy the tripod... but that does not apply to most of us.

[ManWearPants]

Unless on tripod, bean bag or any form of "stabilizer", try handholding beyond 70mm. Chances are you won't get too many keeper shots. IS helps to increase that rate. The rate of getting sharp photos.

Let's face it, you pay for technology. And technology exists for a reason. That is to help people. So the question should not be is IS useful. The question should be do you need IS?

If you are buying the lense for general purpose, go for the f4 IS. If it is for specific purpose and mounted on a tripod most of the time, go for f2.8. If you want the best of both worlds, get f2.8 IS.

If your Tamron is giving you good results, why do you need to spend more? For 17-50 range, IS may not be that significant for most people, unless you are using slow shutter speed. But the 17-55 is a good lens. I have fond memories of it.

[CS TAN]

Originally Posted by koljaho I was doing comparison between IS and non IS version of those zoom L lenses. I was quite surprised that without IS and at maximum zoom, they are able to achieve very sharp images. So I was wondering, how much ( to what extent) the IS actually help in avoiding motion from handshakes.

At what speed and at what focal length are you comparing? 1/15 or 1/8000?

Originally Posted by koljaho One more thing that start me wondering whether the IS of canon 17-55 f2.8 is actually userful enough for me to upgrade my tamron. Will like to hear views from the knowledgeable community here.

At this focal length, if you don't see the need, then stay with A16.

[Xyse247]

Originally Posted by ridehomewithme i've been wondering about the same thing too. like just comparing the f4 IS and the f2.8 for the 70-200. the 2.8 gives you the ability to freeze motion with the fast aperture and compensate for handshake with a fast shutter speed, yet also allow good performance in low light. then i looked at the f4 IS. okay it's lighter and is one stop slower, but it has IS which helps in low light shooting. but you lack of one stop of light doesnt allow you to freeze motion. so is it more practical to get a lens with a faster aperture or to get one which has IS?

I doubt 1 stop of light difference will matters with freezing of motion unless you are already shooting at iso 6400. The only thing so great about 2.8 is the bokeh and AF speed for me.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Xyse247 I doubt 1 stop of light difference will matters with freezing of motion unless you are already shooting at iso 6400. The only thing so great about 2.8 is the bokeh and AF speed for me.

Do you realise the significance of one stop? That's 1/60s (possibly blur) compared to 1/125s (higher chance of freezing motion). One stop of light is double your shutter speed. It is a lot of difference.

[batavia]

Very very useful.........after an hour or so of continuous shooting, ur hands will shake considerably more.....if you have IS, you would be shooting more peacefully calmly, knowing you have more keepers and with that calm mental state itself u will be shaking a lot less.......cos u r calm n cool....... and Canon can solve all this argument by implementing in-body stablizer, ........if they want........the tech is long2 time here ald....

[engrmariano]

shoot in low light, you'll know how useful IS is.

[mindfulness]

for a newbie with my first dslr, the IS with 250mm tele lens gave me decent pictures, taken handheld ... this is proof that IS is useful

[engrmariano]

Originally Posted by mindfulness for a newbie with my first dslr, the IS with 250mm tele lens gave me decent pictures, taken handheld ... this is proof that IS is useful

how fast or how slow your shutter is?...

coz im offing the IS of my 70-200 when my shutter goes over 1/320 (Av mode).

[CS TAN]

Originally Posted by engrmariano how fast or how slow your shutter is?... coz im offing the IS of my 70-200 when my shutter goes over 1/320 (Av mode).

Why would you intentionally turn off the IS? I think it is quite troublesome to turn it on and off depending on the shutter speed. If it helps you below 1/320, it will not do you any harm above that. Are you trying to save battery power?

If I do that, the next photo that I take below 1/320 will be without IS since I will most likely forget to turn it back on.

[Alex chong]

I am using the 70-200 IS and its very helpful in many situations. I went out with my family this morning to shoot in a park and after holding the camera for a while, my hands get tired. I tested the lens with IS off and on and it was a lot of difference. IS for sure. If I can afford it I would get the 2.8 IS but then again, do I want to carry a 1.5kg lens around?

[Alex chong]

By the way, for those who have used IS lenses alot, I have one question. Sometimes when I focus on a subject, for a millisecond, the lens seems out of alignment and when it focuses, the lens kinda jerked a bit as if to get back into alignment. I know a lot of topic was discuss regarding the sound of IS working, but what about this jerking thing. Is that normal?

[StrifeYun]

the further the zoom, the more amazed u'll be with IS

[engrmariano]

Originally Posted by CS TAN Why would you intentionally turn off the IS? I think it is quite troublesome to turn it on and off depending on the shutter speed. If it helps you below 1/320, it will not do you any harm above that. Are you trying to save battery power? If I do that, the next photo that I take below 1/320 will be without IS since I will most likely forget to turn it back on.

im not turning it off & on only when shutter goes over 1/320.

i mean, when im shooting on bright light (eg. beaches), its turned OFF. its ON when im in concerts or alike.

the reason why i turn it OFF, hmm... save the IS?... coz the IS of my 17-55 was spoiled & afraid it might happen also on my 70-200.

[KY1977]

Hi

IMO, I do not think that the better sharpness on the IS model is due to the IS itself. In a lab test on the lenses, they are probably fixed on tripod anyway. If you look at say, 70-200 F4, the IS model has 4 more elements in the lenses of which 1 of them for the IS compensation. Not saying that the extra elements helps but could be due to the learnings from the non IS version (an older model) that helps the IS model to be better. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers