Image stabiliser or not?


Jun 17, 2010
98
0
6
#1
Hi,
I've experimented abit on my canon 18-55mm kit lens IS
Then I realise that it does not help much (well maybe is due to my holding which is not firm yet)
I take shots around in a room at ISO 100
Room has only 1 flourescent light

Anyway, my question is...
I'm thinking of buying a telephoto zoom of up to 300mm.
So I was wondering if I should go for the image stabiliser or the one without it.
.. and if assuming both has the same aperture range?

Will be using it to basically a variety of things, from nature all the way to human and performances.

Can pros out there advice?

Thanks! :)
 

dingaroo

New Member
Dec 6, 2009
1,950
0
0
Singapore | East
#2
Have you tried taking it outdoors in the day? Did you check what your shutter speed when you took a snapshot in that environment?

If you do, you realise you might not need IS. But indoors, there will be a lot less light than when you are outdoors in the day. Sometimes, indoors, even with flourescent light, your shutter speed will definitely be more than 1 seconds.

For me, handholding the camera at speeds faster than 1/60 seconds in the day may not need IS. However, with 300mm, shooting at the telezoom range, any movement is magnified and as such, IS is definitely needed.

Also, I think your concept of IS is totally skewed. It will only help you take stable pictures up to a certain extent. Best is if you read up on what IS/VR is about.

HTH.
 

Last edited:

madmartian

Senior Member
May 2, 2009
20,218
11
0
Outer Space
#3
Hi,
I've experimented abit on my canon 18-55mm kit lens IS
Then I realise that it does not help much (well maybe is due to my holding which is not firm yet)
I take shots around in a room at ISO 100
Room has only 1 flourescent light

Anyway, my question is...
I'm thinking of buying a telephoto zoom of up to 300mm.
So I was wondering if I should go for the image stabiliser or the one without it.
.. and if assuming both has the same aperture range?

Will be using it to basically a variety of things, from nature all the way to human and performances.

Can pros out there advice?

Thanks! :)
With a 18-55mm IS lens & you think that your hands are still not steady, I suggest you shoot with a flash. And if with a flash you find that your hands are still shaky, buy a tripod.
Have you tried shooting at higher ISO?
If you have shaky hands with a IS kit lens, a telephoto up 300mm with IS will do you no justice ;)
 

vzoom

New Member
Dec 10, 2009
49
0
0
29
#4
shooting indoors with limited lighting even in the day requires u to pump ur iso a bit higher if u want a sharp photo. IS helps a bit but the difference is probably not very obvious because the photo is too blurry.

if u are shooting performances then it would be best to get a telephoto lens with either IS or big aperture or both if got the budget both and need. i got the 70-200 f4 but without IS and at f4 it's not very useful in low light situations. Perhaps, u are looking at the 70-300 IS to go with ur 18-55?
 

Jun 17, 2010
98
0
6
#5
dingaroo: yeah.. I did realise that the IS does help during outdoor shots. I am able to take sharp pictures with flash. Okay, will read up more on it.

madmartian: I've never like the idea of taking with high ISO due to the noise... I was wondering if photoshop is able to solve the noise problems of every photos cause I like night photography

vzoom: yeap. hmm, let say I am taking photos of performers (on stage) from the audience seat, will I be needing a high ISO if the stage lights are bright but the seat lights are dimmed?

Thanks for reponse :)
 

Sep 8, 2009
615
0
0
Choa Chu Kang
#6
TS really needs to read up on the basics of exposure - such as the relation of ISO / shutter speed / aperture. And practice more to understand how much light there is in different kinds of places. And read more to understand how to optimize the equipment to shoot under each of the different conditions... ;)

just my 2c worth
 

madmartian

Senior Member
May 2, 2009
20,218
11
0
Outer Space
#7
madmartian: I've never like the idea of taking with high ISO due to the noise... I was wondering if photoshop is able to solve the noise problems of every photos cause I like night photography
Then maybe get a fast lens or use a monopod or tripod. There are some noise reduction programs out there, not sure if photoshop has them, they might or they should have. ;)
 

Shahrie

New Member
Jan 1, 2010
420
0
0
37
Admiralty, SG
#8
dingaroo: yeah.. I did realise that the IS does help during outdoor shots. I am able to take sharp pictures with flash. Okay, will read up more on it.

madmartian: I've never like the idea of taking with high ISO due to the noise... I was wondering if photoshop is able to solve the noise problems of every photos cause I like night photography
.....
Its ok to take photos with iso 400 - 800. The noise you'll see ... actually you won't see them at all unless you pixel peep. Even at iso 1600 and above, with new DSLR technology nowadays, its still bearable. Sometimes you really need to bump up the iso high especially at concerts coz its impractical to use tripods. Even for sports photography or fast moving cars, you'll need fast shutter speed (eg: 1/500 and above). Certain situations need high iso (If not manufacturers won't built them in their cameras)

For indoors, my preferred iso is 400 - 800 (Unless I'm near "sunny windows"). If handheld, I wont use slower than 1/50 shutter speed (Picture most prob won't be blur, unless ur dancing while taking photos). :D

Yes, photoshop can reduce noise problems but your photos will be less sharp than the original. Night photography for landscape, use tripod. Else, high iso or even flash.

Just my 20c worth (Since i write so long) :p
 

Last edited:

hori

New Member
Jun 22, 2003
481
0
0
Singapore
#9
Hi,
I've experimented abit on my canon 18-55mm kit lens IS
Then I realise that it does not help much (well maybe is due to my holding which is not firm yet)
I take shots around in a room at ISO 100
Room has only 1 flourescent light

Anyway, my question is...
I'm thinking of buying a telephoto zoom of up to 300mm.
So I was wondering if I should go for the image stabiliser or the one without it.
.. and if assuming both has the same aperture range?

Will be using it to basically a variety of things, from nature all the way to human and performances.

Can pros out there advice?

Thanks! :)
IS is useful when you are shooting at low shutter speed. But nothing beats having a good shutter speed to ensure minimum blurring due to hand-held shots.

ISO 100 in a room is a little low. Try pushing up higher to about 400.

My opinion is that IS in the lens you are thinking of buying is a nice feature to have, but may not justify the increase in price as compared to a similar range lens without IS. Furthermore, the IS function saps power.
 

Top Bottom