Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 18, 2019, 06:50:13 PM


Author Topic: thoughts on Image Stabilisation  (Read 2988 times)

Offline Scott S

  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« on: April 30, 2015, 09:14:47 AM »
so I was thinking. I bought this 17-50 2.8 is Sigma. it's very sharp but why IS? I thought IS was mainly for hand holding a longer lense in lower light. I just never considered any benefits to an IS wide angle lens.
what are your thoughts?

Offline Suka

  • Sr. Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 1998
Re: thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2015, 04:30:50 PM »
From my limited knowledge about IS it is used for hand holding at lower shutter speeds.  Meaning, if you are using a lens 17-50mm and the light situation requires you to use a shutter speed less than 1/50 IS will help you.  It will give you a stop or more (depending on your settings and the lens/camera).  There is a lot more to this than I can explain, but IS is better than no IS on a lens-in my opinion. 

Offline Ochotona

  • Sr. Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2873
Re: thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2015, 06:18:14 PM »
I agree with both of you!  Is no IS a deal killer on a fast, wider angle lens?  No.  Would I prefer IS on a fast, wider angle lens?  Yes.  It's definitely not going to be as important or used as often as it would be on a telephoto, but it would add a little versatility in low light indoor or evening/morning shots.  Suka is right on with his examples, there's a rule that the inverse of the lens length is the lower limit of what you should hand hold without IS.  So a 200mm lens shouldn't be hand held below 1/200sec and a 50mm lens shouldn't be hand held below 1/50sec.

Offline Doodle

  • Sr. Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 6511
  • Old age causes memory loss. Or worse, memory loss.
Re: thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2015, 07:12:26 PM »
If given a choice, I prefer to have IS and occasionally not use it, than need it but not have it on my lens. Just MHO.
For what I have been doing lately (shooting early morning)...it has been a Godsend. I may not need it during the brighter parts of the day but those early mornings (and late evenings) sure screams IS for me. (oh...and indoor shots of the kiddos too)
Take your camera with you dammit. You can't take your next "best photo" if your camera is sitting at home in the bag, now can you?

Offline Scott S

  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2015, 09:57:42 PM »
I hear what you guys are saying, I guess my thought was, it's mostly useless on a wide zoom. my 17-50 is a 2.8 lens, so I'm trying to think when I've ever had an issue with camera shake on a camera that will shoot pretty clean shots at ISO 3200. it just seems like it's not going to make much difference.
if I had been given the option of, here's your 17-50, or for $50 more you can have IS I think I would have passed. on the other hand, I'm regretting not spending the extra on my 70-200 2.8. it just seems more useful on a longer lens.

Offline IntoxicatedPuma

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
Re: thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2015, 01:12:48 AM »
After about 9 months with my e-m1, I can't go back to a camera without ibis.  I have an RX10 for video but even ois only helps so much.  For wide angle, lots of IS helps alot- I can get a lot of shots handheld that normally need a tripod.  Sometimes you want a long exposure even in bright sunlight...
Computer nerd, history nerd, car nerd.

Offline Doodle

  • Sr. Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 6511
  • Old age causes memory loss. Or worse, memory loss.
Re: thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2015, 05:34:01 AM »
If I'm shooting ISO3200, I am having to use NR.  NR = detail reduction. 
If I use my IS to give me back a couple of stops and cut that ISO number in half or more, I will do it every.single.time. to have a better image to begin with.
I'm not sure what lens you have where there is only a 50 dollar difference between IS an non-IS but for 50 lousy dollars...there would be zero hesitation on my part to have it in my arsenal.
Take your camera with you dammit. You can't take your next "best photo" if your camera is sitting at home in the bag, now can you?

Offline Scott S

  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 420
Re: thoughts on Image Stabilisation
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2015, 07:53:26 AM »
thanks guys for your input.
so the takeaway is that each person needs to evaluate whether they need some of these things or not. I suppose this plays into my argument that Full Frame isn't always the way to go. good better best is subjective.
I still think I could take or leave IS on my 17-50.
@Doodle, I just threw the $50.00 out there as an example, I didn't have any particular lens in mind, just saying I don't think I'd spring for it based on the things I find myself shooting.