Oh IS, How Doth Change Thee.

[Mark Elberson]

hem...yes, but I'm seeing it from the consumer side, not the marketing side... I mean, if i'm a beginner i'll go for the lens with IS cause i think it'll improve my photography...i believe this is the first step, THEN marketing sees that consumers want the IS and gives it to them


maybe i'm just not suited for econ...haha
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]You could also say that beginners go for sensors with higher megapixels counts because they think they'll take sharper pictures. IS may be a good gimmick to get beginners interested in products but there are lots of other gimmicks that do the same thing. That doesn't mean that they are all dubious attempts to get the consumer to spend more money or without value. IS is a powerful tool and like any other too it has limitations. The fact is though that I can take a candid portrait of my son with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS on my 50D at 1/100 and not concern myself with camera shake. The rule of thumb would dictate that I would need a shutter speed of 1/360. That's an incredible difference. Assuming a full 3 stop gain in hand-holdability I could technically shoot with that same set-up at 1/45. I would be fairly comfortable saying that would be extremely difficult without IS.<o></o>


<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]The last time I shot sports (minor league baseball from the stands) it was a bright sunny day and I really wanted to stop the dramatic action so I turned off my IS on my 100-400L because I was shooting at speeds of 1/1000 or more but with that same lens if I'm trying to shoot a bird on a feeder I always have it on because I may not be able to obtain shutter speeds of over 1/250 without using ISOs over 1600. When I am shooting at 400mm (640mm on 1.6X) I can easily shoot at 1/250 and have a sharp image. Again, I would dare say that would be extremely difficult without IS.

[Dumien]

Mark,


I totally agree with you. It's just that I wasn't too comfortable typing all that...in my first post I said that it is a valuable tool, as anything is, it's just that -maybe because i'm cheap haha- I always sacrificed it: i bought a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the 24-70, which is also non-IS and i can't complain.


Still, I totally agree with all that you said...everything that's gonna make my life easier is welcome, hahaha


Sorry if there was some kind of misunderstanding


Andy

[Ehcalum]

I'm not agianst IS. I wanted to spark a good conversation about its pros and cons.


Its helps in hail mary territories, but for me, shooting a 70-200 2.8 at 1/100 is doable for me. The "3 stop gain" is pure marketing, similar to saying you get extra reach with a crop factor camera. You don't magically receive 3 stops of expouser.

[Mark Elberson]

shooting a 70-200 2.8 at 1/100 is doable for me. The "3 stop gain" is pure marketing, similar to saying you get extra reach with a crop factor camera. You don't magically receive 3 stops of expouser.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

It's not all marketing. You can easilytest the "3 stop gain" claim. Find out how slow of a shutter speed you can sucessfully hand-hold a lens and see if you can replicate that same shot shooting with shutterspeeds 8X's slower with the helpof IS. I think the full 3 stops is probably best case but I can usually bank on an extra 2 stops of hand-holdability. That would mean that you could hand-hold your 70-200 f.8 at 1/25! Sure, if you're photographing a soccer game 1/25 won't do much for you but if you're shooting a landscape, a flower, etc it's pretty sweet.

[peety3]

It's not marketing, period.


Here's the view of Seattle from Kerry Park, 14/2.8 lens on a 1D Mark III (so 1.3x crop factor) at f/5 ISO 100 for 5 seconds (camera balanced/braced on a ledge):





Here's a view of the Space Needle, using the 200/2IS lens on a 1D Mark III (effective focal length 260mm), handheld at f/2 ISO 1600 1/13th:





Here's a crop from the same picture, where you can make out TVs, people, and I believe some of the underside roof details between levels:





Effective focal length 260mm, so the theory says I'd need 1/260th to handhold that. Four stops of improvement would mean 1/16.25th, so I got a little better than four stops in this case. Go here for the full-res shot: http://photos.templin.org/gallery/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_004?full=1

[Mark Elberson]

Here's a view of the Space Needle, using the 200/2IS lens on a 1D Mark III (effective focal length 260mm), handheld at f/2 ISO 1600 1/13th:


Here's a crop from the same picture, where you can make out TVs, people, and I believe some of the underside roof details between levels:





Effective focal length 260mm, so the theory says I'd need 1/260th to handhold that. Four stops of improvement would mean 1/16.25th, so I got a little better than four stops in this case. Go here for the full-res shot: http://photos.templin.org/gallery/seattle200908a/Seattle0820_004?full=1
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

That's incredible detail! I would love to see what that shot would look like without IS!! 1/13th is truly amazing for an effective 260mm lens.

[peety3]

That's incredible detail! I would love to see what that shot would look like without IS!!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Ever seen a gray card? []

[Chuck Lee]

I'm voting "None of the Above" If you had put in a line item that said:


A great feature to have for hand held video, low light photography, andcreative effects.


I would have checked that one.


I really liked the Pentax in-camera image stabilization on my K10D. I still have Takumars that I can use with my Canons but don't have the addded benefit of the in-camera Shake Reduction system. Even a stop at times can make a huge difference. Of-course it's useless for panning, but I don't shoot too many bicyclists or atheletes. Canon and Nikon are being extremely stubborn on this particular issue. But $100-$600 more expensive IS lenses are what most people want to buy. I don't get it. Never will. Don't own an IS lens. If I had unlimited funds I would prefer my 70-200 have IS only because the flash sync speed of my 5D is 1/200. If I could mount this lens to a Pentax K7D, I'd be shooting Pentax. Well, at ISO's of 800 or less. Love my 5 for low-light.

[Mark Elberson]

Mark,


I totally agree with you. It's just that I wasn't too comfortable typing all that...in my first post I said that it is a valuable tool, as anything is, it's just that -maybe because i'm cheap haha- I always sacrificed it: i bought a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the 24-70, which is also non-IS and i can't complain.


Still, I totally agree with all that you said...everything that's gonna make my life easier is welcome, hahaha


Sorry if there was some kind of misunderstanding


Andy
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]No worries Andy I just had to voice my allegiance to IS!