'Fast' Aperture or Image Stabilization ?

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wondered what people's views were on aperture v IS (image stabilization) ?

Image stabilization seems to be sold as as a cure for 'anti shake' but for me it's not so much about 'take a shot as normal - that's a bit steadier' - but the ability to manage a slower shutter speed when light is at a premium - something we would previously need a wider aperture for.

As I shoot mainly landscapes on a tripod I tend to use a small aperture / long shutter speed and if using an IS lens have it switched off so I guess I'm lucky.

It's perhaps a question for the non-landscape folk as apertures obviously create a more shallow dof (which you want) that image stabilization can't produce but I wondered which of the two you put first.

The popular 70-200 Canon range (for example) springs to mind - 4.0 / 4.0 IS / 2.8 / 2.8 IS

I suspect many folk buy an f4 (non iS) for the price but those that go up a notch swither between the similar cost of the 4.0 IS or 2.8 ??
 
IS won't freeze the subject, just stop the 'blur' effect from your hand shake, so it's more...useful...in low light if you're shooting anything that moves.

2.8 glass is traditionally usually in a better built case and better quality glass too (though the 70-200 4 /2.8 is meant to be a bit of an exception here, both are good).

Personally, f2.8 all the way... :/
 
There's another option - raise the ISO. A very viable best-of-all-worlds with current cameras, especially full frame.

IS is cheap, four stops range, and works great if the subject isn't moving.

Low f/numbers are expensive and heavy, and give shallow DoF which may not be desirable. F/4 to f/2.8 is only one stop.

Give me high ISO and IS any day.
 
HoppyUK said:
There's another option - raise the ISO. A very viable best-of-all-worlds with current cameras, especially full frame.

IS is cheap, four stops range, and works great if the subject isn't moving.

Low f/numbers are expensive and heavy, and give shallow DoF which may not be desirable. F/4 to f/2.8 is only one stop.

Give me high ISO and IS any day.
Click to expand...

I was going to edit to say ISO is the 3rd variable but you beat me to it. I think you're dead right about IS (as a system) being a cheaper alternative to faster glass.

I just find the whole thing fascinating :help:
 
Depends on what you shoot I guess. If you shoot kids indoors or other stuff that moves in lowish light then aperture/ISO wins. Stuff that stands still (architecture/landscape) then IS is best (a tripod would be better still but isn't as convenient).

Is IS worth the £400+ Canon wants for it in the 70-200 f4 lenses? Tricky. All I know is I've got shots using the IS lens that I wouldn't have got without IS.
 
I had some money to spend- could either get the 70-200 F2.8IS or a new body (5dm2), choose the body, as now I can up the ISO even higher.
 
Wide Aperture narrows your DOF, possibly to the point at which getting focus accuracy becomes an issue (assuming your subject isn't motionless and/or inanimate)

Raising the ISO increases noise, even on the best camera bodies out there.

VR/IS slows things down, can cause bizarre patterns in bokeh and is dependant on which glass you have (and how good the implementation is - plenty of lenses on sale new today are still using the first attempts at it!).

Your fourth option - pump some extra light into the scene with flash. Obviously destroys any ambience in the scene though and requires you to have the flash equipment with you.

So there is not one perfect answer, you need to understand the differences and use what is appropriate at the time.
 
aperture, if IS would work I could use a tripod. Long term I want to have both but its not a 500 quid I feel the need to spend urgently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top