Imagage stabilisations.. Is it vital??

ben_notts

ben_notts

Messages
93
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Folks

Looking for some advice please...

I an a newbie to photography...
Owned a EOS 500D + 55-250mm 1.4-5.6 IS for about 4 months...
Very happy with the lens so far,

Aviation is my favourite hobbly and taking pics of aircraft in flight is the reason i purchased the camera

I have the opportunity to buy a .... Sigma 50-500mm APO DG (£500)

This lens does not have optical stabilisation....

** How much will this affect my photos when taking shots at distance **

Any advice would be appreciated

Kind Regards

Ben
 
In good light you should be fine, but if light starts to drop off then your shutter speed to drop, this is where the OS will come in as I have shot sharp images down to 1/100 sec at 500mm with the OS on.
 
Technique is the most important thing, but if you're using a long focal length, in less than idealist bring conditions where the shutter speed is slower than you'd like, then a good IS system may help. Some systems allow for you to pan with a moving object and work to minimise vertical movement, ignoring the horizontal movement. No idea if Sigma offer that though.
 
If you are holding the lens still when taking the photo then IS will help a lot.
However if you are panning the lens while taking the photo then you should have the IS switched off anyway.
Some lenses such as the sigma 150-500 that I have allow you to put the IS into a third mode where it only stabilises in the vertical so you can use it when panning for example.
 
Also remember that if you are using VR or IS with a slow shutter speed in low light on a moving object, it will be blurred.
 
Just get yourself a monopod if you find you need slower shutter speed...with your type of photography I'd be weighing up the price if IS vs the price of a monopod.

Alternatively go for the sigma 120-400mm IS. Very good optics and cheaper than the 50-500mm.
 
Phil Young said:
Just get yourself a monopod if you find you need slower shutter speed...with your type of photography I'd be weighing up the price if IS vs the price of a monopod.

Alternatively go for the sigma 120-400mm IS. Very good optics and cheaper than the 50-500mm.
Click to expand...

^^^ Yes, a monopod should be at least as good as IS, and better in some situations that can fox IS systems (diagonal panning etc).

But IS is undoubtedly very handy and effective, and the longer the lens, the more beneficial it will be, more often.
 
Worth having, particularly on longer lenses, as Richard said; but certainly not vital. It didn't exist until quite recently, and neither did auto-focus.
 
Hi ben, have I seen you asking this question on another forum too lol, same advice here mate. For moving subjects such as aircraft it's not necessary and the 50-500 is a great lens. I'd still have a look at the 150-500 OS though, for an extra £100 you could get a new lens with OS at www.panamoz.com
 
No it's not vital, but it does allow you to hand hold the lens in poor light, it can make up to three stops difference. I find it particularly useful shooting with a telephoto, when it allows me to take a pic that I'd normally avoid, or consider using a tripod for.

They are not the be all to end all. I've been taking photographs for 40 years without AF and IS, but they do make life a little easier.
 
500mm non IS will be 'fun' to work with. For the starters you will have hard time composing the shot (unless using the tripod), and then you will some very fast shutter speeds (1/1000s would be advisable). But don't worry about it too much, that lens isn't too sharp anyway, so a bit of extra blur won't change much. You get what you pay for.

Oh, and in real life it is just a little over 400mm, so you may as well get the Canon prime.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top