Image Stabilisation - I fear I would miss it!

swag72

swag72

Messages
7,969
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
I am really having a dilemma with my 100-400L, and I am seriously considering getting the 400mm prime instead. I know that the zoom is more versatile, but for wildlife I never want less than 400mm. Also, out today I realised really how little use there is for me between 100mm and 399mm.

So, my fear is whether I would miss the IS. I have certainly tried to stick to lens's with it as I don't have the steadiest hand in the world. But would the sharpness of the 400mm outweigh that?

I have a nifty and 100mm macro that don't have the IS, but they tend to get used in a different way than my other offerings.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated as I weigh up my options.
 
As far as I can see your hands are going to make a bigger difference to how sharp an image is than the difference between zooms and primes; but that said I assume you've done fine with non IS lenses otherwise, so shouldn't be a huge problem; I can see how tricky this is now I've considered it!

From the nikon camp I've had to make a jump from VR to nada when borrowing cameras for various purposes and while it irks me for the first few shots, after that I get used to it like I never had VR to begin with..

..Then I get my hands back on my 18-200 and feel pleasantly surprised all over again.
 
Having had an IS lens for a couple of months now, I would really miss it on another big lens. It lets me get away with much lower shutter speeds that I'd be able to normally. Next time you got out, turn the IS off for half an hour and see what your results are like. If you can still get good shots without it then maybe you could look at a lens without IS.
 
Could I do without it?, a definite no, if I look through one of my IS lenses and switch off the IS I am all over the place :lol:
 
I'm usually OK without IS for anything at 1/125 or above. If this is a problem for you, though, up your ISO or use a monopod / tripod...
 
I have just ordered a 300mm f2.8 non is canon lens....a massive saving over the IS version.

I do a bit of low flying photography i.e mach loop and last year I switched off the IS on the 100-400 L and the 70-200 L on a few visits. I could not notice any difference.

But I know there is going to be a weight issue with the new lens so I may consider one of these.

http://www.bushhawk-europe.com/

For most all other uses the 300mm will be used off a tripod as I don't do a lot of sports photography.
 
Have you considered the 300 F4 with a 1.4 TC that would have IS.
 
So......... Do I change my 100-400 for the 400mm prime? IS on one, and less sharp at the long end or nice and sharp throughout but no IS.

What to do?:thinking:
 
cosmix3 said:
Have you considered the 300 F4 with a 1.4 TC that would have IS.
Click to expand...

Trappe said:
No, not really as I have other uses for the lens with the 2x converter fitted to it.

Don't get me wrong about IS....I have found it very handy when taking candid shots etc. It's always nice to know that you have it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, some confusion I think was for the OP.
 
If you use a tripod then the 400/5.6 is fine. I have one and love it as a bird in flight lens as it is light, fast to focus and razor sharp. But, it needs good light to get suitable shutter speeds as it is only f/5.6. Depends how you work really.
 
I use a beanbag where possible, but very often, aiming at the trees I just have to point and hope. I try to use as fast a shutter speed as possible and will jack up the ISO if necessary if I'm already at f5.6.
 
Without knowing the shutter speeds, it is impossible to know whether IS is useful or not. I don't miss it on my 400/5.6 but I bought it for the specific purpose of birds in flight, which needs a fast shutter speed to freeze the motion. It's my only lens without IS, but I don't miss it is this application.

It is also razor sharp - sharper than my 300/2.8 and as sharp as my 500/4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top