- Messages
- 835
- Name
- William(friends Call Me Bill)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
is image stabilisation necessary on a lens 300mm or above, if all your shooting is fast shutter speeds, or is it more crucial to have a bigger aperture.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Image Stabilisation
- Thread starter ghostdancer
- Start date
If you are shooting fast shutter speeds then IS/VR/OS becomes less important.
I'd imagine if you are shooting at 300mm then a shutter speed of anything over 1/600th will negate the need to the stabilisation.
Of course it's always nice to have because you never know when you might want to slow the shutter speed down a bit.
I'd imagine if you are shooting at 300mm then a shutter speed of anything over 1/600th will negate the need to the stabilisation.
Of course it's always nice to have because you never know when you might want to slow the shutter speed down a bit.
- Messages
- 247
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends on what you are shooting - if it is sport which is during the day and has good light, then it is possible to get fast shutter speeds with moderate ISO levels.
However, if you shoot wildlife where most work is done during the golden hours because of animal habits, then light is poor and shutter speeds get slower and hence the need for IS.
This argument falls apart slightly if you are refering to a 300mm f/2.8 prime lens (or similar) as the fast lens will allow faster shutter speeds.
However, if you shoot wildlife where most work is done during the golden hours because of animal habits, then light is poor and shutter speeds get slower and hence the need for IS.
This argument falls apart slightly if you are refering to a 300mm f/2.8 prime lens (or similar) as the fast lens will allow faster shutter speeds.
OP
- Messages
- 835
- Name
- William(friends Call Me Bill)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you for the response guys,it has helped to clear a few things up for me.
Hmmm I brought the Canon 300mm F4 IS over the Canon 400mm F5.6 because it had the IS and F4.
I now wish i had brought the 400mm as it is far sharper, quicker to focus and has an extra 100mm.
I even find i can hand hold my Nephews 400mm as it is really light, i tend to use a tipod 99% of the time so i really did make the wrong choice.
I now wish i had brought the 400mm as it is far sharper, quicker to focus and has an extra 100mm.
I even find i can hand hold my Nephews 400mm as it is really light, i tend to use a tipod 99% of the time so i really did make the wrong choice.
OP
- Messages
- 835
- Name
- William(friends Call Me Bill)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hmmm I brought the Canon 300mm F4 IS over the Canon 400mm F5.6 because it had the IS and F4.
I now wish i had brought the 400mm as it is far sharper, quicker to focus and has an extra 100mm.
I even find i can hand hold my Nephews 400mm as it is really light, i tend to use a tipod 99% of the time so i really did make the wrong choice.
thanks for this it sounds just what I had in mind,and has answered a few questions for me.