hi how important is image stabilisation I'm looking at canon 75-300 with is and without is are there much difference between them is it worth paying the extra for is I don't do videos only photos want to use the lens for wildlife and out door sports any info would b much appreciated thanx
Image stabilisation
- Thread starter Balmbra15
- Start date
- Messages
- 15,484
- Name
- Rich
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Certainly help for wildlife, guessing it would for sport too.
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I may think different to a lot of people but I'd say no, IS, VR or OS doesn't make any difference to me.
I shoot mainly birds, minimum shutter speed 1/1000th plus, as fast as possible if the lights good, with a Sigma 150-600 c and have OS turned off all the time.
Low light, slow shutter speed??, either rested on a wall/fence or tripod so still no need for OS.
As I said above, I know people that never turn it off but I seem to do ok without
I shoot mainly birds, minimum shutter speed 1/1000th plus, as fast as possible if the lights good, with a Sigma 150-600 c and have OS turned off all the time.
Low light, slow shutter speed??, either rested on a wall/fence or tripod so still no need for OS.
As I said above, I know people that never turn it off but I seem to do ok without
- Messages
- 797
- Name
- john
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is just a personal opinion - so please feel free to disagree!
I do not like IS/OS/VR etc. When IS was introduced it was a lifesaver - but then we were dealing with 400 ISO (max?) film. These days is it really useful?
I primarily shoot wildlife with the Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS on both FF and crop bodies. This lens is mounted on a tripod whenever possible but, due to practicalities, it is used hand held about 1/3 of the time. I bought this lens in November 2013 and by December I was getting annoyed at the number of shots lost to IS - but the perceived wisdom was that IS is wonderful?! Anyway in late December 2013 I turned IS off. Haven't used IS since and am much happier with the lens!
On static subjects it didn't make much difference, but the AF lock was significantly quicker with IS off! However my "Keeper Rate" on moving subjects improved markedly to say the least! Even hand held, with the longest lens Canon currently make, I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help. It just mucks up AF too much - as others who have tried "IS OFF" have found.
Certainly IS has it's uses - I just have no idea what they are?
When you decide which lens to buy make your decision on the quality of the lens and not on some feature (IS) that will degrade it's performance..Having said that it is a fact of life that manufacturers insist on fitting this (IS/VR/OS) feature so we have to live with it! But if you want reach and decent quality on a budget then the Canon 55-250 is hard to beat!
I do not like IS/OS/VR etc. When IS was introduced it was a lifesaver - but then we were dealing with 400 ISO (max?) film. These days is it really useful?
I primarily shoot wildlife with the Canon 800mm F5.6 L IS on both FF and crop bodies. This lens is mounted on a tripod whenever possible but, due to practicalities, it is used hand held about 1/3 of the time. I bought this lens in November 2013 and by December I was getting annoyed at the number of shots lost to IS - but the perceived wisdom was that IS is wonderful?! Anyway in late December 2013 I turned IS off. Haven't used IS since and am much happier with the lens!
On static subjects it didn't make much difference, but the AF lock was significantly quicker with IS off! However my "Keeper Rate" on moving subjects improved markedly to say the least! Even hand held, with the longest lens Canon currently make, I find IS to be more of a hazard than a help. It just mucks up AF too much - as others who have tried "IS OFF" have found.
Certainly IS has it's uses - I just have no idea what they are?
When you decide which lens to buy make your decision on the quality of the lens and not on some feature (IS) that will degrade it's performance..Having said that it is a fact of life that manufacturers insist on fitting this (IS/VR/OS) feature so we have to live with it! But if you want reach and decent quality on a budget then the Canon 55-250 is hard to beat!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd agree with odd Jim, the 75-300 lens isn't the best and personally I would buy the 70-300 IS lens instead.
Daughter has the 55-250 IS and it's a great lens for the cost (and I'd choose it over the 75-300 if funds are tight).
I've had the 70-300 IS previously and enjoyed it, got great results and the IS helps on occasions - don't forget you don't have to use IS, but if you've got it on the lens, then you have the option to use it...
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
250mm isn't not much different in the real to 300mm. Add a bit of focus breathing as the elements move to focus and he gap is reduced further. TBH 300mm is a bit short for wildlife. Hats not to say you can't get good shots, just you'll be cropping a lot in the main!