Image stabilization or speed of glass?

G

GEH007

Messages
279
Edit My Images
No
I'm making a few lens decisions at the moment and keep tossing this around my mind so thought Id ask for expert input.

For lens that are primarily used for people (not fast moving) and landscape/city shots, mainly handheld, some good light, some low light....would you choose IS over f speed or vice versa? Obviously both is an ideal but its likely most have to choose one over the other.

I'm finding it a tricky one but no doubt someone will bob along with a slam dunk response to nail it for me.

Cheers.
 
The real question is are you more likely to get the benefits from being able to open the lens up for teeny DoF or being able to still hand hold with the lens stopped down to something more.

As a rule but obviously not in all cases, portraits tend to go one way and city/landscapes the other.

It's a bind isn't it. ;)
 
I agree to an extent but for portraits, focal length and distance to subject have a far greater impact on DoF than aperture does.

This is what perhaps leads me to favour IS at the moment but very open to be convinced otherwise!
 
IS doesn't eliminate subject movement! I would go with larger aperture every day. I know that IS really helps, but especially with people shots, you do need to freeze the moment instead of stabilizing your hands shaking.
For cityscapes, well, I would go for IS too, since I would be using smaller apertures anyhow!
 
If you're shooting static subjects in low light the IS/VR is a must as it will allow you to handhold and a pretty slow shutter speed.

However if you're shooting fast moving subjects in low light a fast 1.8/1.4 lens is a must as IS/VR will not increase shutterspeed like a fast lens will.
 
Unless it's a choice between really fast glass and IS then I'd go IS for a general lens. If it's decent IS like the four stops on some canon models, then for a lens you want to cover a lot of jobs, IS will proabably save you more.
 
If you're shooting static subjects in low light the IS/VR is a must...

Or just use a tripod?
 
Scotty B said:
If you're shooting static subjects in low light the IS/VR is a must as it will allow you to handhold and a pretty slow shutter speed.
Click to expand...

If this were "fact" then why haven't Canon got an IS prime below 200mm. They put IS in wider zooms simply because they aren't fast enough...but the primes?
(I'm not sure about Nikon's wide/standard/medium telephoto's)

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
If this were "fact" then why haven't Canon got an IS prime below 200mm. They put IS in wider zooms simply because they aren't fast enough...but the primes?
(I'm not sure about Nikon's wide/standard/medium telephoto's)

Bob
Click to expand...

I would imagine canon will get around to putting it on most lenses eventually.
 
I'd be surprised if they do. IS has been out 10 years and is routinely put on low end zooms nowadays but several L primes have been updated to MkII without it.
IS requires extra glass in the lightpath and this can only be a detrement to the final image. The long primes do benefit from IS as wind and actuation vibrations are unavoidable short of setting the things in concrete.

Bob
 
Fast glass every time, people move, IS can't help you with that.
 
When nikon put it on their shorter focal length 'pro' primes, we'll see how much of a non problem it is. As it is, there's no financial point.
 
Varied range of comments, the interesting thing being there is no real consensus.
 
What you have to remember is wide apertures aren't just about being able to take a photo at f whatever... the auto focus opens the aperture all the way up to achieve focusing THEN when you press the button closes to whatever you have set for your picture. So you can use F9 for a deep DOF but if using say f2.8 glass, it will use f2.8 to try and focus.

That is why expsensive glass achieves sharp results, because AF is actually able to see enough to get the focus bang on.

If you consider how much light f5.6 is vs f2.8 you'll see why your AF sensor really stands much more chance at accuracy at 2.8.... oh and if you are stuck with a Canon xxxD or xxD model, the accuracy mode of the centre cross AF point won't even engage without f2.8 or better!

(Nikon don't seem to have this problem!!)
 
GEH007 said:
I agree to an extent but for portraits, focal length and distance to subject have a far greater impact on DoF than aperture does.

This is what perhaps leads me to favour IS at the moment but very open to be convinced otherwise!
Click to expand...

Focal length has NO effect on DoF. DoF is the result of aperture and magnification. If the subject is the same size in the frame it doesn't matter what focal length you are using the only thing that will change the DoF at that point is the aperture.

Distance to subject is also meaningless for DoF, assuming you're looking to get the subject the same size in the frame then distance is a result of focal length, longer lens = further away. Once you've got the subject the same size you're back to aperture controlling DoF (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top