Is Image stabilisation essential on a 17-50mm lens ?

Orange_crunch

Orange_crunch

Messages
124
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone :)

Is image stabilisation essential on a 17-50mm lens ?
I am torn between the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF .
I wont be using anything less then 80th/sec shutter speed and will be handheld most of the time.
A friend said rule of thumb about minimum shutter speed versus lens focal length and I should not need IS on this lens. any info on this or any info on the lens would be great :D
 
My tuppence - you won't need it, but it'll help.

Are you defininely sure you'll never shoot below 1/80?
 
Thanks for your advice :) I have used 1/60 and 1/50 few times and the standard kit lens with IS and got a bit of motion blur for the subjects. with 1/80 I got a better hit rate and most were quite sharp for the standard kit lens, but hardly any dof on the photos.

The Tamron has no VC and is £279 and the sigma is £315 with Optical Stabilization.... decisions, decisions ....:D
 
If in doubt go with stabilisation, you can always turn it off. Don't forget to also factor in your crop sensor size when using the rule of thumb. So 50mm could be 1/80th minimum (on a Canon crop sensor for example) - with a very steady pair of hands. Mine aren't - I would certainly need IS at 1/80th.
 
Last edited:
At that focal length about as much use as a chocolate teapot, unless you shake like a jelly on a tractor going over a ploughed field.














Sits back and waits for incoming :cool:
 
Essential? Maybe not. Many of us live happily with 24-70mm non IS.
Useful? Absolutely. It will help you get sharper shots at lower speed, and is very useful for video.

Other things to consider are focus speed (USM vs slow and noisy motor), resolution, and build quality (will it fall apart)
 
I'm personally not a fan of it.
All my lenses have I.S. Turned off.
 
It depends on your personal minimum shutter speed for handheld. The focal length reciprocal is just a guide based on good technique and steady hands. If either your technique or hands are less than perfect it may not work for you (for example, I know I can't reliably handhold under 1/250-500 at the moment). It's easy to give it a test.

If you can afford it, IS is something nice to be able to fall back on when you need it. Even if you don't currently think that you will.
 
I was more than happy with my old Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 when i had it.....until i got the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
I suddenly found i could take shots with the Canon that i hadn't been able to before. Museums and night shots comes to mind.

Funny thing is when i went to full frame i "had" to have a stabilised general purpose lens, but now im back to a non stabilised lens and dont really miss it much.

I guess what im saying is as others have said, it can be a useful but it depends on the type of shooting. Given the choice i see no reason not to have it.
 
image stabalisation is not essential for any lens... However..

"better to have and not need than to need and not have" - My Mum RIP early 70s :)
 
When i had my tamron 17 50 i found the vc very handy. Meant you could shoot at 400 ISO instead of 3200 which meant quite step up in quality. (assuming you didn't need the faster shutter speed).

If you only shoot in bright daylight then it is a 'chocolate teapot', if you ever shoot in poorer lighting conditions its worth its weight in gold!
 
Rapscallion said:
When i had my tamron 17 50 i found the vc very handy. Meant you could shoot at 400 ISO instead of 3200!
Click to expand...

thats a hell of an image stabalisation...i suppose under controlled circumstances you can go 4 stops down.. but a lot of the time IS doesnt work that well in my experience.
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
thats a hell of an image stabalisation...i suppose under controlled circumstances you can go 4 stops down.. but a lot of the time IS doesnt work that well in my experience.
Click to expand...

Hi Tony - I found 3 stops were quite achievable, doesn't the newer Nikon claim up to 5 stops (the difference between 400 and 12800 iso!)
 
As everyone else has said "it all depends". I find it very useful but remember it does take a fraction of a second to settle down.

This means that if you try to grab a shot really quickly you may end up with a very soft image as the IS is still ISing as the shutter opens.
 
D4rr3n said:
As everyone else has said "it all depends". I find it very useful but remember it does take a fraction of a second to settle down.

This means that if you try to grab a shot really quickly you may end up with a very soft image as the IS is still ISing as the shutter opens.
Click to expand...

which is why its almost always usless for sports events...
 
daugirdas said:
Essential? Maybe not. Many of us live happily with 24-70mm non IS.
Useful? Absolutely. It will help you get sharper shots at lower speed, and is very useful for video.

Other things to consider are focus speed (USM vs slow and noisy motor), resolution, and build quality (will it fall apart)
Click to expand...


This is the correct answer :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top