What shutter speed before IS doesnt matter too much?

Robbo

Robbo

Messages
3,962
Edit My Images
Yes
Basically, wondering if I need IS or not for outdoor shots.

Between a 70-200mm canon F4 L with or without IS is what I am looking for at the moment....

say I was getting 1/500 outside for a shutter speed, would you see much difference between the IS and Non IS lens?

never ventured into this area much as I normally do 90% macro work

so any advice welcome please.
 
Normally people talk about reciprocal focal lenth to shutter speed ratio is hand holdable (to an average operator) without physical support (tripod etc) and without IS.

So 1/200th for 200mm, 1/70th for 70mm etc.

Obviously this assumes a reasonable skill in holding a camera - if you are rubbish then IS will still help you.
 
The general rule of thumb to avoid camera shake is to use a shutter speed of 1/focal length or faster. So for a 200mm lens that would be 1/200. Some might say that you should also take in to account the crop facter, so that would be 1/320 or faster. If you are able to use 1/500, you shouldn't have a problem shooting without IS.
 
desantnik said:
Normally people talk about reciprocal focal lenth to shutter speed ratio is hand holdable (to an average operator) without physical support (tripod etc) and without IS.

So 1/200th for 200mm, 1/70th for 70mm etc.

Obviously this assumes a reasonable skill in holding a camera - if you are rubbish then IS will still help you.
Click to expand...

ah that makes sense...

so if I am fairly stead holding or panning etc I should be able to get away with the Non IS if shooting outdoors etc would you say?
 
I turn it off altogether for panning shots of birds etc. That usually means completely off above 1/500s and slower than this, I will just use vertical stabilisation.

Andy
 
I watched a video on the American B&H shop website about Canon autofocus systems.

The speaker (a Canon expert) said that when shooting action you should always leave the IS no matter what shutter speed you were using.

The reason for this is that the IS gives the autofocus sensors a much better chance of locking and staying in focus.

I had not though about this before, but it makes perfect sense.

I guess if you are one shot focusing on a static object then probably not so important.

David
 
Robbo said:
ah that makes sense...

so if I am fairly stead holding or panning etc I should be able to get away with the Non IS if shooting outdoors etc would you say?
Click to expand...

Yes - shouldn't be a problem. IS can cause more problems than it solves when panning anyway. Skill beats it 90% time...
 
Willid1 said:
I watched a video on the American B&H shop website about Canon autofocus systems.

The speaker (a Canon expert) said that when shooting action you should always leave the IS no matter what shutter speed you were using.

The reason for this is that the IS gives the autofocus sensors a much better chance of locking and staying in focus.

I had not though about this before, but it makes perfect sense.

I guess if you are one shot focusing on a static object then probably not so important.

David
Click to expand...

It makes theoretical sense - I'm not sure it actually makes much practical difference.
 
IS also doesn't freeze moving subjects like birds, who even when standing on a branch invariably move. Shutter speed is the only solution. IS is a help but it isn't everything, and good tehnique should be cultivated.
 
AndyElliott said:
It makes theoretical sense - I'm not sure it actually makes much practical difference.
Click to expand...

hmmmm

Basically I am after a few new lenses, dont want to 'waste' my money on a 'cheap' lens, but I cant afford the 'top end' specs at the same time so I am trying for a happy medium maybe plus a bit.

I am no professional, but I want to be able to produce really nice images with a professional hint to them if that makes sense?
 
An awful lot of it rather depends on what you are shooting.

There is a big difference say between shooting a F1 car at ~200mph using 800mm at f4 (for subject isolation) to shooting a photo of your granny sitting on the beach at 70mm and f22 (so you can get the pier in the background).

There is no one answer, you need to understand what the technology and settings do and adjust appropriately for the conditions.
 
desantnik said:
An awful lot of it rather depends on what you are shooting.

There is a big difference say between shooting a F1 car at ~200mph using 800mm at f4 (for subject isolation) to shooting a photo of your granny sitting on the beach at 70mm and f22 (so you can get the pier in the background).

There is no one answer, you need to understand what the technology and settings do and adjust appropriately for the conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand all the tech to subject etc, I am just after a 'general' mix of answers so I can put all the info together
 
Chaz Photos said:
Not on Canon as it has a setting for panning
Click to expand...

As do most systems - including Olympus. They are fine if you are panning left-to-right, say, and they compensate for vertical movement (great for motorsport). Where they fall down is if your subject is moving up and down as well along (e.g. some birds' flight) - they can't well distinguish intentional and unintentional vertical movement.
 
basically, is it worth paying £400 extra to get the IS on the 70-200mm F4L?
 
Robbo said:
basically, is it worth paying £400 extra to get the IS on the 70-200mm F4L?
Click to expand...

Do you need it?

Funny as I found the AF slower on my 300 f4 when I had IS enabled, I also found it a bit annoying as everything in the viewfinder was constantly moving.
 
Liam said:
Do you need it?

Funny as I found the AF slower on my 300 f4 when I had IS enabled, I also found it a bit annoying as everything in the viewfinder was constantly moving.
Click to expand...

how do you mean constantly moving? as the effect of how the IS works?
 
Don't forget that many millions of fantastically sharp shots were produced before IS was ever invented!
I use IS because at 68 I cannot hold the camera so steady as when I was younger, but for about 55 of my "photography" years I amanged quite successfully without.
 
Well IS works by moving an element inside the lens to the counter any shake it sensors. You can therefore see this movement when looking through the viewfinder.
 
SevernBore said:
Don't forget that many millions of fantastically sharp shots were produced before IS was ever invented!
I use IS because at 68 I cannot hold the camera so steady as when I was younger, but for about 55 of my "photography" years I amanged quite successfully without.
Click to expand...

very good point!

Im leaning towards the IS is mainly good for wobbly hands and low light shots. hmmm
 
desantnik said:
So 1/200th for 200mm, 1/70th for 70mm etc.

Obviously this assumes a reasonable skill in holding a camera - if you are rubbish then IS will still help you.
Click to expand...

That also assumes those focal lengths on a camera with a full size sensor.

70mm on an cropped sensor body would be about 1/125th or faster
200mm on a cropped sensor body would be about 1/320th or faster
 
Robbo said:
basically, is it worth paying £400 extra to get the IS on the 70-200mm F4L?
Click to expand...

I would say - save the £400. IS is good, but not a panacea. Optical (lens) IS can mess up the bokeh (in certain circumstances) of the lens and there is some thought that stabilised lenses may not be as sharp, all else being equal. The latter point may be more to do with QC on the lens. Clearly a moving optical element is more likely to go out of alignment and the IS system will wear out over time.
 
Liam said:
Funny as I found the AF slower on my 300 f4 when I had IS enabled,.
Click to expand...

It does that for sure.

The main thing people usually fail to grasp is that any kind of tech to allow you to get a steady shot from long shutter speeds is that your subject also has to be still.

Nailing the 1/25th shot of your kid unwrapping a xmas pressie is great, except that they now look like something out of Poltergeist.
 
AndyElliott said:
As do most systems - including Olympus. They are fine if you are panning left-to-right, say, and they compensate for vertical movement (great for motorsport). Where they fall down is if your subject is moving up and down as well along (e.g. some birds' flight) - they can't well distinguish intentional and unintentional vertical movement.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with subject movement so a subject going up and down will not effect it in any way... it all about camera movement. Canon will work in any one plane if set to panning and both if set on full IS
 
Chaz Photos said:
It has nothing to do with subject movement so a subject going up and down will not effect it in any way... it all about camera movement. Canon will work in any one plane if set to panning and both if set on full IS
Click to expand...

It will affect it if you are trying to track the subject going up and down! I should have been more clear! The Canon system works pretty much the same as other systems with a panning option.
 
Robbo said:
basically, is it worth paying £400 extra to get the IS on the 70-200mm F4L?
Click to expand...

I guess that's up to you to decide. The IS version of the f4 is a different lens in more ways than the IS system though, it was redesigned when they added the IS.
 
Scarecrow said:
The general rule of thumb to avoid camera shake is to use a shutter speed of 1/focal length or faster. So for a 200mm lens that would be 1/200. Some might say that you should also take in to account the crop facter, so that would be 1/320 or faster. If you are able to use 1/500, you shouldn't have a problem shooting without IS.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to factor in the crop factor with this as well. Using the 200mm example and a typical Canon crop factor of ~1.6, this would give 1/(200*1.6) = 1/320th.

<edit> Oops, just saw Kaouthia's (John's) post above, sorry for the repetition!
 
grotty said:
I guess that's up to you to decide. The IS version of the f4 is a different lens in more ways than the IS system though, it was redesigned when they added the IS.
Click to expand...

That's a good point - the IS version is meant to be sharper, but then it is quite a different lens. As to how much sharper, tests don't seem to say it's massively sharper, just a bit...
 
If i wanted the extra reach of a 300mm etc would you say that this is a good comparision to look at

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

I know it will be slightly slower at the 300mm end, but the reviews I have seen look quite good. Would this be a good option considering money etc.
 
IS is definitely worth it (except on wide angle). The longer the lens, the more useful it is, and it really helps with manual focus as the image in the view finder isn't sliding all over the place!
 
I just recently had to choose between the 70-200 f4 L and 70-200 f4 L IS, and I'm very glad I went for the IS version. It is more expensive but if you will be using it handheld mostly, I'd say it's definitely worth it.

With it being an F4 as opposed to F/2.8, unless you are in really good lighting conditions, its much harder to get a sharp image without IS handheld, and even in good lighting, the IS helps a lot especially at 150-200mm focal range. It's a 4 stop IS system which makes it usable at relatively slow shutter speeds, and can be the difference between getting that sharp shot and not.

What I found with the IS on this lens was that it made the viewfinder so much more stable than without IS on........a lot more noticable than other older IS lenses I've used. As others have mentioned also, it is a different and sharper lens than the non IS anyway and I'm thoroughly impressed with it so far.
 
I've had no problems for the last 5 years on my Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S that doesn't have VR, and I almost never have it turned on with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR - I mostly shoot handheld with both, rarely on a tripod.
 
It would seem to come down to:

- Sharpness - IS version is a newer design and sharper, but maybe not that much better than non-IS
- The IS itself - minimal benefit on outdoor action shots, but a big benefit on indoor and low-light hand-held - depends on what the OP is going to be doing most as whether this really is a deal breaker.
- Weather sealing - irrelevant on the 450D, but good for future proofing if you get a xD.
- Price!

Andy
 
I have been debating the 70-200 IS non IS question for a long time and reading this has been so helpfull.

To me you only really benefit from IS if you are wanting to capture slow moving or static subjects in low light... If things are moving to fast that forces a slow shutter speed of less than 1/200 you prob wont freeze a fast moving object anyway... unless your panning and your amazing at it!

I'm going to go for the IS version... but more because I do landscape and travel and it has its benefits there and also simply because they say its better!

Mark
 
Landscape is tripod territory, IS is worthless for that.
 
There is only one reason not to get the IS version, and that is cost. There are no other downside of any practical significance.

IS will not solve all your shutter speed problems of course, but for most people, a lot of the time, it will go a long way.

On the hand holding rule, yes it's the effective focal length that matters - the magnification, including the crop factor, and bear in mind that if you crop an image that is also increasing the magnification. If you crop 50% of the frame, that's an effective 1.4x focal length increase on top.

The other thing I would say is that camera shake is always present and all that a fast shutter speed does is reduce the effect to an acceptable level. Camera shake doesn't just magically disappear above a certain shutter speed and it is always there nibbling away at micro-detail. TBH, if you want to get the most out of a high-res sensor and also see the full benefit of buying an L lens, then I don't think the focal length rule is actually tight enough, and IS will benefit ultimate sharpness above the level of the rule.

Plus you've got the benefit of a stabilised viewfinder image, which helps a lot if you're trying to frame accurately.

I have the 70-200L 4 IS :D
 
To be quite frank I wouldn't be without IS.

I recently bought a 100mm Macro and was totally amazed at how it jittered back and forth without IS.

And that's only 100mm and I was using it to shoot portraits.

It showed me how crap I was at holding a lens steady (which I already knew) but it also showed me how good the IS was on my other lenses.

On the 70-300mm IS USM lens I have it's absolutely essential.

I have got good shots on a 75-300mm non IS lens but only at shutter speeds of over 1/500 sec.

So I would say go for IS every time.

Oddly enough I would say that DOESN'T apply to the 100mm IS L Macro if you are always going to use it for ultra close ups on a tripod.

Since you have to turn off the IS when using a tripod there is no need for the IS and the normal 100mm Macro will be perfect.
 
I think most modern IS systems will know when the camera is on a tripod and adjust themselves accordingly. But I do agree that if you have a choice of IS or no IS, and money isn't an overriding consideration, then do go for IS every time.

You can always switch something off...
 
I tend to think of IS/VR not as 'anti shake' but more a case of 'lower speeds allowed'.

With that in mind I think it's a real advantage.

The amount of times I've set my aperture to it's widest at the end of the day - checked the shutter speed I need and just thought (when shooting moving subjects) that's the end of my day.......

I used to think IS/VR was all about 'wobble free' results but for me it's a speed thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top