Camera shake / IS

[Dolby]

Obviously the longer the lens, it's better to have IS to counter camera shake - but guessing the inverse is true.

At what point is IS pointless on a wider lens?
I see the 24-70 2.8 doesn't have ... is there a general rule of thumb like 70+?
My 28 and the 50 I'm using also don't

 

[koffiejunkie]

I don't think it ever becomes irrelevant. The 1/f rule isn't linear, and is based on perception. When you shoot at say, 200mm, the perceived movement is more because your subject is faster, and say, a 1º camera movement translates to a longer distance. But on the shorter end it never disappears. The perceived (or observed rather) movement is just less. I have some fairly good shots at 10mm and 1/10 or lower, but you still have to be pretty steady. With higher resolution sensors, the number of pixels covered by the same amount of shake gets more and more, so if anything, IS is becoming more relevant.

I'm hoping that Canon will grace the next 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS. I don't know why Sigma didn't. I have the 24-105mm f/4 which has IS, and I can tell you it's saved my shots a few times at 24mm.

 

[Dolby]

THanks Koffie.

I did actually read somewhere that camera shake and sensor/density are related - which I didn't know before. I'd also be very keen for that 24-70mm (once finances are resolved - urgh!) and the lack of IS did put me off .... but I thought Canon runs a lens for years before updating.

So I think as soon as I can, I will ...

 

[koffiejunkie]

I did actually read somewhere that camera shake and sensor/density are related - which I didn't know before.

Well, shake is not related to anything other than shake. The perception of how much shake there is, gets bigger the more pixels there are.

I'd also be very keen for that 24-70mm (once finances are resolved - urgh!) and the lack of IS did put me off .... but I thought Canon runs a lens for years before updating

Canon is widely rumoured to have an update to the 24-70mm ready to be released in the not to distant future. Weather or not it will have IS remains to be seen.

 

[bwana]

If what you shoot lends it self to IS then it might be worth it but if not you could be paying for something you don't really need.

 

[MadMailMan]

If what you shoot lends it self to IS then it might be worth it but if not you could be paying for something you don't really need.

Not only not need but may actually make your pictures worse. An example is if you use a tripod for any real close-up or macro then it's best to turn off the IS. The IS vibration can cause issues. Or so I have heard.

 

[hilton]

Dolby, just quite smoking and drinking and you'll be fine.