Optical stabilization

B

blue-eye-boy

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
5
Hi, So this month I start saving for a slr, I really want the canon 450d. So the kit lens has IS, but say I get another lens with it, how necessary is optical stabilization? For a zoom lens, something like 70-200 or 300?
 
jacqvt said:
Hi, So this month I start saving for a slr, I really want the canon 450d. So the kit lens has IS, but say I get another lens with it, how necessary is optical stabilization? For a zoom lens, something like 70-200 or 300?
Click to expand...

From the video POV, OIS is great. It really works well eliminating the shakes and with no loss of quality, unlike oncamera Digital IS. I also have the SteadiCam Merlin and FCP has an advanced SmoothCam function too, but OIS really shines in that it avoids the minor
shakes, while SteadiCam is great for fluid like movement. Like you say, it's part of the lens, in my case the Leica Dicomar, but soon to be Fujinon :).
For a decent fluid headed tripod (eg Cartoni) one should disable OIS if doing panning movements.

If video is to go by, it should be good for still photograhy too. :)
 
Last edited:
jacqvt said:
Hi, So this month I start saving for a slr, I really want the canon 450d. So the kit lens has IS, but say I get another lens with it, how necessary is optical stabilization? For a zoom lens, something like 70-200 or 300?
Click to expand...

I believe that the IS (electronic tripod) is invaluable, even on the wider zoom lens'.
My lens line-up is 10-22 ; 17-55 2.8 IS; and the 70-200 2.8 IS; with a 28 1.8 that gathers dust.
 
Last edited:
IS on lens is invaluable, especially on the zoom lens. Well worth the extra bucks and works much better than in-camera stabilisation. I read a white paper from Canon on this but cant find the link - did explain why they choose to go the IS lens route.
 
I spend the money on something else. Better glass, a flash, tripod, snickers bar, memory cads, etc . . .
 
sdd said:
IS on lens is invaluable, especially on the zoom lens. Well worth the extra bucks and works much better than in-camera stabilisation. I read a white paper from Canon on this but cant find the link - did explain why they choose to go the IS lens route.
Click to expand...
I cant understand why you say stabilization on a lens is not valuable? Isn't it necessary on a long zoom?
 
jacqvt said:
I cant understand why you say stabilization on a lens is not valuable? Isn't it necessary on a long zoom?
Click to expand...
he said it was invaluable - iow extremely useful - indispensable (although I would disagree with that).
 
sdd said:
and works much better than in-camera stabilisation. I read a white paper from Canon on this but cant find the link - did explain why they choose to go the IS lens route.
Click to expand...

Of Canon would say that. In my experience (I've owned both) they're roughly equal over-all, but they have different strengths and weaknesses.
 
Frankie said:
Obviously a personal choice to spend the extra on IS, and in my case I travel stacks and enjoy not having to carry a tripod.

Here's an example of a hand held shot with the 17-55 IS
http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=7125&cat=500
Click to expand...
I cobbled this together out of spare parts. iirc you can buy them off Amazon.com.

IMG00218.jpg
:D

EDIT - much more refined - http://www.amazon.com/Adorama-Bottle-Top-Support-Point-n-Shoot-Digital/dp/B000M81IVK :)
 
Last edited:
I think definitely I will spend the extra bucks for IS. Pay more today, and tomorrow you forgot the price tag and enjoy the quality.
 
jacqvt said:
Hi, So this month I start saving for a slr, I really want the canon 450d. So the kit lens has IS, but say I get another lens with it, how necessary is optical stabilization? For a zoom lens, something like 70-200 or 300?
Click to expand...

If you don't want the nuisance of walking around with a tripod all the time (which I wouldn't want to walk around with either), then get an IS lens.
 
mercurial said:
If you don't want the nuisance of walking around with a tripod all the time (which I wouldn't want to walk around with either), then get an IS lens.
Click to expand...
Use a monopod with a monopod bucket. Monopod doubles up as a weapon ;)

Here a 500 IS with this setup.

71489988_BPCYS-M.jpg


I am very happy using it with a Sigma 50-500 (no IS).
 
Amusingly, the 70-200 2.8 IS is not as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 or either of the f/4 models, according to a few reviews I've read.

For some more amusement, both the 17-40 f/4L and the 17-55 f/2.8 at 24mm outperforms the 24mm f/1.4L :eek: Zooms have certainly come a long way...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X