If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I am considering purchasing either a Canon Rebel XTi or a Nikon D80, after using an Olympus 750 for several years. The lense selection for Canon has image stabilization lenses for considerably more than "normal" lenses, ie, 75-300 mm for $200 USD or a stabilized 70-300 mm for $550 USD. As an average amateur, what would be the advantage in a stabilized lense if I shoot mainly in Jpeg mode?
Dick
I am considering purchasing either a Canon Rebel XTi or a Nikon D80, after using an Olympus 750 for several years. The lense selection for Canon has image stabilization lenses for considerably more than "normal" lenses, ie, 75-300 mm for $200 USD or a stabilized 70-300 mm for $550 USD. As an average amateur, what would be the advantage in a stabilized lense if I shoot mainly in Jpeg mode?
Dick
Hi Dick,
In my opinion, it depends on several factors, how steady is your hand, what conditions will you be shooting in etc.
Personally, at least to begin with I would (and have) gone for the unstabilised one, and invest in a monopod. A monopod would be about 50 USD and offers enough stabilisation for a lot of my wildlife pictures.
Have a look at my gallery here, and at my deviantart site to see some of the results if you like:
I purchased a second hand 75-300mm a couple of years back, and have used this for the majority of my shots, and have found it to be an excellent lense. Indeed, I have yet to find myself 'wanting' anything more at this stage. I used this to begin with on my 300D, and now on my 350D.
Dick i can't speak for Canon , but Nikon has the VR (vibration reduction ) lense , same principal as the IS system .
With the newer version it allows you to shoot at 4 stop increase in shutter speeds , which means that if a normal lense gives you a shutter speed of 1/30sec (dark conditions perhaps ) then the IS will give you 1/80sec , don't sound much but will make all the difference on handheld low light shoots, and eliminate a lot a camera shake .
There are known issues about using them on mono or tripods .
The system expects some movement so when it's stable it over compensates and you could actually get a shaky shot while on a pod , so turn it off while using them .
I've got 4 VR lenses and i can recommend them , but there not miracle cures for bad technique , but they help in low light and while panning .
Hope this helps , even from a Nikon guy
I am considering purchasing either a Canon Rebel XTi or a Nikon D80, after using an Olympus 750 for several years. The lense selection for Canon has image stabilization lenses for considerably more than "normal" lenses, ie, 75-300 mm for $200 USD or a stabilized 70-300 mm for $550 USD. As an average amateur, what would be the advantage in a stabilized lense if I shoot mainly in Jpeg mode?
Dick
Hi Dick, I'm somewhat puzzled by your last sentence
The format in which you shoot has no bearing on the stabilised/non stabilised lens issue.
The fact is that the Canon IS system indeed the equivalent Nikon VR system etc will give you the ability to shoot at a slower shutter speed or to increase the aperture by a couple of stops. Now depending on what you are shooting or the conditions you are shooting under, this can be very important. If you get more keepers as a result then the extra investment could be worth it.
As Ben says though, using a monopod, even a tripod will help greatly
I am considering purchasing either a Canon Rebel XTi or a Nikon D80, after using an Olympus 750 for several years. The lense selection for Canon has image stabilization lenses for considerably more than "normal" lenses, ie, 75-300 mm for $200 USD or a stabilized 70-300 mm for $550 USD. As an average amateur, what would be the advantage in a stabilized lense if I shoot mainly in Jpeg mode?
Dick
An issue I found using my stabilized lenses, I have two a Canon 28-135 f3.5-F5.6 and a Sigma 80-400 f4.5-f5.6 is that without fail I forget to switch off the stabilizer when using a tripod, and have spoiled many shots.
So discipline yourself if you buy one.
I took to leaving the stabilizer switched off so I am selling the Canon lens and have purchased a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 both are constant aperture through the zoom range, this effectively gives me 1 to 2 stops to make up for there being no stabilizer, that is the hope. I routinely use a monopod anyway, so fingers crossed.
Patrick
PS As I write this the postman has just delivered the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 dispatched from Mifsuds in Devon yesterday, the most competitive price I found in the UK and very friendly with it. I will post a result later today from this lens.
This is quite a confusing thread, and deserves some elucidation in order to clear up said confusion.
If nobody minds I'd like to take this on.
Dick. The big problem with narrow angle of view lenses (telephoto for the sake of this discussion) is that any movement is seen as being far greater than with a wider a.o.v. lenses.
Look at a scene through a pair of 6x40 binoculars. Easy to see, no serious movement of the image. Borrow somebody else's 20x100 bino's, and even discounting the weight, it's pretty B. difficult to get a steady image.
You are moving the physical piece of plastic in your hand the same amount, there is exactly the same angle of movement if you lay a protractor along the lens axis, but the "long" lens has a *much* narrower field of view than the shorter lens. Therefore the angle of movement (of the lens) is a greater proportion of the total angle of view. Hence the far greater perceived "shake".
It matters not who you are, that shake is there, it is only the degree of shake that differs. A fit young person stolling round the park will have less shake than I would (old and mildly overweight ) if I had just hiked up a hillside.
Now. The very best way with a camera (or a pair of bino's for that matter, {see the bird watching forums}) to reduce or even eliminate that "shake" is with a tripod. The best tripod is very heavy, very rigid and probably very close to the ground. Even then, there are techniques to improve on that performance.
It's not always convenient to use that heavy tripod; sporting events, wildlife, weddings, parties etc.
Many of us compromise with a lighter, taller, less rigid tripod or even a monopod.
Those of us to whom the use of the lens is essential and the lack of support is a fact of the style of shooting assignment, go out and buy a lens with image stabilisation.
I have paraphrased part of the following from the March issue of Professional Photographer as they use far more lucid English than I)
All these lenses work the same way. The lens contains a group of elements that have two motions sensors attached. One of these sensors senses yaw and the other pitch. (Side to side; and up and down motion).
These sensors detect the movement of the lens within these parameters.
Without getting too techie, the sensors inform a cpu within the lens (a camera with IS works the same way) and tells it how much the lens is moving and in which axis. The CPU directs little motors that actually move the IS (or VR if you've bought a proper camera ) group of elements to a position that counter-effect the lens movement. This process is continuous, with the detection/adjustment process typically taking less than 1/1000 sec.
Now. With a lens that is not stabilised, the rule of thumb is that the minimum shutter speed is the reciprocal of the lens' focal length. So a 200mm lens should be used with a shutter speed of less than 1/200 sec. A 50mm lens can be used with a speed of 1/50th and so on. (Again, these are only rule of thumb and depend on the age/fitness/exertion comparison I used above.)
A stabilised lens allows you (all parameters {age/fitness/etc} being equal) to use a slower shutter speed than a none stabilised lens. There are various claims, but the average seems to be about 3 or 4 stops slower.
What this means is that if your exposure should be (say) f5.6 at 1/30th sec. you would perhaps not bother with an unstabilised lens without a sturdy tripod. (Say a 200mm focal length is called for, you should be using at the slowest 1/200th.) However, your stabilised lens offers you an extra 3 stops. So a speed of 1/30th is feasible. Perhaps you wanted to use a smaller f stop. With a stabilised lens you could use a slower shutter speed to maintain your exposure value.
HOWEVER This is not guaranteed. So it's generally reckoned that only a percentage of your shots will be shake free. (Actually, have reduced shake.) Therefore, to be sure of getting a good shot, you need to take several of each scene and hope that one of them is sharp.
IS does not work where the camera is secured, as on a tripod, so you should switch it off when using a tripod, monopod, or even a convenient wall.
If you're still with me, there is no such thing as an average amateur and you really ought to look at your picture taking habits before choosing a lens.
If you take lots of sports pics, wildlife pics etc., where you need a longer lens and you can't afford to use a tripod, then go for a stabilised lens.
If using a tripod will not hinder your photography, use the difference in dollars to buy the best tripod you can. You WILL get better pics.
I could write a longer article on this subject but don't want to bore you. If you want any more info let me know and I'll email you.
Hope this helps.
Jim
ps. Not *only* Cannoon make stabilised lenses!! Look at Nikon, and also Olympus and Pentax where the *Camera* is IS and the lenses just work well!) However, if those prices you quoted are real, can I be your import partner in the UK?
This is quite a confusing thread, and deserves some elucidation in order to clear up said confusion.
If nobody minds I'd like to take this on.
Dick. The big problem with narrow angle of view lenses (telephoto for the sake of this discussion) is that any movement is seen as being far greater than with a wider a.o.v. lenses.
Look at a scene through a pair of 6x40 binoculars. Easy to see, no serious movement of the image. Borrow somebody else's 20x100 bino's, and even discounting the weight, it's pretty B. difficult to get a steady image.
You are moving the physical piece of plastic in your hand the same amount, there is exactly the same angle of movement if you lay a protractor along the lens axis, but the "long" lens has a *much* narrower field of view than the shorter lens. Therefore the angle of movement (of the lens) is a greater proportion of the total angle of view. Hence the far greater perceived "shake".
It matters not who you are, that shake is there, it is only the degree of shake that differs. A fit young person stolling round the park will have less shake than I would (old and mildly overweight ) if I had just hiked up a hillside.
Now. The very best way with a camera (or a pair of bino's for that matter, {see the bird watching forums}) to reduce or even eliminate that "shake" is with a tripod. The best tripod is very heavy, very rigid and probably very close to the ground. Even then, there are techniques to improve on that performance.
It's not always convenient to use that heavy tripod; sporting events, wildlife, weddings, parties etc.
Many of us compromise with a lighter, taller, less rigid tripod or even a monopod.
Those of us to whom the use of the lens is essential and the lack of support is a fact of the style of shooting assignment, go out and buy a lens with image stabilisation.
I have paraphrased part of the following from the March issue of Professional Photographer as they use far more lucid English than I)
All these lenses work the same way. The lens contains a group of elements that have two motions sensors attached. One of these sensors senses yaw and the other pitch. (Side to side; and up and down motion).
These sensors detect the movement of the lens within these parameters.
Without getting too techie, the sensors inform a cpu within the lens (a camera with IS works the same way) and tells it how much the lens is moving and in which axis. The CPU directs little motors that actually move the IS (or VR if you've bought a proper camera ) group of elements to a position that counter-effect the lens movement. This process is continuous, with the detection/adjustment process typically taking less than 1/1000 sec.
Now. With a lens that is not stabilised, the rule of thumb is that the minimum shutter speed is the reciprocal of the lens' focal length. So a 200mm lens should be used with a shutter speed of less than 1/200 sec. A 50mm lens can be used with a speed of 1/50th and so on. (Again, these are only rule of thumb and depend on the age/fitness/exertion comparison I used above.)
A stabilised lens allows you (all parameters {age/fitness/etc} being equal) to use a slower shutter speed than a none stabilised lens. There are various claims, but the average seems to be about 3 or 4 stops slower.
What this means is that if your exposure should be (say) f5.6 at 1/30th sec. you would perhaps not bother with an unstabilised lens without a sturdy tripod. (Say a 200mm focal length is called for, you should be using at the slowest 1/200th.) However, your stabilised lens offers you an extra 3 stops. So a speed of 1/30th is feasible. Perhaps you wanted to use a smaller f stop. With a stabilised lens you could use a slower shutter speed to maintain your exposure value.
HOWEVER This is not guaranteed. So it's generally reckoned that only a percentage of your shots will be shake free. (Actually, have reduced shake.) Therefore, to be sure of getting a good shot, you need to take several of each scene and hope that one of them is sharp.
IS does not work where the camera is secured, as on a tripod, so you should switch it off when using a tripod, monopod, or even a convenient wall.
If you're still with me, there is no such thing as an average amateur and you really ought to look at your picture taking habits before choosing a lens.
If you take lots of sports pics, wildlife pics etc., where you need a longer lens and you can't afford to use a tripod, then go for a stabilised lens.
If using a tripod will not hinder your photography, use the difference in dollars to buy the best tripod you can. You WILL get better pics.
I could write a longer article on this subject but don't want to bore you. If you want any more info let me know and I'll email you.
Hope this helps.
Jim
ps. Not *only* Cannoon make stabilised lenses!! Look at Nikon, and also Olympus and Pentax where the *Camera* is IS and the lenses just work well!) However, if those prices you quoted are real, can I be your import partner in the UK?
Thank you Jim, coupekid, bigbob, stephen, patrick for all your expertise and advice. I wasn't sure what stabilization did for lenses or how.
I really appreciate the quick responses to a question. I am still looking for a forum like this on computers for idiosyncrasies that bug me. I have written to magazines and newspapers for several months and have yet to get a response. It seems if it is something minor, it is ignored. Only high visibility problems are talked about. Anyway thanks again. Great forum.
Dick
Just wrote a longish reply and then IE crashed before I hit send .
Anyway, Jim's covered most things so I'll cut to the chase.
I had a Canon 75-300mm and replaced it with the 70-300mm IS (I'm assuming, at the prices you quote, that you're not referring to the DO version).
IS aside, the 70-300mm IS is, IMHO, superior to the 75-300mm in every respect. It's a really good lens and I'm more than happy with it (although I'd be tempted by Canon's 100-400mm offering if I could justify the cost )
As to the IS, it's improved my pictures taken at the long end, absolutely no doubt about that. The lens has two IS settings, one "normal" and the other for use when panning which just corrects for "up & down" movement allegedly - I've never really tested this though. I also believe the lens automatically switches off the IS when mounted on a tripod - not sure how that works but I'm sure it said so in the manual. I've certainly not noticed a problem when using a tripod with this lens - which I do regularly.
I also use a Canon EF-S 17-85mm with IS and, as with the 70-300mm, I leave the IS on all the time and again I've not noticed any issues when using it on a tripod (a very rare occurrence with this lens admittedly). Leaving the IS on drains the camera's battery faster though which is to be expected I guess.
Stuart answer has reminded me of two things left off most replies , the battery drain and panning .
The VR or IS system does use battery power , but in the 3+ years i've been using them i've never run out of power even after a 200+ RAW wedding shoot .
Panning ? well the VR system has a ''active'' setting as well as normal this appently takes into account sideways movement as well and is used for panning and while shooting from an unstable or moving object , ie from a car or boat .
As for the system turning itself off when connected to a pod , the Nikon has no such system you have to turn off manually .
I checked the manuals for my 70-300mm and 17-85mm IS lenses this morning and I'm wrong , the IS doesn't switch off automatically when you attach the camera to a tripod (if you listen carefully you can hear the servo motors running when you take up the first pressure on the shutter release).
However the manuals only advise you to switch off the IS when using a tripod to "conserve battery power" so I'm assuming that there is no detrimental effect if you leave it switched on. IIRC, I've read that some of the older IS lenses used to vibrate like mad when connected to a tripod with the IS left switched on.
Why am I indoors on the computer on a lovely day like this? My batteries have just run out . I use 2 NB2-LH batteries in a BG-E3 battery grip and they seem to last forever. Still I'm glad they ran out now - before we go out for the afternoon! I do have 6 AAs and a holder that fits the BG-E3 in my camera bag for emergencies but I'm not sure how long they would last so I'm giving the main batteries a quick 30 mins each.
Looking forward to the first BBQ of the year tonight - 'er indoors had just come back from Tescos with some nice looking trout...
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalise advertising, and to analyse site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
) if I had just hiked up a hillside.
This is not guaranteed. 
So it's generally reckoned that only a percentage of your shots will be shake free. (Actually, have reduced shake.) Therefore, to be sure of getting a good shot, you need to take several of each scene and hope that one of them is sharp.
.
)
, the IS doesn't switch off automatically when you attach the camera to a tripod (if you listen carefully you can hear the servo motors running when you take up the first pressure on the shutter release). 
Tweet
Comment