About (IS) Image stabilization

[zoom]

I've just checked up for lenses for canon cameras and they are quite expensive if contain IS feature. However ones which don't have this feature such as sony's lenses, are not expensive as much as canon's.
Now i wonder that if i buy a lens without IS feature, is it too hard to use it without tripod ?

I thought that rather than buy a canon camera , it's better to go and buy a sony camera with "super SteadyShot" feature. Thus i can save money with lenses which i'll buy later.

What you think about that ? I'm very indecisive between sony and canon.
If i choose canon, i'll buy 450D , if choose sony , alpha 200 or 300.
Also if you comment these two camera, it will be good.

 

[Village Idiot]

I've just checked up for lenses for canon cameras and they are quite expensive if contain IS feature. However ones which don't have this feature such as sony's lenses, are not expensive as much as canon's.
Now i wonder that if i buy a lens without IS feature, is it too hard to use it without tripod ?

I thought that rather than buy a canon camera , it's better to go and buy a sony camera with "super SteadyShot" feature. Thus i can save money with lenses which i'll buy later.

What you think about that ? I'm very indecisive between sony and canon.
If i choose canon, i'll buy 450D , if choose sony , alpha 200 or 300.
Also if you comment these two camera, it will be good.

It really depends on the lens. A Sony 70-200 f/2.8 is listed at $1799 on B&H while a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKI is listed at $1,899. Not much more. Sony 30mm f/2.8 is listed at $6,299 while Canon's is 2.8 with IS is $4,299.

What lenses are you looking at?

 

[zoom]

I've just checked up for lenses for canon cameras and they are quite expensive if contain IS feature. However ones which don't have this feature such as sony's lenses, are not expensive as much as canon's.
Now i wonder that if i buy a lens without IS feature, is it too hard to use it without tripod ?

I thought that rather than buy a canon camera , it's better to go and buy a sony camera with "super SteadyShot" feature. Thus i can save money with lenses which i'll buy later.

What you think about that ? I'm very indecisive between sony and canon.
If i choose canon, i'll buy 450D , if choose sony , alpha 200 or 300.
Also if you comment these two camera, it will be good.

It really depends on the lens. A Sony 70-200 f/2.8 is listed at $1799 on B&H while a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKI is listed at $1,899. Not much more. Sony 30mm f/2.8 is listed at $6,299 while Canon's is 2.8 with IS is $4,299.

What lenses are you looking at?

Strange ! Then quality of lenses actually define the price, doesn't it ?

I've looked at sony's 100mm f/2.8 and canon's 100mm f/2.8L IS
There is price difference about $220

 

[Village Idiot]

I've just checked up for lenses for canon cameras and they are quite expensive if contain IS feature. However ones which don't have this feature such as sony's lenses, are not expensive as much as canon's.
Now i wonder that if i buy a lens without IS feature, is it too hard to use it without tripod ?

I thought that rather than buy a canon camera , it's better to go and buy a sony camera with "super SteadyShot" feature. Thus i can save money with lenses which i'll buy later.

What you think about that ? I'm very indecisive between sony and canon.
If i choose canon, i'll buy 450D , if choose sony , alpha 200 or 300.
Also if you comment these two camera, it will be good.

It really depends on the lens. A Sony 70-200 f/2.8 is listed at $1799 on B&H while a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKI is listed at $1,899. Not much more. Sony 30mm f/2.8 is listed at $6,299 while Canon's is 2.8 with IS is $4,299.

What lenses are you looking at?

Strange ! Then quality of lenses actually define the price, doesn't it ?

I've looked at sony's 100mm f/2.8 and canon's 100mm f/2.8L IS
There is price difference about $220

That's not that big of a difference in the overall scope of things.

You should really ask yourself what your goals are and what you envision shooting.

Sony's not quite up to par with Canon's higher end cameras, but we're talking if you're planning on spending around $2000+ for a camera.

I've spent about $500 lens on buying my Canon lenses than I would have with Sony equivalents or lenses that are close.

 

[Big Mike]

In many ways, it is an advantage to have a camera with built in stabilization because you have that feature with every lens. Sony, Pentax & others use this system.

Canon & Nikon however, put the stabilization is the lens, which means that you have to pay for it with each lens. That is maybe a disadvantage, but Canon & Nikon would probably tell you that lens stabilization works better.

Now i wonder that if i buy a lens without IS feature, is it too hard to use it without tripod ?

No, not really. Remember that stabilization is a fairly recent addition to photography...and people have been taking sharp photos for well over 100 years.

The key to remember about stabilization, is that it gives you more leeway for shooting with the camera in your hands. In other words, it helps to fight blur from camera shake. It usually gives you two to three extra stops of 'hold-ability'. It won't guarantee that you get sharp shots, it just helps. It also won't help to freeze the motion of a moving subject...only a faster shutter speed can do that.

So when choosing a lens, it's should be more desirable to have a large max aperture (low F number) than to have IS/VR etc.

 

[zoom]

Actually i've thought again that it's better to go with Canon.
Two different lenses i've found which i can afford.
First one is ; Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
And second one is ; Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

If i ask you which one is better you'll probably ask me what do you want to shoot.
As far as i know low values mean wide angle and are used for landscape photos, right ?

Actually i want to capture people's photo (portrait or full body), streets and some objects i find strange. Of course i want to focut on what i'm shooting and make the background blurry. I think there is no big difference between F3.5 and F4 rigt ?

Also i'm concerned about the distance i have to stand to capture objects with minimum 28mm and 55mm, because i have never used a dslr camera before.
Can you please give an approximate distance.

 

[Big Mike]

Neither of those lenses will give you a particuallrily wide view, especialy not the 55-200mm.

I assume you will be looking at something in the Canon Rebel series, or maybe a 50D? If so, I'd suggest something that starts at 17 or 18mm. The EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS, is a decent lens, and there is a newer one, the EF-S 15-85mm IS.
The only problem with those lenses, is that they don't have a large max aperutre, which makes it harder to get a shallow DOF (background blurry) and makes it harder to get faster shutter speeds.

One solution would be to also get something like the 50mm F1.8. With a large aperture of F1.8, it's very handy to have when you need it.

Another option would be to get a zoom lens with a max aperture of F2.8. Check out the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.

 

[KmH]

In many ways, it is an advantage to have a camera with built in stabilization because you have that feature with every lens. Sony, Pentax & others use this system.

Canon & Nikon however, put the stabilization is the lens, which means that you have to pay for it with each lens. That is maybe a disadvantage, but Canon & Nikon would probably tell you that lens stabilization works better.

Canon and Nikon use in-the-lens stabilization because there is physically more room in the lens for the mechanism and also for the mechanism to move.

In-the-body stabilization systems are much more limited in their range of motion and space for the mechanism is very limited.

Consider! If your in-the-camera IS system craps out, none of your lenses will IS. However, if you have in-the-lens IS and it craps out in a lens, you can change to another IS lens, get closer or farther away and still have IS.

Personally, I opt for in-the-lens IS.

 

[zoom]

Neither of those lenses will give you a particuallrily wide view, especialy not the 55-200mm.

I assume you will be looking at something in the Canon Rebel series, or maybe a 50D? If so, I'd suggest something that starts at 17 or 18mm. The EF-S 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS, is a decent lens, and there is a newer one, the EF-S 15-85mm IS.
The only problem with those lenses, is that they don't have a large max aperutre, which makes it harder to get a shallow DOF (background blurry) and makes it harder to get faster shutter speeds.

One solution would be to also get something like the 50mm F1.8. With a large aperture of F1.8, it's very handy to have when you need it.

Another option would be to get a zoom lens with a max aperture of F2.8. Check out the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.

You're right about aperture value but ones you've suggested me are very expensive relatively to ones i've chosen.

Actually i've looked at some photos on Flickr which were captured with these lenses (ones i've written on previous post) and they seems quite satisfactory to me. There is a nice blurry background on photos.
such as ;

New life on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (55-250 mm)

Pasta con pencas de acelga al aroma de limon on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (28-135 mm)

Also you talked about shutter speed. Is there any relationship between aperture size of lense and shutter speed ?

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, you can get a blurry background with those lenses, it's just harder. My main concern with those lenses, is still that they aren't very wide. That would be OK, if you added them to the standard 'kit' lens, the 18-55mm. Either way, if this is your first SLR camera and you aren't sure which lens you will want, I'd suggest just getting the kit lens to start with.

Is there any relationship between aperture size of lense and shutter speed ?

Yes, absolutely.
Exposure (making a photo) has three parts. The aperture (size of hole in lens), the shutter speed (length of time) and the ISO (sensitivity of the medium). They all play a part and are interconnected.

For example, you camera's light meter might tell you that for the light you have, you need exposure values of: F8, 1/60 & ISO 100. Now if you want a faster shutter speed, you could change it to 1/125 (twice as fast), but you would need to change another value to compensate...like changing the aperture to F5.6 (one stop bigger). Another step and you could change it to F4, making the correct shutter speed 1/250. Yet another stop and you go to F2.8 and a shutter speed of 1/500.

You can also turn up the ISO, which would allow you to increase the shutter speed, but the higher the ISO goes, the more digital noise/grain you will get. So the rule of thumb, is to only turn up the ISO when you need to keep the shutter speed high enough to prevent blur.

 

[zoom]

OK i've completely understood the context.

Actually i've thought to start with kit lens. However it's quite basic and people say that it's not qualified. Rather than pay for kit lens it's looks logical to add extra money and buy 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS , because both of them has same aperture sizes but this one allows me to shoot objects which are far away.
Can't i shoot a landscape or street with 28 mm ?
As i've asked before i'm not sure about exact distance between me and thing i shoot with 28 mm at least. For example can i capture my friend who sits in front of me ?

 

[icassell]

This tool from Tamron might give you some insight:

Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA


and this one from Canon:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html


and this one from Nikon:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/simulator/index.htm

 

[myfotoguy]

Ian- Thanks for the links. I was aware of the Tamron tool, but didn't know Canon and Nikon had one.

 

[Dao]

OK i've completely understood the context.

Actually i've thought to start with kit lens. However it's quite basic and people say that it's not qualified. Rather than pay for kit lens it's looks logical to add extra money and buy28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS , because both of them has same aperture sizes but this one allows me to shoot objects which are far away.
Can't i shoot a landscape or street with 28 mm ?
As i've asked before i'm not sure about exact distance between me and thing i shoot with 28 mm at least. For example can i capture my friend who sits in front of me ?

You may not know that the 28-135mm IS lens is a kit lens as well. That is the kit lens that shipped with my 40D. But I sold that lens.

Build quality wise, that is much better than the 18-55MM IS lens, however, optically the 18-55mm IS lens is better based on the reviews I read.


Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Review / Test Report

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS - Review / Test Report


Of course, you can use 28mm for landscape type shots. However a lot of people want something wider especially using the lens with a smaller (cropped) sensor body such as the XSi.

For the cost of 28-135mm IS lens, I'd rather buy a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 instead.

 

[zoom]

OK i've completely understood the context.

Actually i've thought to start with kit lens. However it's quite basic and people say that it's not qualified. Rather than pay for kit lens it's looks logical to add extra money and buy28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS , because both of them has same aperture sizes but this one allows me to shoot objects which are far away.
Can't i shoot a landscape or street with 28 mm ?
As i've asked before i'm not sure about exact distance between me and thing i shoot with 28 mm at least. For example can i capture my friend who sits in front of me ?

You may not know that the 28-135mm IS lens is a kit lens as well. That is the kit lens that shipped with my 40D. But I sold that lens.

Build quality wise, that is much better than the 18-55MM IS lens, however, optically the 18-55mm IS lens is better based on the reviews I read.


Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - Review / Test Report

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS - Review / Test Report


Of course, you can use 28mm for landscape type shots. However a lot of people want something wider especially using the lens with a smaller (cropped) sensor body such as the XSi.

For the cost of 28-135mm IS lens, I'd rather buy a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 instead.

Tamron is expensive for me.
It's better to visit a shop and try both lens to decide.
Thanks so much for every answer to everyone.