Image Stabilizer?

[jeremyboycool]

Is a image stabilizer something I should look for in a lens?

or could I maybe do with out it to save money?

 

[JIP]

I thnk thats all a matter of your personal prefrence and budget.

 

[Jeff Canes]

it mostly only helps with low shutter speeds, so if you do not shot handheld at low shutter speeds, you could maybe not need it

 

[jeremyboycool]

Well in cases where you need low shutter speed how much does it help?

Does it help a lot?

Like if I want to do low light and night time shots.

 

[tempra]

It allows you to shoot 2-3 stops slower than you would normally without getting camera shake, however if your subject is moving a slow shutter speed will mean that they will blur.

If it's people or moving objects that you want to shoot in low light then a wide aperture lens would help more than IS as that allows you to shoot a faster shutter speed - combine the two and your laughing, or crying because of the cost

 

[jeremyboycool]

Thanks! guys!

 

[TamiyaGuy]

I would personally not recommend an anti-shake camera if it could save you money, however, most decent cameras nowadays already have it. I wouldn't use it alot, as I prefer a tripod anytime. Although sometimes, you might need to use it (for example in action shots), so it's a neat thing to have if it won't cost more.

 

[highwoodhiker]

Although sometimes, you might need to use it (for example in action shots), so it's a neat thing to have if it won't cost more.

IS is used to enable the use of slower shutter speeds for handheld photography only, not the use of slower shutter speeds overall. It is of no benefit whatsoever while using the fast shutter speeds of action shots.

 

[ScenicBC]

Personally I can't imagine being without my Canon Image Stabilized lenses. I do a lot of shooting from a moving boat. As everyone else has stated its best for slow shutter speeds, they are also great for portraits.

 

[AdamZx3]

I have a Nikon 70-300 vr lens and I couldn't live without image stabilizer for low shutter speed shots. If theres plenty of light for a high shutter, than I switch it off to save batteries. If you can afford an IS/VR version of a lens I would go for it. It can save your hide in a situation where a tripod or a good rest isn't available.

Heres a real world example of a low light, low shutter speed shot,

f-5, at 1/15 with iso 400 at 300mm on a Nikon D80

at 100% crop:

And a 800x500 crop

 

[PhotoPhoenix]

i use a 17-85efs lens that has image stabalize and it's pretty sweet when i need it. i would recommend lenses that use it although they usually run more in price..

 

[MACollum]

Thanks for the before and after, Adam. Before I didn't really think it'd make much of a difference, but seeing is believing...

 

[jeremyboycool]

Thanks for the great advice!

And thanks for the pictures AdamZx3, shows the difference IS can make.

I realized last night that my powershot has IS so I'll mess around with some.

 

[Garbz]

Remember it only compensates for the hand. IS doesn't make a fast lens and will not stop motion of people moving.

Given the choice between an IS lens at f/5.6 and a non-IS lens at f/2.8 I will always take the f/2.8 option. Worst comes to worst steadying the camera on a tripod, monopod, someone's back, a wall etc can have the same effect as IS.

 

[AdamZx3]

No prob guys, I never knew how big of a help it was either, I figured it would just give it an edge over the non VR version...Now if only I could afford the 70-200 2.8 vr lens

Given the choice between an IS lens at f/5.6 and a non-IS lens at f/2.8 I will always take the f/2.8 option.

Very true, plus the 2.8 can stop motion faster.


I also have a question regarding Image stabilization..... Is there a rule that you use to know when to turn off the VR/IS system? would the standard saying "300mm needs a 1/300 shutter speed to be sharp" work ??? I always leave it on at full zoom and shut it off at 1/160 or so when i'm at 70mm.