IS versus wide aperature??

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by 250Gimp, Nov 14, 2006.

  1. 250Gimp

    250Gimp TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chelsea, Quebec
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'm hopping you guys can help me out with a lense choice.

    I am ready to upgrade my lense and I was considering going with a canon IS lense but now I am second guessing myself. :(

    Does an IS lense work better than a lense with a wider aperature? For instance the lense I was considering is the EF 28-135 IS USM f3.5-5.6. Would a f2.8 or f4 lense work as well or better because of the wider aperature throughout?

    I hope this question is clear enough. :confused:

    Cheers
     
  2. Big Mike

    Big Mike I am Big, I am Mike Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    33,822
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    What will you be using the lens for? IS is great...but is not quite the same as having a bigger aperture.

    IS is great for shooting hand held in low light (wedding photographer in a church)...or maybe on vacation when you want to travel light and get scenic shots without a tripod etc. It is really good for a long telephoto and shooting nature etc.

    However...IS will not help you freeze motion blur. So it you are shooting kids, sports etc...you will still need faster shutter speeds to freeze the action.

    Given the choice...a 2.8 zoom would be better than the 28-135 IS USM.
     
  3. Tiberius

    Tiberius TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    IS only works for taking pictures of things that aren't moving. It allows you to use longer exposures, but to freeze motion there's no way except larger apertures and shorter shutter speeds.
     
  4. Jeff Canes

    Jeff Canes No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    6,190
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Hollywood, FLA USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    IS lenses do have setting for side to side panning but I not sure how much it helps, if at all
     
  5. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,603
    Likes Received:
    137
    The question is IS vs. a tripod, not IS vs. a wide aperture. Aperture affects not only exposure but also depth of field. You can prevent camera shake with a tripod or with IS (or both.) Using a wide aperture when a narrow aperture is what you doesn't really solve the problem. Aperture is a different thing for different purposes.
     
  6. Tiberius

    Tiberius TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Not really. IS is designed as a replacement for a Tripod - allowing the use of longer shutter speeds without blur from camera shake. For the effects of this argument, IS == Tripod. The argument could just as well be Tripod vs. Wide Aperture. His argument is for hand-held shooting - which is preferrable to some people. And it varies. If you need to freeze motion you need a wide aperture period. If you don't, it depends on if you want shallow DOF (Wide Aperture) or more DOF (IS / Tripod).
     
  7. 250Gimp

    250Gimp TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chelsea, Quebec
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks for all the feeback guys.

    Tiberius is right in that I will be mostly shooting hand held which is why I am considering IS. Right now most of my shots are nature/ landscapes, so it sounds like IS may be the right thing for me. I just wasn't sure if the added shutter speed of the wider aperature would allow me to shoot hand held as well as the IS.
    Cheers :cheers:
     
  8. Tiberius

    Tiberius TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Either can work. One thing to consider is that the f/2.8 lenses are much larger and heavier than slower IS lenses (The f/2.8 IS glass being another matter itself) and require substantially different technique to properly shoot.

    Consider this: People have been getting razor-sharp images handheld without IS/VR for 30 years. Good techinque can do far more than IS ever will; IS just makes it easier.

    As to myself, I'm saving up for a Nikon 80-200f/2.8 instead of the 70-300VR. I consider the better optics and faster aperture far more useful than VR, but that's just me.
     

Share This Page