How important is an image stabilizer in lens for beginners handling the camera

crazyclicks · Jul 13, 2011

Hi all,

I own a EOS Rebel T1i EF-S which came with an Cannon 18-55mm lens which did not have an image stabilizer with it. I did see that there was bit of noise when i used the camera but eventually it settled down as i used it more and more. Having said that i plan to have some additions done to my lens kit mainly going for 75-300 lens, but i am wondering if it is good idea to have a lens with image stabilizer or one without it. Also is it a prudent choice to buy 75-300 mm lens as addition ot the one i have or should i go for 18-35mm. Please note that i am not planning to have a professional set but something which can be used more effectively with my camera when going on trips or just having fun with camera randomly..

[h=1][/h]

EPPhoto · Jul 13, 2011

Image Stabilization and Vibration Reduction and all the other names for it are nice to have when hand holding at slower shutter speeds like 1/15th of a sec, but (from what I've read) can actually be detrimental at faster speeds and should be turned off.

Think about it...it's a "newer" technology. People have been making sharp images for a long time before VR came out, and you can too!

pgriz · Jul 13, 2011

The image stabilization feature can get you up to three stops of light beyond what you would normally be able to hand-hold without image stabilization. For instance, at 55mm on a 1.6 crop camera, is the equivalent of about 88mm on a 35mm camera, and would normally have a lower hand-held shutter speed limit of 1/90 sec without image stabilization. With image stabilization, you "should" be able to shoot down to 1/10 sec if the 3-stop gain is correct. The "rule" I am using is that the shutter speed should not fall below the reciprocal of the focal length (when compared to 35mm cameras). Some people can shoot the focal length of 90mm (35mm equivalent) with a shutter speed of 1/30 and not get blurring due to hand-shake, but they are probably in the minority. The other aspect of low-light shooting, is that the focus mechanism of cameras such as the T1i is less accurate under low light, and even if you theoretically can get image-stabilized pictures as low shutter speeds, you may still get blurry pictures because the light was low enough to make autofocus imprecise. I think the image stabilization would be of more benefit on the telephoto side of the zoom you're considering, but again, as long as you're shooting in relatively bright conditions.

table1349 · Jul 13, 2011

EPPhoto said:
Image Stabilization and Vibration Reduction and all the other names for it are nice to have when hand holding at slower shutter speeds like 1/15th of a sec, but (from what I've read) can actually be detrimental at faster speeds and should be turned off.

Think about it...it's a "newer" technology. People have been making sharp images for a long time before VR came out, and you can too!

pgriz said:
The image stabilization feature can get you up to three stops of light beyond what you would normally be able to hand-hold without image stabilization. For instance, at 55mm on a 1.6 crop camera, is the equivalent of about 88mm on a 35mm camera, and would normally have a lower hand-held shutter speed limit of 1/90 sec without image stabilization. With image stabilization, you "should" be able to shoot down to 1/10 sec if the 3-stop gain is correct. The "rule" I am using is that the shutter speed should not fall below the reciprocal of the focal length (when compared to 35mm cameras). Some people can shoot the focal length of 90mm (35mm equivalent) with a shutter speed of 1/30 and not get blurring due to hand-shake, but they are probably in the minority. The other aspect of low-light shooting, is that the focus mechanism of cameras such as the T1i is less accurate under low light, and even if you theoretically can get image-stabilized pictures as low shutter speeds, you may still get blurry pictures because the light was low enough to make autofocus imprecise. I think the image stabilization would be of more benefit on the telephoto side of the zoom you're considering, but again, as long as you're shooting in relatively bright conditions.

Yeah, kinda.........sorta.

Keep in mind that IS is only for YOU! It does nothing for your subject. If you want to take a photo of an inanimate object in low light with out flash then IS is great. If you want to freeze action a subject in low light IS does nothing to assist you. It will not do anything for motion blur of a moving subject. It will reduce the blur caused by your shaking hands. A good tripod will do that and more giving you more than 3 or 4 stops difference, if you are prepared to use one. You need to determine what it is you will be shooting and then determine if IS will assist you for your needs. I shoot mostly sports. The few IS lenses I have never have the IS on since it serves me no purpose. Canon just doesn't make certain lenses with out IS so I got it whether I wanted it or not.

subscuck · Jul 13, 2011

In addition to the above comments, IS will not stop action. Only a fast enough shutter speed will stop subject motion. At 1/30 of a second, IS will counteract camera shake, but anything in motion in your shot will be blurred. IS is generally most useful for telephoto ranges, but if you can keep your ss high enough, it's really not a must have.

EDIT: I hate it when somebody posts the same thing as me at the same time as me. :lol: