Image Stabilizer?

Sarah23 · Mar 5, 2008

Do you recommend it? Is it worth the extra money? Even just for a hobbyist?

Basically I could get a name-brand telephoto lens without it and get it in the next couple months....or wait for a WHOLE lot longer, and get one with image stabilizer...but until then just live with my kit lens.

What about Sigma or Tamron? Are they any good?

Thanks in advance!

eravedesigns · Mar 5, 2008

Well it would help if you said which body you have but I am assuming you are talking about maybe a canon or nikon. I have it built into my body and it is worth it.

Sarah23 · Mar 5, 2008

eravedesigns said:
Well it would help if you said which body you have but I am assuming you are talking about maybe a canon or nikon. I have it built into my body and it is worth it.

Sorry...I have a Canon Rebel XTi.

MX962 · Mar 5, 2008

This is a debate that will never end with some people get it dont get it ! I have used "is" but will never own one for what I do nature landscape macro portraits high speed action sports candids I do fine without it sure I get a blury shot on ocation but its my mistake as a rule . Some love it some hate it, I simply never "need" it . I think that is the question do you need it ? do you have trouble holding steady ? Its expensive for what it is.

there both good lens companies imo and i use lenses from both of those but prefer my canon lenses when it matters without a doubt .

get the canon2.8L its amazing

Garbz · Mar 6, 2008

It makes a difference. You can get a 2-3 stop improvement in camera shake. That means nothing if your subject doesn't stay still though so it becomes utterly useless for sports, except motor racing where slower shutter speeds can be used to emphasize speeds and the IS set to only work in the yaw direction.

It depends on what you photograph. If you're spying on people it's an invaluable tool.

Fiendish Astronaut · Mar 6, 2008

I'm interested though - how long does it take for IS to kick in on say a 70-200mm 2.8L mounted on a Canon body?

Sarah23 · Mar 6, 2008

I ask all of this because yesterday my friend came over, and she has a 75-300 Canon lens without IS, and it seemed to work just fine for me. Mostly what I shoot is either nature/architecture or children/friends....so I didnt know if it would be something I would need. Not every picture I took came out clear, but it was mostly because 1 year olds dont like to sit still....lol!

Big Mike · Mar 6, 2008

I'm interested though - how long does it take for IS to kick in on say a 70-200mm 2.8L mounted on a Canon body?

It's less than a second...maybe less than half a second.

As mentioned, IS is something that excels in some situations and is almost useless in other situations.

The way I see it...unless you are using a tripod all the time, IS will help you. Even if you are shooting a moving subject (sports etc), there is still the chance of blur from camera movement...and that is what IS can prevent.

IS is certainly not a substitute for a fast shutter speed...but it can be a god send when you need it. Wildlife photography is a big one...typically you need long lenses and may not have time to use a tripod.

I've used the 100-400mm F4-5.6 L IS...and when you look through the viewfinder and see how shaky you are at 400mm....then activate the IS and watch it 'snap'....you will understand.

Is it always worth the extra cost? That's a different issue.

Jon, The Elder · Mar 6, 2008

As usual, well said Big Mike. If you ever NEED IS and do not have it, it is too late.....period.

Socrates · Mar 6, 2008

Jon said:
As usual, well said Big Mike. If you ever NEED IS and do not have it, it is too late.....period.

I just bought the Nikon 18-200 VR. Experimented with it last night. First time I ever had a twenty-pound lens on a camera!

Sarah23 · Mar 6, 2008

Socrates said:
I just bought the Nikon 18-200 VR. Experimented with it last night. First time I ever had a twenty-pound lens on a camera!

yeah...I can definitely see if its a heavy lens why it would help!! Right now tho I am just looking into getting a Canon 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 and i can get it for about $400 cheaper without the IS. And being a beginner, I would rather get that cheaper one now and not spend the money, and later on when I get better and REALLY know what I want to do, get a better lens. Does that make sense?

MX962 · Mar 6, 2008

just dont get the f/4-5.6 75-300 III what a pile O crud that one is

TCimages · Mar 6, 2008

Like the others have said, its nice to have and it can sometimes be work really well. It certainly doesn't perform miracles tho. I've found it to be effective especially at longer focal lengths.
I say get it if you can afford it but you certainly don't have to have it to get good shots. You might want to splurge for this feature when you invest in a higher end lens that you'll hold on to for many years. I personally don't think the IQ for this lens is there to make the extra cost worth your money.

Mystwalker · Mar 6, 2008

If you are looking for long lens, why not the 70-200 f/4L?

You lose some distance, but you get constant f/4. And it is a "L" which mean you will get more money back if you decide to sell it for an IS model.

It is a little over $500 though. The IS one goes for for about $1K.

Socrates · Mar 6, 2008

Sarah23 said:
yeah...I can definitely see if its a heavy lens why it would help!! Right now tho I am just looking into getting a Canon 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 and i can get it for about $400 cheaper without the IS. And being a beginner, I would rather get that cheaper one now and not spend the money, and later on when I get better and REALLY know what I want to do, get a better lens. Does that make sense?

Admittedly, it's a gamble either way but I'd recommend that you keep your expenditures low until you can build up your own personal storehouse of needs and wants.