Ugh... living with a non-image-stabilized lens

[LBPhotog]

I don't own one IS lens either ... and I think, for the most part, IS is over-rated ... now, before you guys chastise me, I think that there ARE certain aspects of photography that DO benefit from IS, but the average beginner photographer ISN'T going to be in those situations ...

Get used to the rule of thumb that your shutter speed shouldn't be slower than 1/the focal length of your lens.

 

[gsgary]

Try shutter-priority next time. A general rule of thumb is to use a shutter that is greater than your lens focal length. So, a 1/125 shutter for 75mm, 100mm, etc.

Ah, but if i set the shutter too fast, there won't be enough light coming into the sensor anyway, correct?

Then don't bother taking a photo, if your set up is not upto taking photos indoor what is the point, photography is all about light, your lens is too slow to take shots indoors so just take shots outside until you get a good fast lens

 

[lordfly]

Then don't bother taking a photo, if your set up is not upto taking photos indoor what is the point, photography is all about light, your lens is too slow to take shots indoors so just take shots outside until you get a good fast lens

I disagree. Some of the most mesmerizing photos were taken decades ago with "inferior" equipment - I've even seen a rather interesting exhibit with a photographer using nothing but a 2mp phone camera.

I'm still going to take pictures indoors, although now that I know that the lens I have is a) junk, and b) not suitable for indoors, it'll just make me try harder.

I have more time than money, in any case, so that's my only course of action.

 

[ANDS!]

I'm going to go out on a not so huge limb and say: It's not the lens. Even a so-called "poor" kit lens, in the right hands, can make up for its design imperfections.

Samples of this dreary outting would go a long way in diagnosing what's going on; if you care to have it diagnosed.

 

[LaFoto]

I'll stick to what I said earlier: it is too easy to simply blame it all on the lens and say "it is junk, so that's why...". There is A LOT MORE to it than simply that.

 

[gsgary]

I disagree. Some of the most mesmerizing photos were taken decades ago with "inferior" equipment - I've even seen a rather interesting exhibit with a photographer using nothing but a 2mp phone camera.

I'm still going to take pictures indoors, although now that I know that the lens I have is a) junk, and b) not suitable for indoors, it'll just make me try harder.

I have more time than money, in any case, so that's my only course of action.

They probably did but there was probably enough light, kit lenses don't cut it indoors

 

[lordfly]

I'm going to go out on a not so huge limb and say: It's not the lens. Even a so-called "poor" kit lens, in the right hands, can make up for its design imperfections.

Samples of this dreary outting would go a long way in diagnosing what's going on; if you care to have it diagnosed.

Well, we can easily establish I'm not a good photographer, if that's what you're getting at. I'm posting in the beginner's forum for a reason...

The pics that were salvageable I posted on the Flickr link a few posts back; did you want some truly horrific ones? I have a lot of those.

 

[DerekSalem]

I don't own one IS lens either ... and I think, for the most part, IS is over-rated ... now, before you guys chastise me, I think that there ARE certain aspects of photography that DO benefit from IS, but the average beginner photographer ISN'T going to be in those situations ...

Get used to the rule of thumb that your shutter speed shouldn't be slower than 1/the focal length of your lens.

Well I definitely don't agree that IS is over-rated. I think people can rely on it much too heavily, and I think their overall photography can suffer because of that...but IS itself is a magnificent utility that can be useful in a *LOT* of ways. As I said before with a good IS I can handhold at 200mm and 1/4s shutter speed if I have a good place to stand (not leaning on walls and such either)...that's just not possible without IS.

Now, the lens definitely isn't the only factor in those shots. Even without IS there's really no reason for shots to be blurry. Too dark or noisy, yes. Blurry? no. It's much better to be noisy or dark than blurry because both of those things can be fixed (to a point) in PP. Blurriness is nearly impossible to fix in PP unless you're a *VERY* skilled artist and you have a ton of free time (I've known PS artists that have spent almost 100+ hours on a single photograph to fix the blur. Yes, the photograph ends up looking great...but is it worth 2 weeks of work?).

Honestly I'd recommend trying to excel with just that lens. I realize you said you really don't have a ton of money so you're probably not going to be buying a new lens anyway...but not having IS can definitely improve on your skill as a photographer (learning how to hold, learning how functions of the camera operate, etc...). Then, get the 50mm f/1.8. It's one of the best and most affordable lenses for beginners (you can usually get one used for around $80 or brand new for $100) and can make a *HUGE* difference in lower-light areas. You'd be amazed at how much more light a big aperture can pull in!

 

[George Beinhorn]

I just posted the following reply on another forum that I visited in search of information about stabilizer options for shooting with non-stabilized lenses (e.g., stabilized video rigs, gyro stabilized mounts, etc.). I am not finding any leads, but along that way I simply felt that I had to help people understand that the "inverse rule" is a recipe for a very high proportion of slightly to very blurry photos. Here goes...

With respect, professional photographers would not dream of shooting handheld with non-stabilized lenses by following the "inverse rule." It really is nonsense. The pros shoot with non-stabilized lenses at shutter speeds as fast as is practically possible. In the late 1990s, some folks (I believe they might have been associated with the Kirk bracket makers) did research showing that even at shutters speeds of 1/500, heartbeat and general body motion can cause blurring in photos. You can easily check this by shooting a long series of photos handheld with a non-stabilized lens at shutter speeds faster than 1/500. See if they don't look sharper and more "professional." They will. Of course, it's a question of playing the odds. Yes, you can shoot a 50mm at 1/60, but the proportion of razor-sharp photos will increase dramatically if you shoot at over 1/500. This is not mental word-twiddling or logic-chopping; it's based on real-life experience.

 

[weepete]

I just posted the following reply on another forum.

7 Year old thread dude....

 

[jake337]

 

[KmH]

The irony is - For most shots image stabilization should be disabled/turned off.