| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2010 02:47:14 PM · #26 |
IS/OS/VR etc is a godsend with large lenses - took this photo with my Sigma 150-500mm handheld, 1/50 sec.
Like  bear_music - I wish I had IS on my 70-200f4
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 14:47:40. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:49:11 PM · #27 |
Here is a perfect example that demonstrates this point.
I took this with a very cheap 70-300, NON IS lens on a whale watch in Provincetown, MA (Cape Cod)
The ferry was moving in one direct, the boat was rocking in another, and the whale was jumping in a third.
There is a lot of motion to stabilize here...BUT...it was bright and sunny, so I shot at 1/4000.
There was a guy standing next to me with an L lens (yes, I got lens envy). I can assure that his image was no doubt far superior to mine, because of the quality of the lens, not IS.
Originally posted by kirbic:
I agree that IS is secondary to the optical quality of the lens. |
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:51:33 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Here is a perfect example that demonstrates this point.
I took this with a very cheap 70-300, NON IS lens on a whale watch in Provincetown, MA (Cape Cod)
The ferry was moving in one direct, the boat was rocking in another, and the whale was jumping in a third.
There is a lot of motion to stabilize here...BUT...it was bright and sunny, so I shot at 1/4000.
There was a guy standing next to me with an L lens (yes, I got lens envy). I can assure that his image was no doubt far superior to mine, because of the quality of the lens, not IS.
Originally posted by kirbic:
I agree that IS is secondary to the optical quality of the lens. |
|
:) The IS will indeed only help you frame the shot nicely when you're shooting @ 1/4000 - as a matter of a fact, there is some evidence that IS can actually degrade the quality of images taken at faster shutter speeds (essentially anything faster than 1.5/focal length)
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 14:52:23. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:53:24 PM · #29 |
Cory's description of the two IS modes is good, but note that this is another area where manufacturers are inconsistent.
On my Nikon 70-200, "normal" allows panning (meaning it only removes motion in the other axis), and "active" removes all motion. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:54:30 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
it was bright and sunny, so I shot at 1/4000. |
Haha I would only dream at shooting at 1/4000 in England!
No but seriously I couldn't depend on bright light to keep up my shutter speed as it really isn't sunny here often :P |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:56:26 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by adamelliott111:
Originally posted by PGerst:
it was bright and sunny, so I shot at 1/4000. |
Haha I would only dream at shooting at 1/4000 in England!
No but seriously I couldn't depend on bright light to keep up my shutter speed as it really isn't sunny here often :P |
A grand argument FOR IS :) |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:57:40 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Here is a perfect example that demonstrates this point.
I took this with a very cheap 70-300, NON IS lens on a whale watch in Provincetown, MA (Cape Cod)
The ferry was moving in one direct, the boat was rocking in another, and the whale was jumping in a third.
There is a lot of motion to stabilize here...BUT...it was bright and sunny, so I shot at 1/4000. |
Careful, here. The 1/4000 takes care of all motion, but IS would only have taken care of your motion (I wasn't sure what you meant by the ferry vs. the boat). It won't do a thing to the whale's motion. Although 1/4000 might not have been needed, I'd bet any slower than 1/500 and the whale would've blurred even if you'd been on a tripod. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:57:58 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Cory's description of the two IS modes is good, but note that this is another area where manufacturers are inconsistent.
On my Nikon 70-200, "normal" allows panning (meaning it only removes motion in the other axis), and "active" removes all motion. |
They're even backwards on this too? What does Nikon look at Canon gear and just try to make everything as different as possible with regard to control surfaces? (and lens attachment?)
I had no idea... :) |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:00:51 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
They're even backwards on this too? What does Nikon look at Canon gear and just try to make everything as different as possible with regard to control surfaces? (and lens attachment?)
I had no idea... :) |
Ha! You're not going to draw me into the goofy Nikon vs. Canon debates. :P
But I do like the range of your 15-85. I had a Tamron 17-50 that I kept on my camera all the time, but it kept breaking and it wasn't quite long enough. So now I'm looking for a replacement with more reach. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:02:23 PM · #35 |
| Where do you guys start when looking for a lens? |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:05:07 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by adamelliott111:
Where do you guys start when looking for a lens? |
On the front of the camera? ;-) |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:05:43 PM · #37 |
Yes, absolutely. I shot at 1/4000 because I didn't have IS. But you are right, anything less than 1/500 and the whale would have been blurred
Originally posted by levyj413:
Careful, here. The 1/4000 takes care of all motion, but IS would only have taken care of your motion (I wasn't sure what you meant by the ferry vs. the boat). It won't do a thing to the whale's motion. Although 1/4000 might not have been needed, I'd bet any slower than 1/500 and the whale would've blurred even if you'd been on a tripod. |
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:19:19 PM · #38 |
I just replaced my non IS with IS and OMG what a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once you go IS you never go back!!!
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:35:52 PM · #39 |
When I mentioned that IS increases the percentage of shots that are clear at slower shutter speeds, here's an example.
The table shows this one pro's tests shooting at 85mm, where the rule of thumb would suggest staying faster than 1/85s. Yet every shot even at 1/30s was sharp, with decreasing percentages of sharp shots slower than that.
//www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm.htm#vr
As you get into all of this, keep in mind that many photography sites, and especially the people who talk in forums, tend to be extremely persnickety, and some will debate for long hours about issues with lenses that no one will ever see in an actual photo viewed under normal circumstances.
The link above is to a site by a guy named Ken Rockwell. He sets some people off, but I really like how he talks a lot about what he sees in tests vs. what he sees when actually taking pictures.
DPC tends to be an exception, and this thread in particular has remained nicely reality-bound. But as you read other things in other places, try to keep asking about real-world stuff.
Here's an example of what I mean about his challenging you to think about how you really shoot and print, from this page where he compares two Nikon lenses:
Originally posted by kenrockwell.com:
The 16-85mm, on a D200 or D300, is superior at the wide end in the corners, if you look at your images at 100% on-screen, which is like looking at a 3-foot (1m) wide print from the same distance as your computer screen.
My 18-200mm is a little better at 85mm.
I've never had any issues with sharpness from my 18-200mm for anything I've done with it, including making 20x30" (50 x 75cm) SuperGloss prints from it. When was the last time you printed 12 x 18," much less 20x30?"
I only see these differences by 1.) shooting special test subjects (flat at infinity), 2.) at full aperture, and then 3.) blowing up the images to the equivalent of 40" (1m) wide, and looking at them closely.
Used under normal conditions and/or printed small, like only 12 x 18" (30 x 45cm), I can't see any meaningful differences. |
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 15:41:24. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:52:11 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:52:12 PM · #41 |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 03:57:37 PM · #42 |
Oops - skip the table in my last post. Here's a comparison table of what you'll see with IS and without (again, it's called VR in the Nikon world, for vibration reduction).
The research I did helping you finally got me off my duff to replace my defective 17-50, and I'm getting the VR version of the Nikon 18-55. :)
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 16:09:17. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 04:57:15 PM · #43 |
Haha glad I could be of assistance :-)
Thanks for the help mate. I'm sure you'll see a lot of me in forums asking nooby questions ;) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/09/2026 05:08:29 AM EDT.
