What's better - IS or faster glass?

07/25/2007 10:21:50 AM · #1

Is image stabilization all it's cracked up to be and do you really get a couple extra stops out of it? Does it degrade image quality at all?

For example, two similar lenses are about the same cost:
70-200 F/4 IS USM
70-200 F/2.8 USM

With IS, wouldn't you be able to theoretically go lower than 2/8?

Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | S

07/25/2007 10:23:44 AM · #2

The IS does nothing if your subject is moving.

BHuseman

Nikon D750

07/25/2007 10:24:10 AM · #3

Yes you can, but will you get the same depth of field that the 2.8 gives you? the same bokeh?

Originally posted by mad_brewer:

bassbone

Nikon Df

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

07/25/2007 10:24:19 AM · #4

It really depends on the subject of your photography. IS is fine if the image you are photographing is not moving. Faster glass allows you to go to faster shutter speed and stop action more effectively.

Originally posted by mad_brewer:

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/25/2007 10:24:24 AM · #5

Remember that IS doesn't help at all if the subject is moving. Nothing beats fast glass...

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

07/25/2007 10:24:26 AM · #6

Faster, faster, faster. Faster WITH IS is great!

LalliSig

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

07/25/2007 10:31:11 AM · #7

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

The IS does nothing if your subject is moving.

Exactly. I take bigger aperture over IS any day of the week. Of course both is better and I find the IS on the 70-200 sometimes very helpful but I would for example never exchange the 24-70 for the 24-105 IS lens.

Ken

Canon EOS-7D

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

07/25/2007 10:32:33 AM · #8

Fast seems to be the way to go. Thanks.

AJSullivan

07/25/2007 10:33:38 AM · #9

How do you guys feel about IS for moving subjects?

MattO

Nikon D4

07/25/2007 10:36:39 AM · #10

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

How do you guys feel about IS for moving subjects?

Unless your in "mode 2" and panning I'd say its pretty useless.

MattO

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

07/25/2007 10:37:18 AM · #11

Originally posted by ajdelaware:

How do you guys feel about IS for moving subjects?

Heh I was tracking an airplane with a 100-400L IS that i was borrowing. Each time you try to center the Aircraft in the shot (you physically moving) the lense compensated for my moving. It was like fighting the lense to center my subject.

Remember you can turn the IS off.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

07/25/2007 10:47:56 AM · #12

IS is useful if your subject is stationary or very slow and for some reason, you cannot use a fast prime and/or a tripod.

If you want to shoot in low light, I'd much rather have a f1.4 prime lens than IS on an f4 lens.

Don't forget that faster lenses give you other things as well that slower IS lenses won't. Things like a brighter finder image and better AF performance.

Azrifel

Nikon Coolpix P340

07/25/2007 11:50:20 AM · #13

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
How do you guys feel about IS for moving subjects?

Heh I was tracking an airplane with a 100-400L IS that i was borrowing. Each time you try to center the Aircraft in the shot (you physically moving) the lense compensated for my moving. It was like fighting the lense to center my subject.

Remember you can turn the IS off.

The lens was setup wrong then or has old IS.

When I shoot motorcycles (very fast moving) at slow shutterspeeds (and panning) I always use VR/IS. The lens knows I am panning, it is programmed to detect it and it will stop all compensation in my panning direction and only compensate for the movement at an angle to my panning. When I pick up my subject for the AF system I move the lens around a lot to get it where I want but the VR never obstructs the composition or AF.

fotomann_forever

07/25/2007 11:52:42 AM · #14

IS eats camera batteries, faster lenses don't ;-)

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

07/25/2007 11:57:15 AM · #15

Originally posted by Azrifel:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by ajdelaware:
How do you guys feel about IS for moving subjects?

Heh I was tracking an airplane with a 100-400L IS that i was borrowing. Each time you try to center the Aircraft in the shot (you physically moving) the lense compensated for my moving. It was like fighting the lense to center my subject.

Remember you can turn the IS off.

The lens was setup wrong then or has old IS.

When I shoot motorcycles (very fast moving) at slow shutterspeeds (and panning) I always use VR/IS. The lens knows I am panning, it is programmed to detect it and it will stop all compensation in my panning direction and only compensate for the movement at an angle to my panning. When I pick up my subject for the AF system I move the lens around a lot to get it where I want but the VR never obstructs the composition or AF.

I was using it on a 16 year old Canon EOS Elan though has nothing todo with it. The lens has two IS modes, and of course off. Wasnt my lens and i halfway dont know how to use it. But when i went to center the IS countered and for a second the plain was still hwere it was. Counter back it moves again. Very slight movements, very sliht counters it keeps the plane where it is in the view finder. First time using a lens liek that.

Had a similar experience with ragamuffingirls 28-135 IS, i do like that as a cary around though. But I cant buy lenses for my 35mm, cant jusstify the money.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/25/2007 12:01:48 PM · #16

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Wasnt my lens and i halfway dont know how to use it. But when i went to center the IS countered and for a second the plain was still hwere it was. Counter back it moves again. Very slight movements, very sliht counters it keeps the plane where it is in the view finder. First time using a lens liek that.

Had a similar experience with ragamuffingirls 28-135 IS, i do like that as a cary around though. But I cant buy lenses for my 35mm, cant jusstify the money.

Sounds like with the 100-400 the lens was in the wrong mode.

As for the 28-135, it has 1st generation IS, which does not have a panning mode.

kenskid

Nikon D700

07/25/2007 12:07:46 PM · #17

I sold my VR Nikon 18-200mm b/c at the critical time I needed the VR to work (theater etc..) I got movement of the subjects! I now have the 80-200mm f2.8 and it is much better for me.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/25/2007 12:12:15 PM · #18

Seems like most people are in favor of faster glass, so I'll play the devil's advocate.

At 200mm or 400mm even, IS can be the difference between handheld and tripod. Recall that a safe handhold speed is 1/focal length or 1/200 to 1/400 (depending on which lens we are talking about). If you can get 2 stops out of the IS then you can shoot down to 1/50th-1/100th (with 2 stops). The 2.8 may not be able to compensate that much and you may find that handheld you are constrained to using the wide open apertures only. What happens if you want to shoot at f/8 or f/11? The IS helps this happen in handheld, the fast lens does nothing for you. f/8 is the same on a 2.8 as a 4.0.

Just pointing this out. I like fast glass too, but I also like IS. The argument always comes up because the answer is "yes". Both have their uses. The uses are different.

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

07/25/2007 12:39:22 PM · #19

Indeed, Doc, and let's not forget that large apertures have their limitations/drawbacks as well, particularly:

- Most helpful in low light. Outside or in the studio, the difference between 2.8 and 4 probably won't be an issue.
- Larger, heavier, more expensive glass.

With a buying decision coming up, I'm leaning toward the 24-105 over the 24-70, for it's extra reach and IS.

De Sousa

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

07/25/2007 12:42:05 PM · #20

I would prefer to have the both

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

07/25/2007 01:17:38 PM · #21

I agree with Jason. I have both F/2.8 without IS and F/4 with IS lens. Both have their place. I like the IS because I can shoot down to 1/15 in low light and don't need a tripod. I've been in situations where I was at max aperature with my 70-200 and I had to to start jacking the ISO up to get the shutter speeds that I needed. Depending on what camera you have, ISO 800 can be pretty useless because of noise.
Yes, nothing beats fast glass. But, most of my shooting is outdoors and I don't need it. If you're in to weddings or spend alot of your life in the dark for some odd reason, then yes I'd say you need it. As far as the average individual goes I'd say don't spend the extra money on F2.8 unless you have absolutly determined you need it.

pineapple

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

07/25/2007 01:41:17 PM · #22

If you're tripod challenged, as I was (in other words too lazy to use one - even though I often carried one), then IS is certainly a blessing for the hand-held photographer. But, IME, I make better photos when they are more considered and that means reliant only on the glass quality and tripod. I switched from the 28-135mm IS to the 24-70mm f/2.8 and use my tripod more often these days, even in NYC (despite the blasted mayor and his petty rules). I think, for me, this path is also leading away from zoom lenses to primes. But that's just my experience.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

07/25/2007 01:43:45 PM · #23

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

As far as the average individual goes I'd say don't spend the extra money on F2.8 unless you have absolutly determined you need it.

I'd say the same thing about IS.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

07/25/2007 02:02:40 PM · #24

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
As far as the average individual goes I'd say don't spend the extra money on F2.8 unless you have absolutly determined you need it.

I'd say the same thing about IS.

And I would agree. I should've included that also.

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II