Does IS help much for indoor shots?

311

Had a time of it yesterday trying to use the camera when drunk.
Does IS help much with indoor portraits and stuff??

aFlabbyPanda

I just got rid of my IS on christmas eve and bought the 18-50mm 2.8 sigma as I didnt think the IS was any good at all. I tried it on and off in various situations but overall I found the lense to be just too slow.

So what if you can handhold a shot up to 3 stops more then normal, if the subject is moving then its too slow anyway (or so I found).IMO I would be very slow to buy an IS lens unless it was also very fast. (and then doesnt that make the IS redundant?)

311

thanks brianjG. That was the lens I was looking at ,I won't bother with it so.
I can get the sigma 18-50 2.8 for 350 euro ,that should do me.

mathias

I have two , the 28 -135 mm IS ( Canon ) and the 70 -200 mm IS , what bothers me about them is that there is very noticeable softening of the pictures when IS is turned on , even when both are mounted on a tripod and fired using a remote.

Also with the 28 -135 mm in particular , the battery life suffers considerably.

So the IS to me is more or less useless , and I resent spending the Extra money as its no benefit , I could have gotten exactly the same results with no IS and a good tripod.

Definitely not worth the money.

Peteee

mathias wrote:

I have two , the 28 -135 mm IS ( Canon ) and the 70 -200 mm IS , what bothers me about them is that there is very noticeable softening of the pictures when IS is turned on , even when both are mounted on a tripod and fired using a remote.

You should turn off the IS when using a tripod.

311

I just ordered a sigma 18-50 2.8 macro, fingers crossed it will be a good one

Valentia

Have to disagree ;)I have the 24-105 and the 100-400 IS and they are nothing short of amazing. I took a few shots last night down town hand held with the 24-105 that would have been impossible without a tripod. I have hand held the 100-400 with a 2x converter (meaning over 1200mm) and got acceptable results.

I think this thing about softening with IS on is only for the techno heads. There is some talk on DP Review forums about the 70-200 and stuff but the quality is still L class which is class

IS will save you many many shots and give so much flexibility. Of course if you use a slow shutter speed movement will be blurred but surely that has nothing to do with IS, that has more to do with common sense. IS can't reinvent science.:eek:

Oh and Pete is right. Never use IS with a tripod.

Try photographing a picture on your wall in normal night light. One with IS off and then on. If you don't see a difference the ol' delerium tremins have taken hold!

aFlabbyPanda

but if all IS is good for is still life shots then why not just save a few hundred quid and buy a tripod? I tried using it at a few gigs and f4 was just too slow for any clear shot.

plus the 24-105 is an L lens isnt it? big difference in price I would think.

311

Valentia ,you've some artillery ! ,can't wait to see the valentia set for 2007:D

Valentia

BrianjG wrote:

but if all IS is good for is still life shots then why not just save a few hundred quid and buy a tripod? I tried using it at a few gigs and f4 was just too slow for any clear shot.

plus the 24-105 is an L lens isn't it? big difference in price I would think.

Obviously when there is movement, like at a gig shoot, a wide aperture and a fast speed are needed. Where IS is useful is for camera shake at low speeds or when using a telephoto. Like last night for example. There are shots of the main street with ghosts, i.e. people walking across the street. The shutter speed was so slow that that was the result, but that was the effect that I wanted. The difference that IS made was that I was able to shoot at that slow speed and keep the street and the buildings sharp. Without IS the whole picture would be blurred.

At large magnification, say 400mm. IS is the difference between blur and sharp. It also means that you can use lower ISO's to maintain quality and minimise noise.

Going back to the gig shots, there could be situations, similar to the street shot I mentioned where you want the surroundings sharp and the performer blurred for a feeling of movement. It would help in that situation too.

IS prevents camera shake, a major problem using telephoto.

311

Would I be right in thinking that IS works best at distance ,to allow the mechanism to work??? .
In a room of people using natural light ,the max aperture would be of more benefit than IS ?

Valentia

_Brian_ wrote:

Valentia ,you've some artillery ! ,can't wait to see the valentia set for 2007:D

I'm looking forward to it already Brian. If all goes to plan I will have a new camera by then too!!

Valentia

_Brian_ wrote:

Would I be right in thinking that IS works best at distance ,to allow the mechanism to work??? .
In a room of people using natural light ,the max aperture would be of more benefit than IS ?

That would be generally true. But like in the example I gave earlier you can experiment and find other uses for it.

311

Thanks valentia and Brian.
I should be happy with the 18-50 I wreckon. 7 inches focussing distance with macro.

mathias

Christ lads !! :rolleyes:


I put the lens on a tripod to check for softening ,having it on a tripod rules out any shaky hands effects etc etc . !! I shot the same shot with IS and without , the softening effect is huge on that lens , definitely not L quality with the IS on , ( thats the 70 -200mm ) , If the IS was any good there would have been no noticeable difference between the two shots ....see !!

And not just for techno heads either , the effect is very pronounced which rubbishes any benefit to paying the frankly huge price difference between the IS and the non IS version of that lens.

I got some great shots with it , but the IS has never been used because of the softening , so I could have got the non IS version instead , it would have saved me a lot of cash !! ( 606 euros vs 1132 euros on tecknik direkt ! )

Thats what Im saying.

Valentia

mathias wrote:

Christ lads !! :rolleyes: .............Thats what Im saying.

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble if you sent it back and got a replacement. Your experience does not match that of the vast majority (read: nearly all) users. Canon QC is known to be shaky on occasions. So you are saying that you DON'T use IS when the camera is on a tripod????? I hope that's what you mean anyway.

peckerhead

Valentia wrote:

...100-400 with a 2x converter (meaning over 1200mm)

Howd'ya manage that?

311

800 x the crop factor is around 1200 mm

Peteee

mathias wrote:

If the IS was any good there would have been no noticeable difference between the two shots ....see !!

A IS lens in the absence of any motion will go looking for non existing motion and try and counter act it, making the image softer

I dont see how turning off IS when on a tripod is any big deal. IS isn't designed for use on a tripod, its for handheld shots. If your taking only tripod shots, well maybe you shouldnt have bought a IS lens

311

I presume the parts in the lens are gyros ,
I had to buy a gyro for the tail rudder of my model helicopter and the impression I got from it was it constantly works ,even against itself.
Maybe when the camera is on a tripod ,the gyro is actuating slightly so that it can correct problems instantly ??

Valentia

peckerhead wrote:

Howd'ya manage that?

I have a Sigma 2x that just happens to work with the 100-400. I was amazed. This shot was taken with the combination and is not cropped. Go to Flickr (just click on the pic below) and have a look at the large size. It's not too bad BTW the 1200mm refers to the 1.6 crop of the camera sensor, so an 800mm becomes 1280mm in zoom terms.

Valentia

_Brian_ wrote:

I presume the parts in the lens are gyros ,
I had to buy a gyro for the tail rudder of my model helicopter and the impression I got from it was it constantly works ,even against itself.
Maybe when the camera is on a tripod ,the gyro is actuating slightly so that it can correct problems instantly ??

Bejazus you have me there Brian. It just works. It's amazing putting the 400mm up to your eye, looking at the shake, pressing the shutter and everything going steady. It's very very effective.

Roen

_Brian_ wrote:

I presume the parts in the lens are gyros ,
I had to buy a gyro for the tail rudder of my model helicopter and the impression I got from it was it constantly works ,even against itself.
Maybe when the camera is on a tripod ,the gyro is actuating slightly so that it can correct problems instantly ??

From what I've read this is bang on...I seem to remember it from a Canon white paper on the subject.
The newer gen ones can apparently sense when they are on a tripod though and don't cause shake.

EDIT and IS rocks for still subjects.

Valentia

Roen wrote:

The newer gen ones can apparently sense when they are on a tripod though and don't cause shake.

The manuals still say not to use the IS on a tripod.

mathias

Lads ,
Heres how its supposed to work ,
The purpose of IS is to keep the picture sharp under all conditions , or at least up to 3 stops anyway , presumably the easiest way to do that is on a tripod , yet it still softens the picture , the idea here is that it should not , there is no movement , so why is the image softer , thats the question.


This means that the IS mechanism in itself is the cause of the softening ( the shot is absolutely fine without the IS remember) , so , even with a tripod and a remote release , the IS mechanism causes softening of the image ,

Pretty bad in my estimation , I have seen a number of these lens , replacement will not fix it , its inherent in the mechanism , it may rescue a picture that may result in massive blur when handheld , but it still softens the overall image.

Should that still result in an acceptable picture to some then so be it , but I expect more from an L lens , lord knows I have enough of them ( non IS that is ) . And compared to that 70 -200 F4 , none of them produce softening to that extent under the right conditions , tripod or no !

Fajitas!

What shutter speeds are you shooting at?

The IS does try to compensate for shake as soon as it's turned on. As ye probably know, it does this by shaking internally itself. If your shooting at high speeds or on a tripod, it's gonna shake.

311

Did I do the right thing ordering the 18-50 2.8 lens ???
I really don't like canons latest consumer range of lenses ,they seem very plasticky and cheap.
I would have bought the 28-135 IS lens ,but at 28 on the 350D it would be a little narrow for me.

At the moment I've got a 30mm 1.4 DC ,10-20 DC ,24-85 ,70-200 F4L.
As you can see I don't really have something you could call wide and with a zoom. I'm not the best at composition and find it hard changing lenses all the time.
I would have bought the canon 17-85 lens ,but I think the 2.8 on the sigma would mean I'd get more use from the lens.

Have I wasted more money ??

Roen

The 70-200 2.8 IS is one of the lenses that can sense if it's on a tripod and should deactivate it's IS element. Odd that with it activated that it shjould provide a softening effect.

Shiny

_Brian_ wrote:

I would have bought the canon 17-85 lens ,
but I think the 2.8 on the sigma would mean
I'd get more use from the lens.

Have I wasted more money ??

I bought this lens for the exact same reason.
I have tried some macro shots but the best
ratio it can do is 1:3 and overall it leaves me wanting
a 1:1 macro lens maybe a 85 or 100 mm range.

It can definatly focus on objects closer than 20 cm.
I have hit the glass of the UV filter off stuff loads of
times while trying to get in closer. hehe

I was lucky to get a good copy and I have taken
alot of good shots although I still would like to get
a wide lens for landscape shots but you seem to
have that area covered.:)

311

Cheers shiny.
I noticed the lens is 72mm as opposed to the last 18-50 2.8 which was 67mm.
I presume sigma has fixed any little problems and made the lens even brighter than the previous model.

Shiny

Yeah I have the 67mm one.
My next lens will probably be the
sigma wide angle.

Borderfox

_Brian_ wrote:

Did I do the right thing ordering the 18-50 2.8 lens ???
I really don't like canons latest consumer range of lenses ,they seem very plasticky and cheap.
I would have bought the 28-135 IS lens ,but at 28 on the 350D it would be a little narrow for me.

At the moment I've got a 30mm 1.4 DC ,10-20 DC ,24-85 ,70-200 F4L.
As you can see I don't really have something you could call wide and with a zoom. I'm not the best at composition and find it hard changing lenses all the time.
I would have bought the canon 17-85 lens ,but I think the 2.8 on the sigma would mean I'd get more use from the lens.

Have I wasted more money ??

I would take the f2.8 over the 17-85 any day. I bought one of the 18-50's myself. Now all I have in the camera bag is f2.8 or bigger! plenty of scope, especially since I dont use flash.



1/60th f2.8 and ISO 400



one more example of the 18-50.

Money well spent Brian

311

Cheers borderfox .

Peteee

mathias wrote:

Lads ,
Heres how its supposed to work ,
The purpose of IS is to keep the picture sharp under all conditions , or at least up to 3 stops anyway , presumably the easiest way to do that is on a tripod , yet it still softens the picture , the idea here is that it should not , there is no movement , so why is the image softer , thats the question.


This means that the IS mechanism in itself is the cause of the softening ( the shot is absolutely fine without the IS remember) , so , even with a tripod and a remote release , the IS mechanism causes softening of the image ,

Pretty bad in my estimation , I have seen a number of these lens , replacement will not fix it , its inherent in the mechanism , it may rescue a picture that may result in massive blur when handheld , but it still softens the overall image.

Which is why you turn off the IS when it's on a tripod. It's not really that big a deal is it?

mervifwdc

I've got IS on the 70-200 2.8. It is invaluable. I leave it on practucally all the time, but where it's very useful is something like a church service, where people are staying pretty still, but sometimes your not in a position to use a tripod, or even monopod. Churches can be pretty dark!

So, If you've to go to 1/60 at F2.8 (for example), that's fine hand held up to 50mm or so (for most people), but 200mm at that speed is very hard to hand hold without IS. It would normally need 1/200 to cater for the camera+lens shake, but IS means you can still shoot at 1/60 or so.

IS is worth it on the longer lenses for this reason, not so sure about the wider ones.

imvho.

Merv.

Borderfox

Would you be better off to use a prime for a church service, keep the shutterspeed high and just use the feet. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is a wonderful lens but if I ended up with 1/60th I would change to one of my f1.8 lenses. Just trying to be practical.

mervifwdc

Borderfox wrote:

Would you be better off to use a prime for a church service, keep the shutterspeed high and just use the feet. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is a wonderful lens but if I ended up with 1/60th I would change to one of my f1.8 lenses. Just trying to be practical.

I would have liked to use the 135/F2, but it just was not close enough as I was (and had to) shoot from the back in that case. If I had a 1.6 crop camera, I might have tried it. That was one place the 5d did'nt help out at all!

Merv.