Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Question about image stabilisation.

  • 30-01-2007 06:23PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭


    Ok ,got a new lens a half hour ago ,70-300 IS.
    I'm just trying to figure out the limitations of this lens in my head ,by doing a few calculations.
    I'm using the lens on my 350D ,so I am working out that the lens is actually nearly 500 at the long end.
    My question is with the two stops of gain from the stabilization ,does this mean the slowest I should set the shutter is 300.
    I'm really just trying to figure out the theory ,before I start using it.

    Cheers for your time,

    Brian.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭GristlyEnd


    Sorry if this sounds obvious but try it out and see what your limit is for handheld shots with IS on. Some people can hold cameras steadier than others at shorter speeds. I'm not one of those as I suffer from shakeyyyyyy hands.

    I would have thought that the 2 stops gained would be from the 300 end and not 500.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭311


    Your right ,everyone is different .
    I intend on getting out with it, give it a lash.

    Sorry.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭GristlyEnd


    No need to be sorry. I was just trying to help :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    Brian, sit back in your chair, and aim the lens at a picture on the wall in a reasonably lit room. Experiment with different ISOs, shutter speeds etc. Try it with IS on and off. You will be amazed at the difference.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭311


    You did ,that wasn't a smart sorry is was a genuine one.
    I was looking at the function the wrong way.

    Thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,966 ✭✭✭elven


    How many extra stops do you get from a comfy chair?

    Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Profuse apologies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭311


    Valentia wrote:
    Brian, sit back in your chair, and aim the lens at a picture on the wall in a reasonably lit room. Experiment with different ISOs, shutter speeds etc. Try it with IS on and off. You will be amazed at the difference.
    I gave it go danny ,friggin deadly. Touching off the autofocus removes jitters perfectly.
    Can't believe my luck ,Gunns had the lens in stock :) just a few euro more expensive than AC-FOTO.
    Cheers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78 ✭✭localchap


    Let me throw in my 5 cents, I owned while ago 28-135 IS USM, have to mention, even when IS's on, it might come out quite blurry in low light condition without a tripod, so IMHO in some low light situation IS is simply useless.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭GristlyEnd


    I've never used an IS or VR lens before. Brian, are the results immediately apparent? I'm thinking of getting a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor (now thats a mouthful).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭311


    Darren ,I got to test it outside gunns and was happy with the effect I got.
    Stabilization is definetly something to have a look at if you can.
    I had to sell a lens that I liked ,but I'm glad I did to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    localchap wrote:
    Let me throw in my 5 cents, I owned while ago 28-135 IS USM, have to mention, even when IS's on, it might come out quite blurry in low light condition without a tripod, so IMHO in some low light situation IS is simply useless.

    I have found the complete opposite. Interesting isn't it? :) I usually bump up the ISO 'till I have a usable shutter speed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    DarrenG wrote:
    I've never used an IS or VR lens before. Brian, are the results immediately apparent? I'm thinking of getting a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor (now thats a mouthful).

    Darren the results can be startling. Honestly. I have the 24-105 L IS and the 100-400 L IS and it is amazing how slow you can go and get acceptable results, even in low light ;).

    I have used the 100-400 with a 2x convertor on my 10D (focal length of 1280) at 1/60 sec and got passable photos.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,384 ✭✭✭Fionn


    IS can and does reduce the shakes!!!

    but

    that doesn't mean you still can't take shakey shots!

    i sort of fell into a trap - believing that i could always get good shots because i had IS thats just not true obviously
    but it can go along way to reduce it when used right!

    the only other thing i'll say about IS - remember to turn it off for tripod shots


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78 ✭✭localchap


    Valentia wrote:
    I have found the complete opposite. Interesting isn't it? :) I usually bump up the ISO 'till I have a usable shutter speed.
    What you do has another side of medal, rising up ISO increases noise level which becomes quite visible at as high as 800-1000 (at least at 30d i had)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    localchap wrote:
    What you do has another side of medal, rising up ISO increases noise level which becomes quite visible at as high as 800-1000 (at least at 30d i had)

    Yep. That's true but noise ninja does a good job on them when needed. Now that I have the 5D I can get very respectable shots at 1600 ISO noise wise.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭evilhomer


    Valentia wrote:
    I have used the 100-400 with a 2x converter on my 10D (focal length of 1280) at 1/60 sec and got passable photos.


    Now you're just showing off :p

    _Brian_
    I have the 17-85mm EF-S IS and I find the IS helps a lot with the hand-held stuff. If you prop yourself up against a lamp-post or a railing you can even get good night shots with IS on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,975 ✭✭✭aFlabbyPanda


    localchap wrote:
    so IMHO in some low light situation IS is simply useless.

    I found the same with my 17-85mm IS. which is why i sold it for a 2.8mm 18-50, much happier now again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭B0rG


    Valentia wrote:
    Darren the results can be startling. Honestly. I have the 24-105 L IS and the 100-400 L IS and it is amazing how slow you can go and get acceptable results, even in low light ;).

    I guess you're having for a while now, so I wanted to ask how's that lens?
    Wanted to get it as kit one, as I don't wanna carry 2 lenses anymore...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,764 ✭✭✭Valentia


    The 24-105?? Super lens. Pin sharp, rugged and a perfect range for walkabout stuff.


Advertisement