How effective is IS?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike H, Jul 6, 2005.

  1. Mike H

    Mike H Guest

    I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the level of work
    I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real gyro-stabilized rig, but I could
    swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS lens. I could, that is, if it will really make
    a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind of use?? If
    so, how effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY back,
    and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen to other viewpoints...)
    Thanks
    Mike
    Mike H, Jul 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike H

    John_B Guest

    Mike,
    In my opinion having IS on a 17-85 lens
    is useless!

    I only have one lens with IS, my Canon
    EF 100-400L IS.
    Now hand holding a 400mm is much harder
    then a 85mm lens (4 times bigger, weight
    and zoom). I never need IS (if it even
    existed) for my macro/portrait lens EF
    100mm f/2.8 or my 17-40L so I don't
    recommend it.

    Get a prime its best (if you can).

    What lens do you do aerial with now?

    "Mike H" <> wrote
    in message
    news:5RYye.25920$
    outh.net...
    > I do some aerial photography

    (non-professional, but serious). At the
    level of work
    > I do, I cannot come anywhere near

    justifying a real gyro-stabilized rig,
    but I could
    > swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS

    lens. I could, that is, if it will
    really make
    > a difference. Has anyone used this

    (or similar) lens for this kind of use??
    If
    > so, how effective is the IS in this

    application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY
    back,
    > and would prefer to stay with Canon,

    but would listen to other viewpoints...)
    > Thanks
    > Mike
    >




    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    John_B, Jul 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike H

    Mark² Guest

    "John_B" <> wrote in message
    news:42cc5d4b$...
    > Mike,
    > In my opinion having IS on a 17-85 lens
    > is useless!


    --Spoken like someone who either hasn't used it, or who hasn't learned how
    to take advantage of it.

    I use IS on four lenses (two of which I don't have any more), but the 28-135
    IS is absolutely useful at the wide end...especially in vibration-prone
    situations like on a vehicle, boat, or plane. I've hend-held dark shots at
    1/8th second, and even 1/4th second that are quite usable, and would hav
    otherwise been trash.

    Primes are great and sharp when on a stationary base/tripod/steady hand, but
    do NOTHING to deal with camera shake or vibrations that reach the lens.

    I would highly recommend IS if you are hand-holding shots from a plane.


    >
    > I only have one lens with IS, my Canon
    > EF 100-400L IS.
    > Now hand holding a 400mm is much harder
    > then a 85mm lens (4 times bigger, weight
    > and zoom). I never need IS (if it even
    > existed) for my macro/portrait lens EF
    > 100mm f/2.8 or my 17-40L so I don't
    > recommend it.
    >
    > Get a prime its best (if you can).
    >
    > What lens do you do aerial with now?
    >
    > "Mike H" <> wrote
    > in message
    > news:5RYye.25920$
    > outh.net...
    >> I do some aerial photography

    > (non-professional, but serious). At the
    > level of work
    >> I do, I cannot come anywhere near

    > justifying a real gyro-stabilized rig,
    > but I could
    >> swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS

    > lens. I could, that is, if it will
    > really make
    >> a difference. Has anyone used this

    > (or similar) lens for this kind of use??
    > If
    >> so, how effective is the IS in this

    > application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY
    > back,
    >> and would prefer to stay with Canon,

    > but would listen to other viewpoints...)
    >> Thanks
    >> Mike
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
    > News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
    > Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
    > =----
    Mark², Jul 7, 2005
    #3
  4. Mike H

    Stacey Guest

    Stacey, Jul 7, 2005
    #4
  5. Mark² wrote:
    > "John_B" <> wrote in message
    > news:42cc5d4b$...
    >
    >>Mike,
    >>In my opinion having IS on a 17-85 lens
    >>is useless!

    >
    >
    > --Spoken like someone who either hasn't used it, or who hasn't learned how
    > to take advantage of it.
    >
    > I use IS on four lenses (two of which I don't have any more), but the 28-135
    > IS is absolutely useful at the wide end...especially in vibration-prone
    > situations like on a vehicle, boat, or plane. I've hend-held dark shots at
    > 1/8th second, and even 1/4th second that are quite usable, and would hav
    > otherwise been trash.
    >
    > Primes are great and sharp when on a stationary base/tripod/steady hand, but
    > do NOTHING to deal with camera shake or vibrations that reach the lens.
    >
    > I would highly recommend IS if you are hand-holding shots from a plane.


    I would like to second Mark²'s opinion. This is exactly my
    experience too. I have 4 IS lenses: 28-135 IS, 100-400 L IS,
    300 f/4 L IS, and 500 f/4 L IS. I've used the 28-135 hand
    held a lot with IS from boats, planes, horseback, dark
    churches (getting sharp images at 1/8 second). I will not buy
    another lens unless it is IS or is unique and no IS is
    available.

    Roger Clark
    photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
    >
    >
    >
    >>I only have one lens with IS, my Canon
    >>EF 100-400L IS.
    >>Now hand holding a 400mm is much harder
    >>then a 85mm lens (4 times bigger, weight
    >>and zoom). I never need IS (if it even
    >>existed) for my macro/portrait lens EF
    >>100mm f/2.8 or my 17-40L so I don't
    >>recommend it.
    >>
    >>Get a prime its best (if you can).
    >>
    >>What lens do you do aerial with now?
    >>
    >>"Mike H" <> wrote
    >>in message
    >>news:5RYye.25920$
    >>outh.net...
    >>
    >>>I do some aerial photography

    >>
    >>(non-professional, but serious). At the
    >>level of work
    >>
    >>>I do, I cannot come anywhere near

    >>
    >>justifying a real gyro-stabilized rig,
    >>but I could
    >>
    >>>swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS

    >>
    >>lens. I could, that is, if it will
    >>really make
    >>
    >>> a difference. Has anyone used this

    >>
    >>(or similar) lens for this kind of use??
    >>If
    >>
    >>>so, how effective is the IS in this

    >>
    >>application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY
    >>back,
    >>
    >>>and would prefer to stay with Canon,

    >>
    >>but would listen to other viewpoints...)
    >>
    >>>Thanks
    >>>Mike
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Mike H

    Annika1980 Guest

    >I will not buy another lens unless it is IS or is unique and no IS is available.

    When Canon comes out with a new MP-E Macro lens with IS, I'm all over
    it!
    Annika1980, Jul 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Mike H

    Mark² Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I will not buy another lens unless it is IS or is unique and no IS is
    > >available.

    >
    > When Canon comes out with a new MP-E Macro lens with IS, I'm all over
    > it!


    Of all the hand-holding challenges, that lens has to be a real doozie...
    Mark², Jul 7, 2005
    #7
  8. On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:23:27 -0400, Mike H wrote:

    > I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the
    > level of work I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real
    > gyro-stabilized rig, but I could swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS lens.
    > I could, that is, if it will really make
    > a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind of
    > use?? If
    > so, how effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user from
    > WAY back, and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen to other
    > viewpoints...) Thanks
    > Mike


    I suggest that you rent both a gyro to use with your current lenses, and
    said IS lens to be used without the gyro. Shoot some shots without the
    gyro and your current lenses for comparison. Which set up does a better
    job? If you can afford it, buy it. If you can't, dream....

    I've shot oblique aerials professionally for years (usually from a
    helicopter and using a Hasselblad) without gyros or any type of
    stabilization other than my body and get excellent results. The secret?
    Relax the legs and buttocks to absorb vibration, tense the torso to create
    a stable foundation for the arms, which are held slight away from the body
    (the exact opposite of what is normally recommended to stabilize a camera)
    to act as shock absorbers, hold your breath, shoot between your
    heart beats. Also, shooting at the highest shutter speed you can helps
    immensely.
    stefan patric, Jul 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Mike H

    Skip M Guest

    "John_B" <> wrote in message
    news:42cc5d4b$...
    > Mike,
    > In my opinion having IS on a 17-85 lens
    > is useless!
    >
    > I only have one lens with IS, my Canon
    > EF 100-400L IS.
    > Now hand holding a 400mm is much harder
    > then a 85mm lens (4 times bigger, weight
    > and zoom). I never need IS (if it even
    > existed) for my macro/portrait lens EF
    > 100mm f/2.8 or my 17-40L so I don't
    > recommend it.
    >
    > Get a prime its best (if you can).
    >
    > What lens do you do aerial with now?
    >


    I never found IS useless on my 28-135 IS on a film camera, it does help,
    even down to 50mm, where I've gotten sharp images at 1/4 second. Since the
    17-85 has a similar image size to that when it's mounted on a 20D, results
    should be similar, too.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Jul 7, 2005
    #9
  10. Mike H

    MarkH Guest

    Mike H <> wrote in
    news:5RYye.25920$:

    > I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the
    > level of work I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real
    > gyro-stabilized rig, but I could swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS
    > lens. I could, that is, if it will really make
    > a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind
    > of use?? If
    > so, how effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user
    > from WAY back, and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen
    > to other viewpoints...) Thanks
    > Mike


    I have the 28-135 and usually turn the IS off for shooting motor racing
    when I am panning. But for low light shots with static subjects I get
    around the 2 stops that Canon claims.

    I think that without IS you would need to shoot at a fairly high shutter
    speed to avoid blur due to the vibrations of the plane. If you find the
    need to shoot at 1/1000 sec or faster without IS then you should be able to
    get acceptable results at 1/250 sec with IS - I would say that certainly
    makes a difference. If at the wide end you can already shoot 1/200 sec
    without IS, then that equates to being able to shoot at 1/50 sec with IS,
    still a good improvement.

    However it is worth noting that a good prime like a 50 f1.4 is much faster,
    so you could just shoot at a shutter speed 2 stops faster. But of course
    you will lose some depth of field when shooting at a wider aperture.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 25-June-05)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Jul 7, 2005
    #10
  11. Mike H

    hyperoglyphe Guest

    "Mike H" <> wrote in message
    news:5RYye.25920$...
    >I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the level
    >of work I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real gyro-stabilized
    >rig, but I could swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS lens. I could, that
    >is, if it will really make a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar)
    >lens for this kind of use?? If so, how effective is the IS in this
    >application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY back, and would prefer to stay
    >with Canon, but would listen to other viewpoints...)
    > Thanks
    > Mike


    I use the 28-135 IS, which I like and is fine for our application (land
    development). We shoot from as low as 500' Usually 1000. I sometimes use a
    10-22. I know IS works by comparing a 90-300 with a 75-300IS They are not
    the greatest lenses but I have a far higher % of clear shots using the IS.

    If you lean the lens end on the plexiglas you get less glare and a more
    stable shot but watch out for scratching! It didn't take me long to realise
    all those tiny parallel lines were the same width as the ones on my Cokin
    filter [-(

    Dave
    hyperoglyphe, Jul 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Mike H

    Skip M Guest

    "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:KW0ze.162184$...
    > Mike H <> wrote in
    > news:5RYye.25920$:
    >
    >> I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the
    >> level of work I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real
    >> gyro-stabilized rig, but I could swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS
    >> lens. I could, that is, if it will really make
    >> a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind
    >> of use?? If
    >> so, how effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user
    >> from WAY back, and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen
    >> to other viewpoints...) Thanks
    >> Mike

    >
    > I have the 28-135 and usually turn the IS off for shooting motor racing
    > when I am panning. But for low light shots with static subjects I get
    > around the 2 stops that Canon claims.
    >
    > I think that without IS you would need to shoot at a fairly high shutter
    > speed to avoid blur due to the vibrations of the plane. If you find the
    > need to shoot at 1/1000 sec or faster without IS then you should be able
    > to
    > get acceptable results at 1/250 sec with IS - I would say that certainly
    > makes a difference. If at the wide end you can already shoot 1/200 sec
    > without IS, then that equates to being able to shoot at 1/50 sec with IS,
    > still a good improvement.
    >
    > However it is worth noting that a good prime like a 50 f1.4 is much
    > faster,
    > so you could just shoot at a shutter speed 2 stops faster. But of course
    > you will lose some depth of field when shooting at a wider aperture.
    >
    >


    Plus, it's a little hard to "zoom with your feet" in a plane at 10,000 feet,
    unless you resort to a parachute! <G>

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Jul 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Mike H

    Mark² Guest

    "stefan patric" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:23:27 -0400, Mike H wrote:
    >
    >> I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the
    >> level of work I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real
    >> gyro-stabilized rig, but I could swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS
    >> lens.
    >> I could, that is, if it will really make
    >> a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind of
    >> use?? If
    >> so, how effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user from
    >> WAY back, and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen to other
    >> viewpoints...) Thanks
    >> Mike

    >
    > I suggest that you rent both a gyro to use with your current lenses, and
    > said IS lens to be used without the gyro. Shoot some shots without the
    > gyro and your current lenses for comparison. Which set up does a better
    > job? If you can afford it, buy it. If you can't, dream....
    >
    > I've shot oblique aerials professionally for years (usually from a
    > helicopter and using a Hasselblad) without gyros or any type of
    > stabilization other than my body and get excellent results. The secret?
    > Relax the legs and buttocks to absorb vibration, tense the torso to create
    > a stable foundation for the arms, which are held slight away from the body
    > (the exact opposite of what is normally recommended to stabilize a camera)
    > to act as shock absorbers, hold your breath, shoot between your
    > heart beats. Also, shooting at the highest shutter speed you can helps
    > immensely.


    This is good advice...about using your body as a sort of "shock absorber."
    It's like what you do when you've got a lidless cup of coffee while
    riving. -Your arm becomes a moving shock.
    His advice is especially true with regard to NOT keeping muscles tense. I
    see people trying to brace themselves with cameras where they are clearly
    flexing their muscles--as if to become rock solid. This doesn't usually
    help unless your pressing against a tree or other solid structure that
    restricts movement. In anything moving, relaxed is the way to go. -Like
    "sea legs" on a boat. :)
    Mark², Jul 7, 2005
    #13
  14. Mike H

    Mark² Guest

    "MarkH" <> wrote in message
    news:KW0ze.162184$...
    > Mike H <> wrote in
    > news:5RYye.25920$:
    >
    >> I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the
    >> level of work I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real
    >> gyro-stabilized rig, but I could swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS
    >> lens. I could, that is, if it will really make
    >> a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind
    >> of use?? If
    >> so, how effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user
    >> from WAY back, and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen
    >> to other viewpoints...) Thanks
    >> Mike

    >
    > I have the 28-135 and usually turn the IS off for shooting motor racing
    > when I am panning.


    That's true, since the 28-135 has first generation IS--with no "mode 2" for
    panning.

    >But for low light shots with static subjects I get
    > around the 2 stops that Canon claims.


    Me too...and then some.

    > I think that without IS you would need to shoot at a fairly high shutter
    > speed to avoid blur due to the vibrations of the plane. If you find the
    > need to shoot at 1/1000 sec or faster without IS then you should be able
    > to
    > get acceptable results at 1/250 sec with IS - I would say that certainly
    > makes a difference.


    That's true, so long as the high shutter is used to battle camera motion and
    NOT subject/scene motion as it passes by in low flight (obviously IS doesn't
    help scene/subject motion).

    >If at the wide end you can already shoot 1/200 sec
    > without IS, then that equates to being able to shoot at 1/50 sec with IS,
    > still a good improvement.
    >
    > However it is worth noting that a good prime like a 50 f1.4 is much
    > faster,
    > so you could just shoot at a shutter speed 2 stops faster. But of course
    > you will lose some depth of field when shooting at a wider aperture.


    Mark H makes a really good point, and one that many tend to forget.
    I've heard a lot of people say things like, "You just need a faster lens"
    for things like museums where flash isn't allowed, for example. The trouble
    that is forgotten there is that if you're relying on fast lenses/large
    apertures, then you're limited to REALLY flat focus fields...meaning a
    scultpture in a museum will be mostly out of focus. This is where IS really
    comes through, since you can shoot smaller apertures in low light without
    flash, and still get usable shots.

    This, too, is the reason I wish Canon would release a true wide angle with
    IS.
    My ultimate wish is that Canon would crete an IS version of it's 24-70 2.8
    L. That would finally complete their line (16-35 2.8 L, 24-70 2.8 IS L, and
    70-200 2.8 IS L). With those three lenses and the 1.4x, I'd have just about
    all I'd ever need an all-around kit. As it is, the wide and tele along with
    the 28-135 makes for a great all-around combo while I wait.
    -Mark
    Mark², Jul 7, 2005
    #14
  15. Mike H

    Tony Guest

    It is good for at least two stops, and more like three to four, but I have
    no idea if it can keep up with the vibrations in an aircraft.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Mike H" <> wrote in message
    news:5RYye.25920$...
    > I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the

    level of work
    > I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real gyro-stabilized rig,

    but I could
    > swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS lens. I could, that is, if it will

    really make
    > a difference. Has anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind of

    use?? If
    > so, how effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user from

    WAY back,
    > and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen to other

    viewpoints...)
    > Thanks
    > Mike
    >
    Tony, Jul 7, 2005
    #15
  16. Mike H

    Tony Guest

    Brain dead. Is is quite useful at short focal lengths. Just because you
    are using a wide angle lens does not mean that you are holding it steady.
    When you have no idea what you are talking about, you might try listening
    instead of spouting.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "John_B" <> wrote in message
    news:42cc5d4b$...
    > Mike,
    > In my opinion having IS on a 17-85 lens
    > is useless!
    >
    > I only have one lens with IS, my Canon
    > EF 100-400L IS.
    > Now hand holding a 400mm is much harder
    > then a 85mm lens (4 times bigger, weight
    > and zoom). I never need IS (if it even
    > existed) for my macro/portrait lens EF
    > 100mm f/2.8 or my 17-40L so I don't
    > recommend it.
    >
    > Get a prime its best (if you can).
    >
    > What lens do you do aerial with now?
    >
    > "Mike H" <> wrote
    > in message
    > news:5RYye.25920$
    > outh.net...
    > > I do some aerial photography

    > (non-professional, but serious). At the
    > level of work
    > > I do, I cannot come anywhere near

    > justifying a real gyro-stabilized rig,
    > but I could
    > > swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS

    > lens. I could, that is, if it will
    > really make
    > > a difference. Has anyone used this

    > (or similar) lens for this kind of use??
    > If
    > > so, how effective is the IS in this

    > application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY
    > back,
    > > and would prefer to stay with Canon,

    > but would listen to other viewpoints...)
    > > Thanks
    > > Mike
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet

    News==----
    > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+

    Newsgroups
    > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption

    =----
    Tony, Jul 7, 2005
    #16
  17. Mike H

    John_B Guest

    Mike,
    I figured I have to reply after I see
    people like Mark2 and what they claim
    (which isn't worth anything by his
    attitude).

    With the 17-85 IS there is too much
    distortion for a $600 lens, like purple
    fringing. Also edges aren't as sharp
    which make it inferior to the 17-40L
    which is only $100 more. And don't
    forget this lens wont work on the
    majority of Canon EOS cameras, so if you
    ever get another Canon DSLR it might not
    work on it.

    Yes the IS feature could help, but for
    daylight wide angle shots its probably
    not even needed at the cost of less
    optical quality.

    So like I said before in response to you
    asking for other viewpoints:
    "Get a prime its best (if you can)."
    I would rather have a 50mm f/1.8
    (Canon's cheapest price prime lens, yet
    much much better optically and useable
    on all EOS cameras).





    "Mike H" <> wrote
    in message
    news:5RYye.25920$
    outh.net...
    > I do some aerial photography

    (non-professional, but serious). At the
    level of work
    > I do, I cannot come anywhere near

    justifying a real gyro-stabilized rig,
    but I could
    > swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS

    lens. I could, that is, if it will
    really make
    > a difference. Has anyone used this

    (or similar) lens for this kind of use??
    If
    > so, how effective is the IS in this

    application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY
    back,
    > and would prefer to stay with Canon,

    but would listen to other viewpoints...)
    > Thanks
    > Mike
    >




    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    John_B, Jul 7, 2005
    #17
  18. Mike H

    Mark² Guest

    "John_B" <> wrote in message
    news:42cce72c$...
    > Mike,
    > I figured I have to reply after I see
    > people like Mark2 and what they claim
    > (which isn't worth anything by his
    > attitude).


    What attitude is that? The one that identifies someone who is clearly
    speaking without base? (you)
    You don't have to like me... -But you are contradicting some VERY
    experienced photogs besides myself who are in complete agreement.

    > With the 17-85 IS there is too much
    > distortion for a $600 lens, like purple
    > fringing. Also edges aren't as sharp
    > which make it inferior to the 17-40L
    > which is only $100 more. And don't
    > forget this lens wont work on the
    > majority of Canon EOS cameras, so if you
    > ever get another Canon DSLR it might not
    > work on it.


    The 17-40 is a fantastic lens, but it won't help you one little bit with
    camera shake.
    I'll agree with reservation about future compatability issues since it is
    EF-S, but the OP sounds as though this is mostly a single-purpose decision.

    > Yes the IS feature could help, but for
    > daylight wide angle shots its probably
    > not even needed at the cost of less
    > optical quality.


    "Probably?"
    What are you basing this assertion on?
    Optical quality goes quite wasted when you don't have a stable camera.

    > So like I said before in response to you
    > asking for other viewpoints:
    > "Get a prime its best (if you can)."
    > I would rather have a 50mm f/1.8
    > (Canon's cheapest price prime lens, yet
    > much much better optically and useable
    > on all EOS cameras).


    For static situations, me too.
    But not for images taken from a low-flying, fast-moving aircraft.
    Mark², Jul 7, 2005
    #18
  19. Mike H

    Mike H Guest

    To clarify my use and answer some questions....

    Most of my aerial work has been with (chemical) film cameras. Although I have some
    newer ones, I still seem to prefer my "tried and true" Canon F1 (yes, the original
    F1). For aerial work you don't need autofocus (can cause problems, actually) or
    autoexposure (exposure doesn't change that fast). Solid, reliable and easy to use
    basic controls are most important in a bouncing, vibrating small plane. My digital
    work so far has been with P&S cameras (currently a Canon S50). Up until the current
    crop of DSLRs I did not think they offered the capabilities I needed at a price I
    could justify. With aerial work (at least, the kind I do) the ability of wide-angle
    lenses to reduce apparent shake is not a factor... I'm always using some form of
    tele lenses. I find lenses in the 100 - 200 (35mm Equiv) length most useful. Less
    than 100 is not significant and greater than 200 gets into the very vibration
    sensitive range. (There are two factors about 'long lenses' that cause un-sharp
    images: 1) the commonly accepted effect of amplifying any camera movement and 2)
    long lenses ("physically" long lenses) tend to destabilize the camera by their very
    nature; it's hard to hold a long lens steady.) Also, since you cannot easily "crop
    with your feet", a reasonable zoom is very handy. Actually, for what I do,
    something like a 100-300 (35mm equiv) lens would be about right, but I don't see an
    IS lens in that range.

    Anyway, thanks for your input.. it has been useful.

    Mike


    Mike H wrote:
    > I do some aerial photography (non-professional, but serious). At the
    > level of work I do, I cannot come anywhere near justifying a real
    > gyro-stabilized rig, but I could swing a Canon D20s and the 17-85 IS
    > lens. I could, that is, if it will really make a difference. Has
    > anyone used this (or similar) lens for this kind of use?? If so, how
    > effective is the IS in this application? (I'm a Canon user from WAY
    > back, and would prefer to stay with Canon, but would listen to other
    > viewpoints...)
    > Thanks
    > Mike
    >
    Mike H, Jul 7, 2005
    #19
  20. Mike H

    MarkH Guest

    Mike H <> wrote in
    news:GP9ze.27236$:

    > To clarify my use and answer some questions....
    >
    > Most of my aerial work has been with (chemical) film cameras.
    > Although I have some newer ones, I still seem to prefer my "tried and
    > true" Canon F1 (yes, the original F1). For aerial work you don't
    > need autofocus (can cause problems, actually) or autoexposure
    > (exposure doesn't change that fast). Solid, reliable and easy to use
    > basic controls are most important in a bouncing, vibrating small
    > plane. My digital work so far has been with P&S cameras (currently a
    > Canon S50). Up until the current crop of DSLRs I did not think they
    > offered the capabilities I needed at a price I could justify. With
    > aerial work (at least, the kind I do) the ability of wide-angle lenses
    > to reduce apparent shake is not a factor... I'm always using some
    > form of tele lenses. I find lenses in the 100 - 200 (35mm Equiv)
    > length most useful. Less than 100 is not significant and greater than
    > 200 gets into the very vibration sensitive range. (There are two
    > factors about 'long lenses' that cause un-sharp images: 1) the
    > commonly accepted effect of amplifying any camera movement and 2) long
    > lenses ("physically" long lenses) tend to destabilize the camera by
    > their very nature; it's hard to hold a long lens steady.) Also, since
    > you cannot easily "crop with your feet", a reasonable zoom is very
    > handy. Actually, for what I do, something like a 100-300 (35mm equiv)
    > lens would be about right, but I don't see an IS lens in that range.


    Did you realise that a 70-200 on a D-SLR with a 1.6x sensor would give the
    equivalent of 112-320? That does not seem to be too far from the range
    that you want. I don't know if the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens is in your
    budget or not, but with a wide aperture like f2.8 and a newer generation IS
    that is good for 3 stops of stabilisation, it would be an excellent lens
    for your application.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 25-June-05)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Jul 7, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tenplay
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    434
    Moz Champion
    Jul 14, 2004
  2. guohan  lu
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,154
    guohan lu
    Nov 19, 2005
  3. Chris
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,646
    Chris
    Dec 3, 2003
  4. Rick
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    503
  5. fredforcash

    not new but very effective

    fredforcash, Mar 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    587
    Th Rt Hon Charles Farquaharson Esq
    Jul 5, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page