Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J Taylor, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. > One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
    > bodies...
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon


    ... because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of the
    image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors. Note that
    Nikon also use in-lens IS, as to Leica/Panasonic for their well-respected
    compact cameras.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e88388f$0$3035$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    > message news:j69ado$b4g$...
    >>> One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
    >>> bodies...

    >> .. because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of
    >> the image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors.

    >
    >
    > And not forgetting they can charge significantly more for the lenses.
    > Check out the price differences of the popular 70-200L IS versus the non
    > IS equivalents for example.


    Canon seem to be quoted as doing this more often than Nikon. The price
    Nikon charge for IS lenses which I buy (not the top end of the range) seem
    not unreasonable to me.

    > And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also
    > use many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having
    > the option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds
    > for wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you
    > could afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses
    > you still wish to use).


    Having the option could be useful, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. More
    likely I would end up with both lens- and body-IS enabled, and make things
    worse rather than better! I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the
    10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light
    working, IS might be sensible for it.

    > But I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for Canon or Nikon to provide in
    > body IS/VR :-(
    > Would have been nice if Canon copied Olympus like they did with the
    > ultrasonic sensor cleaning, but I sure didn't expect them to, so wasn't
    > disappointed. At least they have started to offer things like sensor
    > cleaning, and adjustable displays on some models now, so who knows,
    > maybe in a decade or two :)
    >
    > Trevor.


    LOL! Yes, perhaps. I'll not hold my breath!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j69ado$b4g$...
    >> One has to ask oneself why Canon does not put IS into its camera
    >> bodies...

    > .. because in-lens IS performs better, and provides stabilisatino of the
    > image in the viewfinder and on the focus and exposure sensors.



    And not forgetting they can charge significantly more for the lenses. Check
    out the price differences of the popular 70-200L IS versus the non IS
    equivalents for example.
    And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also use
    many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having the
    option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds for
    wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you could
    afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses you still
    wish to use).
    But I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for Canon or Nikon to provide in body
    IS/VR :-(
    Would have been nice if Canon copied Olympus like they did with the
    ultrasonic sensor cleaning, but I sure didn't expect them to, so wasn't
    disappointed. At least they have started to offer things like sensor
    cleaning, and adjustable displays on some models now, so who knows, maybe in
    a decade or two :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 2, 2011
    #3
  4. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j69epn$1f0$...
    > Canon seem to be quoted as doing this more often than Nikon. The price
    > Nikon charge for IS lenses which I buy (not the top end of the range) seem
    > not unreasonable to me.


    Wel the price on the couple of IS kit lenses Canon make is reasonable too,
    if that's all you are after. The rest have BIG differences.


    >> And many of those camera bodies that do have in camera IS/VR, can also
    >> use many 3rd party lenses with in lens IS/VR as well. Seems to me having
    >> the option would be a good thing, (think slower hand held shutter speeds
    >> for wide angle lenses that aren't even offered with IS/VR, even if you
    >> could afford IS/VR for *every* lens you buy, and have no older lenses you
    >> still wish to use).

    >
    > Having the option could be useful, I suppose, but I'm not convinced. More
    > likely I would end up with both lens- and body-IS enabled, and make things
    > worse rather than better!



    Would be VERY easy for the camera to disable in-body IS if in-lens IS was
    engaged. Although I see some lens manufacturers claim that both can be used
    together. Not owning such a camera I can't say if they will work together,
    against each other, or a mixture depending on conditions.
    But I'd prefer the option in any case.

    >I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the 10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm
    >f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light working, IS might be sensible for
    >it.


    And the 10-24 as well since it needs a slower shutter speed more often! And
    would even like it on the 50mm f1.4, and especially the 200 f2.8. But ALL my
    non IS primes in fact!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 2, 2011
    #4
  5. "Trevor" <trevor@> wrote in message
    news:4e8843cc$0$22470$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@> wrote in message

    []
    >>I think all my lenses have IS/VR except the 10-24 mm zoom and the 35 mm
    >>f/1.8. As the latter is for low-light working, IS might be sensible for
    >>it.

    >
    > And the 10-24 as well since it needs a slower shutter speed more often!
    > And would even like it on the 50mm f1.4, and especially the 200 f2.8.
    > But ALL my non IS primes in fact!
    >
    > Trevor.


    I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting. Were I to
    use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the camera
    against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a tripod).
    Certainly if you have existing non-IS lenses I can see the attraction of
    in-body stabilisation - I have tended to buy my stuff more recently after
    selling all my film gear, and have tended to get IS lenses where possible
    or necessary.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 2, 2011
    #5
  6. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j69oag$m2d$...
    > I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting.


    Mine is used both indoors and out. Flash can often be tricky, so slow
    shutter speeds means IS would be a definite benefit.

    >Were I to use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the
    >camera against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a
    >tripod).


    Right, so IS *would* be useful!


    > Certainly if you have existing non-IS lenses I can see the attraction of
    > in-body stabilisation - I have tended to buy my stuff more recently after
    > selling all my film gear, and have tended to get IS lenses where possible
    > or necessary.


    As I said, not all lenses are made with IS, especially the primes which
    still have the best performance. And adding up to $500 (or even more) for
    every lens soons gets expensive.
    I'd rather have more lenses for the same money! Especially for those I don't
    often need IS, but WOULD find it useful on occasion.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 3, 2011
    #6
  7. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e892424$0$22474$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    > message news:j69oag$m2d$...
    >> I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting.

    >
    > Mine is used both indoors and out. Flash can often be tricky, so slow
    > shutter speeds means IS would be a definite benefit.
    >
    >>Were I to use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the
    >>camera against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a
    >>tripod).

    >
    > Right, so IS *would* be useful!


    Well, yes and no. With 10 mm focal length, you would need to be working
    at a very slow shutter speed to be worried about camera shake, say 1/4s or
    longer opening time. I think you will find that most IS systems don't
    claim to stabilise in that range, they are designed for faster shutter
    speeds. Does anyone have a reference for this?

    > As I said, not all lenses are made with IS, especially the primes which
    > still have the best performance. And adding up to $500 (or even more)
    > for every lens soons gets expensive.
    > I'd rather have more lenses for the same money! Especially for those I
    > don't often need IS, but WOULD find it useful on occasion.
    >
    > Trevor.


    Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now, you
    will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 3, 2011
    #7
  8. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e897581$0$22469$...
    []
    > Rubbish, the old rule of thumb would suggest 1/15th second (at the
    > 10mm=15mm eff. end), BUT if you want *real* sharpness you need to be at
    > least a stop faster. And of course double that at the 22mm end!


    In my experience, I can easily hold at 1/10 s, to provide adequate
    sharpness for my needs. I accept your needs and experience may be
    different, but that doesn't alter my experience.

    > My 17-85 stabilises pretty well at 17mm for hand held shots around
    > 1/5-1/10th second, when compared with the IS off. Much slower and it
    > will probably not help as much. I usually expect to use a tripod by
    > then. Not always having to is a plus AFAIC.


    ... and when you would use a tripod, I would brace against some available
    object.

    >> Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now,
    >> you will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.

    >
    > Given the performance of some of their camera's at high ISO these days,
    > I tend to think it might be better to actually choose Canon or Nikon,
    > and just forget about IS/VR!
    >
    > Trevor.


    Yes, and there should be more to come as sensors approach the limiting
    quantum efficiency.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 3, 2011
    #8
  9. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j6big6$8n9$...
    >>
    >> Right, so IS *would* be useful!

    >
    > Well, yes and no. With 10 mm focal length, you would need to be working
    > at a very slow shutter speed to be worried about camera shake, say 1/4s or
    > longer opening time.


    Rubbish, the old rule of thumb would suggest 1/15th second (at the 10mm=15mm
    eff. end), BUT if you want *real* sharpness you need to be at least a stop
    faster. And of course double that at the 22mm end!


    >.will benefit from IS IMO, and I think you will find that most IS systems
    >don't claim to stabilise in that range, they are designed for faster
    >shutter speeds. Does anyone have a reference for this?


    My 17-85 stabilises pretty well at 17mm for hand held shots around
    1/5-1/10th second, when compared with the IS off. Much slower and it will
    probably not help as much. I usually expect to use a tripod by then. Not
    always having to is a plus AFAIC.


    > Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now, you
    > will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.


    Given the performance of some of their camera's at high ISO these days, I
    tend to think it might be better to actually choose Canon or Nikon, and just
    forget about IS/VR!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 3, 2011
    #9
  10. David J Taylor <> wrote:
    > "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    > news:4e892424$0$22474$...
    >>
    >> "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    >> message news:j69oag$m2d$...
    >>> I find that the 10-24 is mostly used outdoors in good lighting.

    >>
    >> Mine is used both indoors and out. Flash can often be tricky, so slow
    >> shutter speeds means IS would be a definite benefit.
    >>
    >>>Were I to use it indoors at low light levels, I would try and brace the
    >>>camera against some convenient support (as I prefer to travel without a
    >>>tripod).

    >>
    >> Right, so IS *would* be useful!


    > Well, yes and no. With 10 mm focal length, you would need to be working
    > at a very slow shutter speed to be worried about camera shake, say 1/4s or
    > longer opening time. I think you will find that most IS systems don't
    > claim to stabilise in that range, they are designed for faster shutter
    > speeds. Does anyone have a reference for this?


    >> As I said, not all lenses are made with IS, especially the primes which
    >> still have the best performance. And adding up to $500 (or even more)
    >> for every lens soons gets expensive.
    >> I'd rather have more lenses for the same money! Especially for those I
    >> don't often need IS, but WOULD find it useful on occasion.
    >>
    >> Trevor.


    > Perhaps we will start to see some IS large aperture lenses? For now, you
    > will need to choose a camera range other than Nikon or Canon.


    Look at the long term. How often do you upgrade your camera lenses?
    How often do you upgrade your camera body? The point is that both
    kinds of IS keep improving.

    If you have IS in the camera, then every time you upgrade the camera
    body you upgrade the IS performance of all your lenses. Whereas if
    it's in the lenses, you have to upgrade your lenses every few to
    several years to keep up with the improvements in IS technology.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Oct 3, 2011
    #10
  11. > Look at the long term. How often do you upgrade your camera lenses?
    > How often do you upgrade your camera body? The point is that both
    > kinds of IS keep improving.
    >
    > If you have IS in the camera, then every time you upgrade the camera
    > body you upgrade the IS performance of all your lenses. Whereas if
    > it's in the lenses, you have to upgrade your lenses every few to
    > several years to keep up with the improvements in IS technology.
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm


    Yes, that's a plus-point for in-body, but (a) I don't think we've seen
    in-body IS being as effective over a wide range of focal lengths as
    in-lens IS [comparative reference welcome] and (b) with an optical
    viewfinder (as still preferred by many) in-body doesn't stabilise the
    viewfinder image. For me, that's a very important feature, but I accept
    it may not be for you.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 3, 2011
    #11
  12. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e8ab31d$0$13395$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    > message news:j6buu5$92m$...
    >> .. and when you would use a tripod, I would brace against some
    >> available object.

    >
    > Which is nowhere near as good as a tripod, and often none where you want
    > it, and may not even be better than IS with a proper stance anyway.
    > Having three options is always better than two IMO!


    ... perhaps, but can add to the confusion. I find that with bracing, up to
    a few seconds is perfectly possible, and covers most of my needs.

    >> Yes, and there should be more to come as sensors approach the limiting
    >> quantum efficiency.

    >
    > Well they will keep getting better for a while yet, and they aren't too
    > shabby now! :)
    >
    > Trevor.


    Perhaps another stop of sensitivity to go?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 4, 2011
    #12
  13. David J Taylor

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j6buu5$92m$...
    > .. and when you would use a tripod, I would brace against some available
    > object.


    Which is nowhere near as good as a tripod, and often none where you want it,
    and may not even be better than IS with a proper stance anyway. Having three
    options is always better than two IMO!


    > Yes, and there should be more to come as sensors approach the limiting
    > quantum efficiency.


    Well they will keep getting better for a while yet, and they aren't too
    shabby now! :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 4, 2011
    #13
  14. David J Taylor <> wrote:
    >> Look at the long term. How often do you upgrade your camera lenses?
    >> How often do you upgrade your camera body? The point is that both
    >> kinds of IS keep improving.
    >>
    >> If you have IS in the camera, then every time you upgrade the camera
    >> body you upgrade the IS performance of all your lenses. Whereas if
    >> it's in the lenses, you have to upgrade your lenses every few to
    >> several years to keep up with the improvements in IS technology.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Chris Malcolm


    > Yes, that's a plus-point for in-body, but (a) I don't think we've seen
    > in-body IS being as effective over a wide range of focal lengths as
    > in-lens IS [comparative reference welcome]


    I'm sure that's true at any given time, i.e. stage of development of
    the technology. But what about when your lenses are 5 years old and
    you've just a bought a new camera body? Then the comparison is between
    5 year old in-lens technology and current in-camera technology.

    > and (b) with an optical
    > viewfinder (as still preferred by many) in-body doesn't stabilise the
    > viewfinder image. For me, that's a very important feature, but I accept
    > it may not be for you.


    I'd find that very handy with very long lenses that are hard to hand
    hold at all steadily, such as a 500mm on a 1.5 crop sensor. Would it
    make a difference to the good shots I get? Don't know.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Oct 4, 2011
    #14
  15. "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > I'm sure that's true at any given time, i.e. stage of development of
    > the technology. But what about when your lenses are 5 years old and
    > you've just a bought a new camera body? Then the comparison is between
    > 5 year old in-lens technology and current in-camera technology.


    Yes, but you still have the inherent limitations of a one-size-suits-all
    in-body IS versus IS tailored for each particular lens. I'd love to see a
    comparison of the best that the two approaches can offer.

    >> and (b) with an optical
    >> viewfinder (as still preferred by many) in-body doesn't stabilise the
    >> viewfinder image. For me, that's a very important feature, but I
    >> accept
    >> it may not be for you.

    >
    > I'd find that very handy with very long lenses that are hard to hand
    > hold at all steadily, such as a 500mm on a 1.5 crop sensor. Would it
    > make a difference to the good shots I get? Don't know.
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm


    Yes, I'm hand-holding these lenses, although 300 mm on DX (~450 mm equiv)
    is my maximum. When you have very strong winds it can make the difference
    to framing the shot with any accuracy!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 5, 2011
    #15
  16. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <4e88388f$0$3035$>, Trevor
    <> wrote:

    > And not forgetting they can charge significantly more for the lenses. Check
    > out the price differences of the popular 70-200L IS versus the non IS
    > equivalents for example.


    then check out the difference in the nikon 55-200 and 55-200vr. it's
    like $50 or so, *and* it's a better lens even without the vr, making
    the vr essentially free.
     
    nospam, Oct 5, 2011
    #16
  17. David J Taylor <> wrote:
    > "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    > news:...


    >> I'm sure that's true at any given time, i.e. stage of development of
    >> the technology. But what about when your lenses are 5 years old and
    >> you've just a bought a new camera body? Then the comparison is between
    >> 5 year old in-lens technology and current in-camera technology.


    > Yes, but you still have the inherent limitations of a one-size-suits-all
    > in-body IS versus IS tailored for each particular lens. I'd love to see a
    > comparison of the best that the two approaches can offer.


    Of course the mechanics of the in-camera IS can't be tailored to the
    focal length, but the parameters of the (sort of) PID control
    algorithm can be and is. The camera uses the reported focal length
    from the lens.

    >>> and (b) with an optical
    >>> viewfinder (as still preferred by many) in-body doesn't stabilise the
    >>> viewfinder image. For me, that's a very important feature, but I
    >>> accept
    >>> it may not be for you.

    >>
    >> I'd find that very handy with very long lenses that are hard to hand
    >> hold at all steadily, such as a 500mm on a 1.5 crop sensor. Would it
    >> make a difference to the good shots I get? Don't know.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Chris Malcolm


    > Yes, I'm hand-holding these lenses, although 300 mm on DX (~450 mm equiv)
    > is my maximum. When you have very strong winds it can make the difference
    > to framing the shot with any accuracy!


    I have a 500mm on a 1.5 crop sensor (750mm equiv) which I and several
    others have often used hand held -- but not in high winds, and not for
    chasing birds in flight! However, just to add extra inertia to the
    camera/lens combo, esp rotational inertia, I usually use it with a big
    monopod attached. Very useful extra stabilisation even when the pod is
    purely hand held and not resting on anything.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Oct 5, 2011
    #17
  18. David J Taylor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> wrote:

    > >> I'm sure that's true at any given time, i.e. stage of development of
    > >> the technology. But what about when your lenses are 5 years old and
    > >> you've just a bought a new camera body? Then the comparison is between
    > >> 5 year old in-lens technology and current in-camera technology.

    >
    > > Yes, but you still have the inherent limitations of a one-size-suits-all
    > > in-body IS versus IS tailored for each particular lens. I'd love to see a
    > > comparison of the best that the two approaches can offer.

    >
    > Of course the mechanics of the in-camera IS can't be tailored to the
    > focal length, but the parameters of the (sort of) PID control
    > algorithm can be and is. The camera uses the reported focal length
    > from the lens.


    the amount of distance the sensor must move goes up as the focal length
    goes up and it physically cannot move far enough and fast enough to be
    effective at the longest focal lengths. moving a lens element only
    needs to move a tiny amount to be effective.
     
    nospam, Oct 5, 2011
    #18
  19. > I have a 500mm on a 1.5 crop sensor (750mm equiv) which I and several
    > others have often used hand held -- but not in high winds, and not for
    > chasing birds in flight! However, just to add extra inertia to the
    > camera/lens combo, esp rotational inertia, I usually use it with a big
    > monopod attached. Very useful extra stabilisation even when the pod is
    > purely hand held and not resting on anything.
    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm


    Given extra weight, yes, you can start to stabilise the image in the
    viewfinder with things like monopods - a good suggestion. But until I
    need to carry a walking stick (with camera mount, of course), tripods or
    monopods are out for me.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 5, 2011
    #19
  20. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e8d598f$0$3032$...
    >
    > "nospam" <> wrote in message
    > news:051020110851161201%...
    >> then check out the difference in the nikon 55-200 and 55-200vr. it's
    >> like $50 or so, *and* it's a better lens even without the vr, making
    >> the vr essentially free.

    >
    > Yeah for one or two cheap lenses, just like Canon. Now check out the
    > difference on their professional lenses. I'm still amazed some people
    > worry so much about the IS/VR performance with cheap lenses, but hey
    > whatever, it's your money.
    >
    > Trevor.


    The need for IS/VR depends on focal length and shutter speed, not the cost
    of the lens.

    If a $200 lens performs as well as you need, why buy a $500 one? Use the
    money saved for something else.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 6, 2011
    #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. Alan Wonsowski

    Image Stabilization - What Lens Has This for D70

    Alan Wonsowski, May 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,238
  2. Al Clark

    Lens stabilization vs Camera stabilization

    Al Clark, Nov 30, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    119
    Views:
    1,798
    Dan Sullivan
    Dec 9, 2006
  3. Robert Coe
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    281
    PeterN
    Oct 4, 2011
  4. David J Taylor

    Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

    David J Taylor, Oct 3, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    401
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Oct 28, 2011
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Image stabilization in body, camera held by lens?

    Paul Ciszek, Jun 4, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    510
    Chris Malcolm
    Jun 8, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page