I use stabilized lenses constantly. I shoot a lot of Aviation related subjects handheld and a stabilized lens lets me shoot a little slower to get good blur on propellers so the aircraft looks less static in flight. I also prefer faster stabilized lenses.
Please comment briefly on your experience with image stabilized lenses.
- Log in or register to post comments
I have two IS Canon Lens. The 28-135 and 18-55, The 28-135 is a magnificent performer when I use it in the studio. The camera is tripod mounted so IS has no value. Hand held on a 30d body it is a monster and I have a problem with arthritic hands so after much thought bought a Canon T1i which came with the 18-55. This camera is a delight to use, so light however the lens is cheaply made and the images not crisp despite the IS. Conclusion for me the IS makes no difference, I would rather use another non IS lens for images that enlarge nicely. As I do mostly studio work perhaps this is not a fair comparison.
I have two image stabilized lenses - a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 zoom and a Nikon 105 f/2.8 macro. I think image stabilization works best with fast lenses that can be hand held. I also have a Nikon 400 f/2.8 prime that I use for shooting fast action sports. I use it with a mono-pod because it weighs over 10 pounds. I think image stabilization on a lens like this is a waste of money, because this lens is seldom handheld. Image stabilization also slows burst rates when shooting action sequences.
My 1st of 3 Nikon VR lenses was the "fast" 70-200 f2.8 I use it for sunrise photos over the Grand Canyon where long exposures occur at f11 with 100 ISO film and even at 200 ISO I use with my D700 currently. My goal with the VR lens was to tame the camera/lens movement for the exposure times in the 2 to 4" range but it could not compensate enough. I had explained my goal and was assured- even tripod mounted- it was the best way to go by an excellent and knowledgeable salesman at a very dependable, professional shop. Alas, his advice is not the current thinking as to tripod mounted VR/IS/OS lenses.
Within reason... Depends on what kind of work you do. Sometimes I need the shallow depth of field a fast lens can give me but often not. With the sensitivity increases available in modern DSLRs you don't really need the extra lens speed for stability.
I do not feel that image stabilization is worth the extra expense. I traded a good Nikkor D series zoom lens to a newer VR version of the same of the lens with image stabilization. I found that the lens did justify the added cost. I also found that the lens was not as rugged as the older lens. After paying to have the new lens repaired, I gave up on the image stabilization as an expensive option that did not justify the additional cost. I love the Nikkor D series lenses but I an not interested in the new VR series Nikkors. If I have to shoot in low light situations, it is easy to set up a lens on a tripod or just crank up the ISO on my Nikon D3.