Lens-based vs sensor-based stabilization

nyer82 · Aug 13, 2014

Not really an answer... because I'm also wondering about non-telephoto lenses with it. It would seem as though in-lens stabilization is much better with short to long telephoto... but what about normal to wide-angle lenses? Negligible difference? or still a lot better?

Also Canon doesn't even sell a stabilized lens that has a maximum aperture of wider than f/2. Their 85mm line would certainly benefit with an IS update as would their 50mm line.

cberry · Aug 13, 2014

nyer82 said:
Not really an answer... because I'm also wondering about non-telephoto lenses with it. It would seem as though in-lens stabilization is much better with short to long telephoto... but what about normal to wide-angle lenses? Negligible difference? or still a lot better?

Also Canon doesn't even sell a stabilized lens that has a maximum aperture of wider than f/2. Their 85mm line would certainly benefit with an IS update as would their 50mm line.

Not sure that you really need the IS on the 85mm - with the 100mm having the IS at f/2.8 - there's the Tamron at 90mm too but I think reduced sensor noise is killing the need for IS at these apertures.

The 50mm is a bestseller as it is - IS on this one at ISO 1600 - again not necessary.

By not necessary - I don't think there's much of a market for it. Given the choice, I'd spend the money elsewhere such as a good flash or another lens - or better lens.

If there was a market for it - I'm sure Sigma or tamron would have produced something in this segment.

cb

nyer82 · Aug 13, 2014

You don't *need* it, but it expands the flexibility for slower shutter speeds depending upon what you want to do. It's just another tool that maximizes the options we have, just like clean high-iso sensors haven't negated the need for wide-aperture lenses or IS in general.

This talk kinda reminds me of a while ago when I asked why the wide-angle primes had no IS. People were like "hey you don't need IS with those". And then... Canon comes out with them.

It could be the case that the stabilization unit is costly enough at such wide-apertures that it wouldn't make sense at this point in time to add it to these lenses.

BarnET · Aug 13, 2014

nyer82 said:
You don't *need* it, but it expands the flexibility for slower shutter speeds depending upon what you want to do. It's just another tool that maximizes the options we have, just like clean high-iso sensors haven't negated the need for wide-aperture lenses or IS in general.

This talk kinda reminds me of a while ago when I asked why the wide-angle primes had no IS. People were like "hey you don't need IS with those". And then... Canon comes out with them.

You can handhold till about 1/20th with those lenses without IS.

People and anything that moves will already be blurred and IS will not compensate that. You can say nighttime architecture. But then an tripod and much longer exposures make more sense

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

nyer82 said:
It could be the case that the stabilization unit is costly enough at such wide-apertures that it wouldn't make sense at this point in time to add it to these lenses.

nyer82 · Aug 13, 2014

What if you *want* people to be blurred?

Peter63 · Aug 13, 2014

BarnET said:
nyer82 said:

You don't *need* it, but it expands the flexibility for slower shutter speeds depending upon what you want to do. It's just another tool that maximizes the options we have, just like clean high-iso sensors haven't negated the need for wide-aperture lenses or IS in general.

This talk kinda reminds me of a while ago when I asked why the wide-angle primes had no IS. People were like "hey you don't need IS with those". And then... Canon comes out with them.

Click to expand...

You can handhold till about 1/20th with those lenses without IS.

People and anything that moves will already be blurred and IS will not compensate that. You can say nighttime architecture. But then an tripod and much longer exposures make more sense

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Church/museum interiors without a tripod?

Landscapes handheld with a small aperture?

IS is a valuable addition to an UWA lens.

Abu Mahendra · Aug 13, 2014

BarnET said:
IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

You know not of what you speak. Statements like these betray your limited experience shooting with UW zoom lenses in varied situations.

Taken at 05:55 hours, or four minutes after sunrise, with the canopy blocking the little light that there was. Handheld at 1/4 seconds (at 11mm), or two stops of Image Stabilization, resulting in ISO1000. Sans IS, it would have been ISO4000.

Ditto. With IS, ISO500. Without it, ISO 2500.

BarnET · Aug 13, 2014

Abu Mahendra said:
BarnET said:

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Click to expand...

You know not of what you speak. Statements like these betray your limited experience shooting with UW zoom lenses in varied situations.

Taken at 05:55 hours, or four minutes after sunrise, with the canopy blocking the little light that there was. Handheld at 1/4 seconds (at 11mm), or two stops of Image Stabilization, resulting in ISO1000. Sans IS, it would have been ISO4000.

Ditto. With IS, ISO500. Without it, ISO 2500.

Loading…

thatswhereyouare.com

Your allowed to take an tripod to Angkor wat

That would have allowed even lower iso's

BarnET · Aug 13, 2014

Peter63 said:
BarnET said:

nyer82 said:

You don't *need* it, but it expands the flexibility for slower shutter speeds depending upon what you want to do. It's just another tool that maximizes the options we have, just like clean high-iso sensors haven't negated the need for wide-aperture lenses or IS in general.

This talk kinda reminds me of a while ago when I asked why the wide-angle primes had no IS. People were like "hey you don't need IS with those". And then... Canon comes out with them.

Click to expand...

You can handhold till about 1/20th with those lenses without IS.

People and anything that moves will already be blurred and IS will not compensate that. You can say nighttime architecture. But then an tripod and much longer exposures make more sense

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Click to expand...

Church/museum interiors without a tripod?

Good point since you need special permission to use tripods.

Peter63 said:
Landscapes handheld with a small aperture?

Don't be lazy use an tripod an preferably focus stacking

Peter63 said:
IS is a valuable addition to an UWA lens.

You proved me wrong on 1 situation.

But it is an well used one for amateurs where the 10-18mm is aimed at. So for them in poorly lit churches yes.

BarnET · Aug 13, 2014

nyer82 said:
What if you *want* people to be blurred?

You won't get enough at the small gained shutterspeed.

It's an nice effect but you need nd's and a tripod for it.

Abu Mahendra · Aug 14, 2014

BarnET said:
Abu Mahendra said:

BarnET said:

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Click to expand...

You know not of what you speak. Statements like these betray your limited experience shooting with UW zoom lenses in varied situations.

Taken at 05:55 hours, or four minutes after sunrise, with the canopy blocking the little light that there was. Handheld at 1/4 seconds (at 11mm), or two stops of Image Stabilization, resulting in ISO1000. Sans IS, it would have been ISO4000.

Ditto. With IS, ISO500. Without it, ISO 2500.

Click to expand...

http://thatswhereyouare.com/?p=3743

Your allowed to take an tripod to Angkor wat

That would have allowed even lower iso's

Yes, but you are predictably changing the subject. No surprise there for you were caught with your pants down. Your claim, that IS "has no practical use on these [UW] lenses" has been demonstrably shown to be plainly and patently wrong. Whether tripods are allowed or disallowed, at Angkor Wat, at the Vatican or on the Moon, has no bearing on the issue at hand.

--
>> That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. <<

Peter63 · Aug 14, 2014

BarnET said:
Peter63 said:

BarnET said:

nyer82 said:

You don't *need* it, but it expands the flexibility for slower shutter speeds depending upon what you want to do. It's just another tool that maximizes the options we have, just like clean high-iso sensors haven't negated the need for wide-aperture lenses or IS in general.

This talk kinda reminds me of a while ago when I asked why the wide-angle primes had no IS. People were like "hey you don't need IS with those". And then... Canon comes out with them.

Click to expand...

You can handhold till about 1/20th with those lenses without IS.

People and anything that moves will already be blurred and IS will not compensate that. You can say nighttime architecture. But then an tripod and much longer exposures make more sense

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Click to expand...

Church/museum interiors without a tripod?

Click to expand...

Good point since you need special permission to use tripods.

BarnET said:

Landscapes handheld with a small aperture?

Click to expand...

Don't be lazy use an tripod an preferably focus stacking

If I can get a sharp shot with full depth of field by using a lens with IS, why would I carry a tripod or focus stack? I could also carry a generator and studio lights. I understand if you would prefer a lens without IS for your own use but I am surprised that you are blind to the value it has in a wide variety of situations. Carrying a tripod or focus stacking is impractical for most of my shooting. Flipping on the IS switch is highly practical to gain 2-4 stops in non-action shots.

BarnET said:
BarnET said:

IS is a valuable addition to an UWA lens.

Click to expand...

You proved me wrong on 1 situation.

But it is an well used one for amateurs where the 10-18mm is aimed at. So for them in poorly lit churches yes.

Perhaps even more for enthusiasts that the 16-35 IS is aimed at who would value lower ISO/noise in any static shot with limited light.

nyer82 · Aug 14, 2014

Of course IS has a practical use with wide-angle. If you consider it only an edge-case, that's one thing.. but plenty of other people see its value. Canon didn't offer IS with wide-angle lenses for no reason besides marketing. In NYC, there are a ton of locations where setting up a tripod would be incredibly impractical and people milling about would get in the way. Wouldn't it be nice if you could get a shot of the architecture, blur the people and cars somewhat.. but not have to drag the tripod around?

nyer82 · Aug 14, 2014

What about cars on the road?

Abu Mahendra · Aug 14, 2014

By BarnET's (il)logic, so long as a lens can be mounted on a tripod, IS is of no use. This means essentiailly that, since all lenses/cameras can be mounted on a tripod, IS is never useful. But we know this to be untrue, so his basic premise is proven incorrect.

nyer82 · Aug 14, 2014

Abu Mahendra said:
By BarnET's (il)logic, so long as a lens can be mounted on a tripod, IS is of no use. This means essentiailly that, since all lenses/cameras can be mounted on a tripod, IS is never useful. But we know this to be untrue, so his basic premise is proven incorrect.

nyer82 · Aug 14, 2014

Abu Mahendra said:
BarnET said:

Abu Mahendra said:

BarnET said:

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Click to expand...

You know not of what you speak. Statements like these betray your limited experience shooting with UW zoom lenses in varied situations.

Taken at 05:55 hours, or four minutes after sunrise, with the canopy blocking the little light that there was. Handheld at 1/4 seconds (at 11mm), or two stops of Image Stabilization, resulting in ISO1000. Sans IS, it would have been ISO4000.

Ditto. With IS, ISO500. Without it, ISO 2500.

Click to expand...

http://thatswhereyouare.com/?p=3743

Your allowed to take an tripod to Angkor wat

That would have allowed even lower iso's

Click to expand...

Yes, but you are predictably changing the subject. No surprise there for you were caught with your pants down. Your claim, that IS "has no practical use on these [UW] lenses" has been demonstrably shown to be plainly and patently wrong. Whether tripods are allowed or disallowed, at Angkor Wat, at the Vatican or on the Moon, has no bearing on the issue at hand.

--
>> That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. <<

The funny thing is the whole point to IS is practicality. A tripod will always be the best option in terms of quality. But is it *practical* to carry and set-up a tripod everywhere? I'm asking that regardless about whether it's permitted or not. I mean the heaviest tripod will also be the best with regards to stability.. so why not just take that around with you?

BarnET · Aug 14, 2014

Peter63 said:
BarnET said:

Peter63 said:

BarnET said:

nyer82 said:

You don't *need* it, but it expands the flexibility for slower shutter speeds depending upon what you want to do. It's just another tool that maximizes the options we have, just like clean high-iso sensors haven't negated the need for wide-aperture lenses or IS in general.

This talk kinda reminds me of a while ago when I asked why the wide-angle primes had no IS. People were like "hey you don't need IS with those". And then... Canon comes out with them.

Click to expand...

You can handhold till about 1/20th with those lenses without IS.

People and anything that moves will already be blurred and IS will not compensate that. You can say nighttime architecture. But then an tripod and much longer exposures make more sense

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Click to expand...

Church/museum interiors without a tripod?

Click to expand...

Good point since you need special permission to use tripods.

Peter63 said:

Landscapes handheld with a small aperture?

Click to expand...

Don't be lazy use an tripod an preferably focus stacking

Click to expand...

If I can get a sharp shot with full depth of field by using a lens with IS, why would I carry a tripod or focus stack?

Becouse stopping down too much will cause diffraction limiting your resolution significantly. Besides that an tripod allows to use even lower ISO's.

Peter63 said:
I could also carry a generator and studio lights. I understand if you would prefer a lens without IS for your own use but I am surprised that you are blind to the value it has in a wide variety of situations.

I prefer better optics over the IS on an UW. And i love IS on longer lenses where i need it the whole time.

Peter63 said:
Carrying a tripod or focus stacking is impractical for most of my shooting. Flipping on the IS switch is highly practical to gain 2-4 stops in non-action shots.

impractical or too much of an hassle?

Peter63 said:
Peter63 said:

Peter63 said:

IS is a valuable addition to an UWA lens.

Click to expand...

You proved me wrong on 1 situation.

But it is an well used one for amateurs where the 10-18mm is aimed at. So for them in poorly lit churches yes.

Click to expand...

Perhaps even more for enthusiasts that the 16-35 IS is aimed at who would value lower ISO/noise in any static shot with limited light.

The 16-35 is an expensive lens that will be coupled to an expensive fullframe camera.

I hope these guys won't go handheld landscape shooting in low-light. Well the best landscape shooter are moving away from canon anyway these days.

BarnET · Aug 14, 2014

Abu Mahendra said:
By BarnET's (il)logic, so long as a lens can be mounted on a tripod, IS is of no use. This means essentiailly that, since all lenses/cameras can be mounted on a tripod, IS is never useful.

No i think IS is terribly useful on LONGER lenses.

The field where UW lenses are used are mostly landscapes and architecture.

Like the Angkor wat someone posted. That ruin has been there for millenia. what is the problem of setting up an tripod in 1 minute? And then he could have used ISO 100 and get even better files.

Abu Mahendra said:
But we know this to be untrue, so his basic premise is proven incorrect.

--
>> That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. <<

Peter63 · Aug 14, 2014

BarnET said:
Peter63 said:

BarnET said:

Peter63 said:

BarnET said:

nyer82 said:

You don't *need* it, but it expands the flexibility for slower shutter speeds depending upon what you want to do. It's just another tool that maximizes the options we have, just like clean high-iso sensors haven't negated the need for wide-aperture lenses or IS in general.

This talk kinda reminds me of a while ago when I asked why the wide-angle primes had no IS. People were like "hey you don't need IS with those". And then... Canon comes out with them.

Click to expand...

You can handhold till about 1/20th with those lenses without IS.

People and anything that moves will already be blurred and IS will not compensate that. You can say nighttime architecture. But then an tripod and much longer exposures make more sense

IS on these lenses have no practical use apart from marketing.

Click to expand...

Church/museum interiors without a tripod?

Click to expand...

Good point since you need special permission to use tripods.

BarnET said:

Landscapes handheld with a small aperture?

Click to expand...

Don't be lazy use an tripod an preferably focus stacking

Click to expand...

If I can get a sharp shot with full depth of field by using a lens with IS, why would I carry a tripod or focus stack?

Click to expand...

Becouse stopping down too much will cause diffraction limiting your resolution significantly.

Using IS does not require you to stop down "too much". It does offer more flexibility, allowing you to shoot at the optimal f-stop for both resolution and depth of field.

BarnET said:
Besides that an tripod allows to use even lower ISO's.

Again, carrying and setting up a tripod everywhere you want to shoot is not practical.

BarnET said:
BarnET said:

I could also carry a generator and studio lights. I understand if you would prefer a lens without IS for your own use but I am surprised that you are blind to the value it has in a wide variety of situations.

Click to expand...

I prefer better optics over the IS on an UW.

I prefer to have both

BarnET said:
And i love IS on longer lenses where i need it the whole time.

I love IS on longer lenses where I need it sometimes. (You would probably be happier with a tripod though)

I love IS on middle and shorter lenses where I need it sometimes.

BarnET said:
BarnET said:

Carrying a tripod or focus stacking is impractical for most of my shooting. Flipping on the IS switch is highly practical to gain 2-4 stops in non-action shots.

Click to expand...

impractical or too much of an hassle?

Is there a real difference?

BarnET said:
BarnET said:

BarnET said:

BarnET said:

IS is a valuable addition to an UWA lens.

Click to expand...

You proved me wrong on 1 situation.

But it is an well used one for amateurs where the 10-18mm is aimed at. So for them in poorly lit churches yes.

Click to expand...

Perhaps even more for enthusiasts that the 16-35 IS is aimed at who would value lower ISO/noise in any static shot with limited light.

Click to expand...

The 16-35 is an expensive lens that will be coupled to an expensive fullframe camera.

I hope these guys won't go handheld landscape shooting in low-light.

Because we all know that a great picture with IS is not nearly as good as a great picture without IS?

BarnET said:
Well the best landscape shooter are moving away from canon anyway these days.

Probably because of Canon's crap lens line-up.

This is all getting a bit ridiculous,

How about if I concede that for the ideal landscape shot, I would use a tripod, and in extreme cases I might even focus stack.

Then maybe you will admit that IS is useful in a wide variety of situations where your subject is static and the light does not allow you to get a sharp shot at your desired aperture and ISO without using the IS.

Lens-based vs sensor-based stabilization

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts