Author Topic: Image stabilization (IS) or Vibration Reduction (VR)- It is Worth It (Read 5751 times)

tab62 · « **on:** November 24, 2012, 14:03 »

Here my thoughts on this topic- It's sort of like 4 cylinder car with and without turbo. Yeah, the regular 4 cylinder can do 90% of what you require of the car but the turbo sure is nice to have for the extra power or speed when you want or need it. The IS or VR are nice to have when you do need them. Therefore, if you can afford them why not!

Yes, if you are trying to justify the extra premium most would agree you are not going to get the most bang for your buck. Just like paying extra for F/1.4 instead of F/4 on a zoom lens- most will not use the F/1.4 and the F/1.4 has flaws at that extreme range as well. The sweet spot on most lenses are from F/5.6 to F/16. But if money isn't the primary objective than why not...

T

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2012, 14:20 »

I like to work handheld and the IS gives me many more usable images.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2012, 14:22 »

Actually you be surprised how handy and useful it can be. I didnt care about it at first but I soon changed my mind. Obviously IS, VR, is a waste on wide-angles, etc, no need for them there but once you get above 100 mil, then its really effective. Would you believe I am shooting the Canon 400 mil.2.8 IS, handheld down to around 90th/sec because of the IS, it weighs a ton. The Canon 70-300L, the white one is one of my most used lenses, weighs 1.3 kilos, thanks to the IS, I have never even put it on a tripod.

well my 2c.

JPSDK · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2012, 14:22 »

Definately yes.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2012, 16:40 »

Where I was sold is when taking aerials from a plane. I had a 70-200 2.8IS and a 24-70 f/2.8 non IS. The images from the 70-200 were way crisper even when shooting at the longer focal lengths. I sold the 24-70 f/2.8 and bought the 24-105 f/4, even though the 24-70 is optically better.

Ed · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2012, 17:10 »

Shooting in studio - no, not worth it

Shooting in uncontrollable situations, yes, depending on the quality of the lens. On higher end lenses, yes, on lower end lenses, no.

If you have a tendency to focus, then re-compose, you'll need to get used to it (it will drive you nuts).

StanRohrer · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2012, 18:23 »

In handheld situations IS/VR will give you about 2 to 3 fStops more range as slower shutter speeds. This means more keepers if you shoot on the fringe of shutter speeds. Generally IS/VR will be shut off for tripod use - so is of no help there.

tab62 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2012, 18:26 »

This would have made a great poll! Looks like Yes for most of us for a lot of reasons! Canon Rumor on 24-70 with IS - I will get that lens since that is my most used lens especially for traveling.

Thanks Folks for the input...

Tom

oxman · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2012, 18:47 »

I bought some IS Canon Binoculars years ago... game over for me.

IS is the way to go

Poncke · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2012, 04:56 »

Quote from: tab62 on November 24, 2012, 18:26

This would have made a great poll! Looks like Yes for most of us for a lot of reasons! Canon Rumor on 24-70 with IS - I will get that lens since that is my most used lens especially for traveling.

Thanks Folks for the input...

Tom

Unfortunately its f4 and not f2.8

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2012, 05:05 »

It is useful in many occasions. And it's more lightweight than bringing a tripod all the time (although not equally effective of course).

As an Olympus user, I have an advantage here: image stabilisation is in camera, not in lens. So you only pay once for it, and it's available with all lenses.

niserin · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2012, 05:48 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 25, 2012, 05:05

It is useful in many occasions. And it's more lightweight than bringing a tripod all the time (although not equally effective of course).

As an Olympus user, I have an advantage here: image stabilisation is in camera, not in lens. So you only pay once for it, and it's available with all lenses.

Hey man, you are a pro and you use Olympus ?
The E-5 is 12 MP - far below what is now needed.

Poncke · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2012, 06:05 »

Quote from: niserin on November 25, 2012, 05:48

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 25, 2012, 05:05
It is useful in many occasions. And it's more lightweight than bringing a tripod all the time (although not equally effective of course).

As an Olympus user, I have an advantage here: image stabilisation is in camera, not in lens. So you only pay once for it, and it's available with all lenses.

Hey man, you are a pro and you use Olympus ?
The E-5 is 12 MP - far below what is now needed.

Alamy requires 8.7mp give or take a few, 123 requires 6mp, all others are less. 12 mp should easily cut it imo

niserin · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2012, 06:12 »

Quote from: Poncke on November 25, 2012, 06:05

Quote from: niserin on November 25, 2012, 05:48
Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 25, 2012, 05:05
It is useful in many occasions. And it's more lightweight than bringing a tripod all the time (although not equally effective of course).

As an Olympus user, I have an advantage here: image stabilisation is in camera, not in lens. So you only pay once for it, and it's available with all lenses.

Hey man, you are a pro and you use Olympus ?
The E-5 is 12 MP - far below what is now needed.

Alamy requires 8.7mp give or take a few, 123 requires 6mp, all others are less. 12 mp should easily cut it imo

theoretically yes BUT several sites sell higher resolutions for higher prices not to mention that you can always crop, downscale etc. I have Canon 5d mkII with 21 MP and it is just right, I have to often downscale to 12 MP because of focus issues (difficult lighting, moving objects etc)

Poncke · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2012, 06:17 »

Quote from: niserin on November 25, 2012, 06:12

Quote from: Poncke on November 25, 2012, 06:05
Quote from: niserin on November 25, 2012, 05:48
Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 25, 2012, 05:05
It is useful in many occasions. And it's more lightweight than bringing a tripod all the time (although not equally effective of course).

As an Olympus user, I have an advantage here: image stabilisation is in camera, not in lens. So you only pay once for it, and it's available with all lenses.

Hey man, you are a pro and you use Olympus ?
The E-5 is 12 MP - far below what is now needed.

Alamy requires 8.7mp give or take a few, 123 requires 6mp, all others are less. 12 mp should easily cut it imo

theoretically yes BUT several sites sell higher resolutions for higher prices not to mention that you can always crop, downscale etc. I have Canon 5d mkII with 21 MP and it is just right, I have to often downscale to 12 MP because of focus issues (difficult lighting, moving objects etc)

Its not theoretically, its practically. I have a 12MP DSLR and I can still downsize crop cut whatever. 21 MP is nice but not a must at all. I have no issues with focus either.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #15 on:** November 25, 2012, 09:48 »

Indeed. My Olympus is 12 MP and I can have pictures accepted at that size most of the times. If there's some noise, or I need to crop, I downsize to 8.4 MP and it's fine for all sites including Alamy.

"Standard" 14-42 mm was a bit soft - but actually not so bad for being cheap kit lenses.

But since I bought "High grade" lenses (14-54 mm, 11-22 mm), I never had a problem: pictures are quite sharp. And even "Standard" 35 mm F-3.5 is quite good for macros. And with "Standard" 70-300 mm I got some usable pictures of the moon.

I admit I chose Olympus for my first DSLR many years ago just because it was cheaper than Nikon or Canon. Now I could afford to switch, but I am not going to. I especially like the Olympus colours and the fact it's small and lightweight: great for travel photography, which is what I mainly do. The only problem is noise at high iso (due to the smaller sensor, I guess), but it's easy to avoid using ISO 1600 for stock.

landbysea · « **Reply #16 on:** December 03, 2012, 11:35 »

I made 7,000 dollars so far from photos I took my first day out with my Nikon 18-85 DX VR lens. The lens replaced my Nikon kit zoom. I was in situations where a tripod could not be used and put the lens to an extreme low light and hi vibration test. Yeah, worth it.

jamesbenet · « **Reply #17 on:** December 03, 2012, 14:24 »

IS, VR, SR are extremely useful for taking handheld video at all focal lengths. So if Video is your focus IS should be on your list.

gillian vann · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2012, 00:32 »

Quote from: tab62 on November 24, 2012, 14:03

Here my thoughts on this topic- It's sort of like 4 cylinder car with and without turbo. Yeah, the regular 4 cylinder can do 90% of what you require of the car but the turbo sure is nice to have for the extra power or speed when you want or need it. The IS or VR are nice to have when you do need them. Therefore, if you can afford them why not!

Yes, if you are trying to justify the extra premium most would agree you are not going to get the most bang for your buck. Just like paying extra for F/1.4 instead of F/4 on a zoom lens- most will not use the F/1.4 and the F/1.4 has flaws at that extreme range as well. The sweet spot on most lenses are from F/5.6 to F/16. But if money isn't the primary objective than why not...

T

LOL, didn't you write something in another thread about not being so mad on buying gear? That should extend to this obsessing too.

I can't say what I feel. I have a 80-200 nikon lens without it, cos I couldn't afford the other one (70-200) at the time. I use that lens mostly with a tripod cos it's so heavy, else I shoot at 1/350 where I can, which seems to keep me out of trouble. I'd certainly be keen on the VR version at some stage, but I'm not into buying equipment unnecessarily.

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2012, 06:01 »

It depends:

If I can "shoot" 1/focal lenght or higher, with almost lens I own/use: IS Off

More battery lifetime and, with some lenses, a bit more sharp images. I've tested my sigma 120-400 @ 400mm with OS vs, handheld vs monopod, with 1/400 shutter speed. Doing some "pixel peeping" I got more sharp images with monopod and handheld with IS OFF.

Now, if i can't get enough shutter speed and low ISO, IS it's good.. at least to get a non-blurry image.

gillian vann · « **Reply #20 on:** December 06, 2012, 01:47 »

Quote from: Paulo M. F. Pires on December 04, 2012, 06:01

Doing some "pixel peeping" I got more sharp images with monopod and handheld with IS OFF.

we did similar test when i was at college and got the same results. the VR motor thingy can cause vibrations.

MetaStocker · « **Reply #21 on:** December 06, 2012, 03:29 »

Fully agree on sharpness, i did many tests with VR and in situation with moving people and low/dark light it gets the job done but the sharpness is weird sometimes, adding a sort of blur in some areas and making a mess in other areas, all things that never happens with VR off.

Said that, if the only alternative is using a tripod VR is very useful but the effects it does on final quality (only visible at 100%) are too much underestimated in my opinion, it's great if you shoot news or sport but for stock you must be careful.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Image stabilization (IS) or Vibration Reduction (VR)- It is Worth It (Read 5751 times)

tab62

PeterChigmaroff

ClaridgeJ

JPSDK

PeterChigmaroff

Ed

StanRohrer

tab62

oxman

Poncke

microstockphoto.co.uk

niserin

Poncke

niserin

Poncke

microstockphoto.co.uk

landbysea

jamesbenet

gillian vann

Paulo M. F. Pires

gillian vann

MetaStocker

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors