Importance of IS at different focal lengths

S

shortnstout

Well-known member
I wanted to get people's opinion on IS for different focal lengths, esp. in the 70-200mm range. I find IS wonderful for my 17-55mm because I end up using it handheld a lot. I have seen handheld tests comparing IS to non-IS in the 70-200mm lenses. But as far as actual usage, do you guys really handhold your camera at that focal length? I don't have a lens that long yet (although I do have a 105mm 2.5) but it is hard to image the shots not being very shaky, even with IS. Meaning, I feel like I might have to use a tripod for anything at that focal length anyway, so maybe I should just save hundreds of $$ and go for a non IS?

I've also got my eye on the tokina 11-16mm. Wide lenses tend to show less camera shake, but are there any IS lenses in this range? Would it not be necessary?

I'm sorry if this has been covered elsewhere in this forum, but searching a word like IS doesn't work. Please feel free to direct me.
 
As always, the question that has to be asked is: what are you shooting? For stills, you may be just fine with non-IS at those focal lengths, with a great tripod. But for video, on a CMOS camera, at far telephoto, I'd always want to have IS instead of non-IS. It overcomes the micro-wobble and micro-jitters that can happen when you even slightly touch the camera.
 
The longer the lens, the more you need it IMHO. I just reviewed a manual Tokina 80-200, it's impossible to handhold it at 100-200, it pretty much has to be tripod mounted.

Mind you, I don't know how much the IS really helps, if you're hand-held at a long telephoto length you'll probably still get shake.
 
yep, only the 100mm 2.8 macro lens had the new IS system that allows you to hand hold. Any other Still Camera IS wont do much at all to help for video.

Save your money till this new technology trickles down to the rest of canons stable.
 
jonE5 said:
yep, only the 100mm 2.8 macro lens had the new IS system that allows you to hand hold. Any other Still Camera IS wont do much at all to help for video.

Save your money till this new technology trickles down to the rest of canons stable.
Click to expand...

I donno man ... Not sure what lens combo or what your using but I have found the IS works pretty darned good, even on current ones.

I did a little example of how well it can do for anybody who doesn't already know.
I was only holding the camera in my hand while standing and not trying to be smooth but more so the same thru all the shots, so its real shaky without the IS. As far as I can say its an absolute must if you plan on anything off the tripod. It works well on a monopod or shoulder rig as well. You can also hear the noise you get with it as well which might be a negative for folks without a second audio system.

 
Thanks for the responses everyone. As to what I'm shooting, I thought it was assumed I'm shooting video, but as far as situations I guess I want to be pretty versatile (although I try not to do much handheld at long focal lengths). Barry, good comment on the tripod shake. Sometimes wind can shake my tripod a little bit. Or if I'm on a wooden floor and people are walking, etc. Since I think $2k is a bit more than I want to spend, I think I'm deciding between the 2.8 non-IS and the f4 IS.
I guess a little confusion came when somebody told me to always turn IS off when using a tripod (I guess this is true when panning- since I have seen the bad effects)- but perhaps this is an incorrect notion when doing a static shot (which is almost all I do).
 
BradM said:
I donno man ... Not sure what lens combo or what your using but I have found the IS works pretty darned good, even on current ones.

I did a little example of how well it can do for anybody who doesn't already know.
I was only holding the camera in my hand while standing and not trying to be smooth but more so the same thru all the shots, so its real shaky without the IS. As far as I can say its an absolute must if you plan on anything off the tripod. It works well on a monopod or shoulder rig as well. You can also hear the noise you get with it as well which might be a negative for folks without a second audio system.

Click to expand...


WOW! That is a great example of why to get an IS lens!
 
I have the 70-200 f4 non-IS. Bought if mainly for photos, but will use for video if needed. Here are some clips from the track. Panning is not bad and for the YouTube audience they are fine.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
For me personally IS and some sort of support is a necessity for anything sans-tripod. I use the zacuto z-finder and rapid fire most of the time, and occasionally use a shoulder mounted rig if I'm doing anything longer than 30 second takes (ala interviews, etc.).

Here's another clip to add to the bunch (keep in mind this is with the z-finder and rapid fire as well)
 
chris f said:
For me personally IS and some sort of support is a necessity for anything sans-tripod. I use the zacuto z-finder and rapid fire most of the time, and occasionally use a shoulder mounted rig if I'm doing anything longer than 30 second takes (ala interviews, etc.).

Here's another clip to add to the bunch (keep in mind this is with the z-finder and rapid fire as well)
Click to expand...

Ya good example Chris... the second point of contact (Z Finder ) really helps. Then when you throw it on a shoulder rig with the ZFinder and two hands plus the shoulder... it's almost tripod like with the IS running.

I cut down using my marshall monitor on a rig for this very reason. It's more stable with the Zfinder as another point of contact.
 
That shot is a great example of where you'd want to use a 200mm. It creates a dramatic looking closeup.

After reviewing the Tokina 80-200 2.8 and seeing some of this IS footage, I'm inclined to say that the Canon IS lenses are almost required if you're getting a tele-zoom.

I can haz $2,400 for a new Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ?
 
Ima let you talk, but first I want to say again that the IS on these zoom tele's is a revelation for me. I love shooting zoom-teles but it sucks to be married to the old tripod. A simple monopod or a Z-finder along with the IS gives you a system that's superior to even Panavision or Red or whatever in terms of having steady, long lens footage without a tripod.

For docs, or handheld drama (are we tired of that yet?) it's just necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top