Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 14, 2008, 10:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

What are your thoughts on lenses w/ or w/o IS? Some believe you get a sharper immage with non-IS equipped lenses. is this true?


But at the same time, knowing that IS is not needed, couldthere still be any real value in having IS (or VR if using Nikon glass)? I mean it is true that many of the greats got and are still getting great images without using IS equipped lenses. And while that maybe the case you will see VR and IS equipped lenses in the bags of noted world-class photographers. Recommending IS lens in the March 2008 issue of Outdoor Photography even.

DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 14, 2008, 10:34 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
... Some believe you get a sharper immage with non-IS equipped lenses. is this true?
I can not conceive of a reason why someone would say that.

DarkDTSHD
wrote:
Quote:
But knowing that IS is not needed...couldthere still be any real value in having IS (or VR if using Nikon glass)? I mean it is true that many of the greats got and are still getting great images without using IS equipped lenses. And while that maybe the case you will see VR and IS equipped lenses in the bags of noted world-class photographers. Recommending IS lens in the March 2008 issue of Outdoor Photography even.
Image Stabilization is a tool.

You can use it or not.

It can help you or not.

But if you have it, you might use it, and it might even help you.

If you don't have it, you'll never know if it could have helped or not.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2008, 10:43 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Hey TCav,

Well, the forum member that mentioned that you would get sharper images with the non-IS version said so because I'm assume that there is some vibration when stabalizing.

Case in point. While the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a great lens, http://www.slrgear.com, mentions how the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (no OS) actually offers sharper images if stopped down to f/4. Could this be due to not having OS? Shrug.

And I am considering the Nikkor 70-200 vs the Sigma 70-200. Wonder if having VR is worth the added cost. Almost a $700 CAD price difference.

Also considering the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (another $2000.00 more than the 100-300...hmmm).

All great lenses.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2008, 10:48 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
Default

VR or IS is essential if you are using a long lens (or some shorter ones also), hand held, doing alot of panning at full extention,capturing action ,ie sports etc. ect. ect. I shoot alot of high end Dressage Shows and even with a monopod and a 70-300 standard lens I was getting alot of Minute lens shake at 2oomm and beyond. VR took care of that problem...I don't leave home without it!!!

Peace.....
John52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2008, 11:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

John52 wrote:
Quote:
VR or IS is essential if you are using a long lens (or some shorter ones also), hand held, doing alot of panning at full extention,capturing action ,ie sports etc. ect. ect. I shoot alot of high end Dressage Shows and even with a monopod and a 70-300 standard lens I was getting alot of Minute lens shake at 2oomm and beyond. VR took care of that problem...I don't leave home without it!!!

Peace.....
Thanks man. Hmmm....I had previously believed in VR any how...still,the Sigma 70-200 w/o OShas been proven to be sharper (less vignetting, less CA...etc.) when stopped down to at least f/4 than the Nikkor equivalent. At least according to www.slrgear.com. Though, you do have to take their results with a grain of salt. In that while the Sigma supposely outclasses the Nikkor at f/4 it good a lower IQ score of 8.21 whereas the Nikkor got something like 9.8. Gets you wondering.

Although, the Sigmais $700 cheaper. Hmmm.... To VR or not to VR. Or do I just go with a Sigma 100-300 or possibly the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and forget about IS altogether...decisons...
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2008, 7:08 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

John52 wrote:
Quote:
VR or IS is essential if you are using a long lens (or some shorter ones also), hand held, doing alot of panning at full extention,capturing action ,ie sports etc. ect. ect.
This is odd since when VR or IS help in action or sport?
Don't you need a higher shutter speed to freeze the action... and with a higher shutter speed don't you stop the camera shake as well?


In "panning" one actually turns the IS(VR) OFF in one axis and panning technique has been perfected long before IS or VR. This thread migh be interesting to DarkDTSHD:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...hlight=panning


DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Although, the Sigmais $700 cheaper. Hmmm.... To VR or not to VR. Or do I just go with a Sigma 100-300 or possibly the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and forget about IS altogether...decisons...
Have you check this thread?
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...hlight=panning

-> IMO if you need 300mm a lens without teleconverter is always better than a lens with a 1.4xTC mounts behind it!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2008, 7:53 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

There have been four recent huge revolutions in my 48 years of photography...

1. Invention of digital cameras, and their affordability. I went digital with a filmscanner before I could afford a good digicam; now I have the best camera I've possessed, much the cheapest of the quality ones I've owned.

2. A big zoom in a small camera. I use a Kodak Z712is, (36-432mm equiv), but it has many excellent competitors;

3. An electronic viewfinder that offers me a large degree of "WYSIWYG" before I push the button;

and then...

4. the greatest of them all, Image Stabilisation, which means I can hand-hold at much slower speeds for good depth of field in dim lighting.

A fifth breakthrough, not here yet, will be a low-noise high ISO sensor (400 is enough) small enoughto go ina superzoom camera small enough for me to bewilling to cart it around.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2008, 7:58 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

There's only a few lenses that comes in IS/VR version and non-IS/VR:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Cano...review?start=1

-> If anyone did check the MTF, the non-IS version is actually sharper. Kind of make sense since there are less optical correcting elements to alter the light path....

Some folks just got to have to IS/VR, but IMO I rather have the sharper lens (also lighter) and invest the $ difference somewhere else like in another lens (macro for example). Don't get me wrong IS or VR will do fine in low-light still but you should be your own judge if that feature is useful to you or not as I do mostly actions.
When I do low-light I prefer to use flash or flashes since they offer the saturation and contrast which is important to me in my images... (BTW 1/2 of my Canon lenses are IS)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2008, 8:00 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Vr/IS is a tool. Does it help in some situations? Absolutely. All other things being equal, I'd prefer to have VR over non VR. However, all things are never equal. Whether or not VR is a needed feature depends on your style. I don't believe you can make a blanket statement like "you get shaper images with non VR lenses". So much of sharpness depends on technique. Also, if you're shooting sports or other moving subjects, VR/IS will be of little use. If you're shooting stationary subjects, VR/IS will help.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2008, 8:13 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:
Thanks man. Hmmm....I had previously believed in VR any how...still,the Sigma 70-200 w/o OShas been proven to be sharper (less vignetting, less CA...etc.) when stopped down to at least f/4 than the Nikkor equivalent. ...
That doesn't have anything to do with whether the lens contains IS or not, and is true of almost all lenses. It is a rare and expensive lens that is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 PM.