IS substitute for faster glass in low light? Not convinced.

[marekjoz]

You can turn it off if you're on a tripod. You can also turn it off if you don't need it (shorter focal length and really bright) because it uses more battery.

So the only benefit from switching off IS is less battery usage? Does it it affect the image in any way?

On a tripod you should switch it off. I'vre probably read somewhere, that newest IS detects if is on tripod and doesn't go crazy. Usually when lens with IS is on tripod it tries anyway to stabilize something that in fact is not moving. It causes unintentional movement so makes IQ worse. So the rule - always turn off when on tripod.

 

[rocketdesigner]

Plus I personally fully expect the IS to go bust within a few years or at least go out of whack. It's a loosely moving lens element. That can't be good in the long run. So I usually have it turned off

Is this a valid concern?
Does IS add to maintenance problems ... or worse, especially in this lens (pls say no, I just got one)?

 

[wickidwombat]

i still work on the theory i would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it
but i'm find with all my non IS lenses so not too worried really just certain shooting contditions i REALLY need IS and my 24-105 is my workhorse for those occassions.

its interesting that canon is addidng IS to all these primes, it will be very interesting to see if a revised 135mm f2 gets IS

 

[marekjoz]

its interesting that canon is addidng IS to all these primes, it will be very interesting to see if a revised 135mm f2 gets IS

And what I'm afraid of that adding IS to 135 would make the price much higher. As it was also here mentioned, Canon loses on dolar devaluation comparing to yen. Customers don't like see higher prices, so the best way for them is to put a new product on a shelf with a higher price, even if it's somehow improved old version. What good is, that the new product would be probably better, the bad, that the price s higher, what we see with 24-70 mk2. If this theory works, we should see many new lenses quite soon.

 

[7enderbender]

Plus I personally fully expect the IS to go bust within a few years or at least go out of whack. It's a loosely moving lens element. That can't be good in the long run. So I usually have it turned off

Is this a valid concern?
Does IS add to maintenance problems ... or worse, especially in this lens (pls say no, I just got one)?

I have no proof for that hence my calling it an expectation on my part. The thing is that I'm still trying to get over my disappointment that I now have to use EF lenses and that all my FD glass won't work with digital. I had always resented the idea of moving to the EOS system because I don't like the feel and build quality of the EF lenses (or any other lenses from "modern" AF systems). I have lenses that are almost 30 years old and look and work pristine. I'm pretty sure that this won't be the case with any of my new lenses, L or non-L, IS or non-IS. Just saying.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Indeed. Although, a supertele lens without IS is extremely hard to use hand-held...

Thats for sure. I sold my 600mm f/4 (Non-IS) and got a nice easy to hold 100-400mm L. I did take a few handheld shots with my 600mm, just to see if it was possible. It is, but for me, a minute or less was all I could hold it up and be reasonably still. I probably still have the images, but I did not identify them specifically as handheld, and I used a really high shutter speed as well.

I would not use my 100-400mm at 400mm without IS unless really carefully secured on a tripod with no wind.

 

[wickidwombat]

The thing is that I'm still trying to get over my disappointment that I now have to use EF lenses and that all my FD glass won't work with digital. I had always resented the idea of moving to the EOS system because I don't like the feel and build quality of the EF lenses (or any other lenses from "modern" AF systems). I have lenses that are almost 30 years old and look and work pristine. I'm pretty sure that this won't be the case with any of my new lenses, L or non-L, IS or non-IS. Just saying.

you really need to talk to edmika I got a 600f4.5 FD lens in mint condition and his adaptor it works great on both my 5Dmk2 and my 1Dmk3

 

[Caps18]

If taking a photo of a stationary object, then you'd have a greater chance of a sharp photo with the f/4 IS. But you're still stuck with a 1/2 second shutter speed. If you're taking photos of people or anything involving action, the faster shutter speed of a f/2.8 lens might work better.

This is correct.

When you shoot in low light, the faster glass always will win out to IS because you can boost ISO and shutter speed and stop motion blur of the subjects.

It is something I run into all the time. The 50mm f/1.2 was kind of nice since I was able to get most shots at a faster shutter speed than my other lenses.

 

[Loswr]

The 50mm f/1.2 was kind of nice since I was able to get most shots at a faster shutter speed than my other lenses.

Sure, as long as you're willing to trade a very thin DoF for that fast shutter speed. As a side note, if shooting wide open, you weren't getting the full benefit of f/1.2, either, assuming you're using a dSLR - you were getting the light of f/1.5 or so, and your camera was surreptitiously bumping up the ISO.

 

[Caps18]

Even shooting at f/2.8, the 50mm f/1.2 will be able to produce an image exposed the same as one taken with a 24-70mm f/2.8 @ 50mm at f/2.8 with a faster shutter speed.

And then there is the 24-105 f/4 IS that will require a slow shutter speed to gather enough light at f/4, where the 50mm f/1.2 set at f/4 will still be able to use a quicker shutter speed to stop the subject motion. If there is no subject motion, then it doesn't matter much if you can hold the camera steady or have a tripod.

 

[rocketdesigner]

Neuro, Mt Spokane et. al. where do you typically have sharpness set? Or do you sharpen in post?

 

[briansquibb]

And then there is the 24-105 f/4 IS that will require a slow shutter speed to gather enough light at f/4, where the 50mm f/1.2 set at f/4 will still be able to use a quicker shutter speed to stop the subject motion. If there is no subject motion, then it doesn't matter much if you can hold the camera steady or have a tripod.

Have you mis typed this - you seem to be saying that 2 lens at f/4 will have different shutter speeds

 

[marekjoz]

And then there is the 24-105 f/4 IS that will require a slow shutter speed to gather enough light at f/4, where the 50mm f/1.2 set at f/4 will still be able to use a quicker shutter speed to stop the subject motion. If there is no subject motion, then it doesn't matter much if you can hold the camera steady or have a tripod.

Have you mis typed this - you seem to be saying that 2 lens at f/4 will have different shutter speeds

It might be true if they would differ enough in their "T" values...

 

[Radiating]

IS vs faster glass has many variables.

First off with high megapixel cameras it helps them acheive a sharper image by default, to the equivalent of shooting at 1/focal length x 2. Second most manufacturers exagerate when they say it's 4 stops of light, maybe in some situations, but really it's really more like 3-3.5.

So at 70mm without IS your minimum shutter speed will be 1/140th to get a tack sharp image, but your minimum shutter speed is only 1/17 at 70mm with IS for tack sharp images. As you can see this tends to lend itself more to subjects that aren't moving much.


Hope that helps.

 

[briansquibb]

IS vs faster glass has many variables.

First off with high megapixel cameras it helps them acheive a sharper image by default, to the equivalent of shooting at 1/focal length x 2. Second most manufacturers exagerate when they say it's 4 stops of light, maybe in some situations, but really it's really more like 3-3.5.

So at 70mm without IS your minimum shutter speed will be 1/140th to get a tack sharp image, but your minimum shutter speed is only 1/17 at 70mm with IS for tack sharp images. As you can see this tends to lend itself more to subjects that aren't moving much.


Hope that helps.

Once you get to 1/17? shutter speed you will start to incur handshake induced motion blur - even if the subject is stationary.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, Mt Spokane et. al. where do you typically have sharpness set? Or do you sharpen in post?

I shoot RAW, and I usually use the default setting for sharpness in DxO Optics Pro, unless the shot needs more or less sharpening.

 

[Loswr]

And then there is the 24-105 f/4 IS that will require a slow shutter speed to gather enough light at f/4, where the 50mm f/1.2 set at f/4 will still be able to use a quicker shutter speed to stop the subject motion. If there is no subject motion, then it doesn't matter much if you can hold the camera steady or have a tripod.

Have you mis typed this - you seem to be saying that 2 lens at f/4 will have different shutter speeds

They'll probably have the same shutter speed as metered (at least, that's the case for my 85/1.2L II vs. 24-105mm), but the image from the f/1.2 lens will actually be a little brighter. The difference is about 1/3 stop, nothing I'd consider a significant benefit in terms of stopping subject motion.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Neuro, Mt Spokane et. al. where do you typically have sharpness set? Or do you sharpen in post?

I use Raw, setting sharpening in Camera is only for jpegs.

I have a different default sharpening and NR set for each ISO in Lightroom, so its set automatically on import. Most raw images benefit from a little sharpening, LR 4 lets you sharpen selectively only the areas that need it, like hair. That must be done manually with the brush function.

 

[Caps18]

Have you mis typed this - you seem to be saying that 2 lens at f/4 will have different shutter speeds

I tested it out, and my assumption was incorrect.

At least in daylight photos, both my 16-35mm (@17mm) and 17mm TS-E at f/4 and ISO100 needed a 1/125sec shutter speed to get the exposure meter to come out the same. In very low light, I still thought I saw a difference between different lenses when using the same ISO and f-stops.

I did do one test in December that I should upload the pictures that showed the sharpness difference that you get by stepping down a 50mm f/1.2 lens in low light compared to 50mm lens with a slower f-stop rating.

And with the faster glass, you still have the option to drop the aperture in order to raise the shutter speed at the cost of depth of field.