If I don't want to pay the price for both features, which feature should I go for? I am a beginner, with a Canon 350, 17-55mm, and 70-300mm, thinking about buying a lens for low light.
Thanks
Board index ‹ Equipment ‹ Digital Cameras ‹ IS(Image Stabler) lens or smaller F stop lens?
Digital Cameras
IS(Image Stabler) lens or smaller F stop lens?
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 903
Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:16 pm
Depends on what you'll be photographing with it. If you are trying to prevent the blur caused by subject movement, then a fast lens (e.g. f2.8 ) would be more ideal (e.g. indoor sport) but if you are just trying to avoid the camera shake, then IS could be more ideal. However, it also depends how 'low light' it will be, because no f2.8 or IS could substitute a good solid tripod.
Last edited by gemmf on Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Posts: 540
Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:28 pm
I'm in love with image stabilization especially with longer lenses. Even with faster shutter speeds it's great for action, eliminates the need for a monopod.
Nikon D300, D200
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 55mm f/1.4 micro, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX, 80-200 f/2.8D
Apple PowerBook G4, MacBook Pro
Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop CS3
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, 55mm f/1.4 micro, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX, 80-200 f/2.8D
Apple PowerBook G4, MacBook Pro
Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop CS3
- Posts: 561
Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:25 am
Depend on whant your shoting and IS is cool but if I would have the option I will go with faster speed (smaller F stop) And is on a long lens will help but you still need a monopod (I know I have a 70-200 F2.8 IS) the lens just get so heavy after a long day and the monopod is welcome.
If you whan t low light go with smaller F stop. Is wont make your subjet not move. Is will jelp you to stay steady but your subject still can move (even plant in wind) So for low light I recommand faster F I will help you get faster shutter to freez the subject. SOme time 1 stop is more they you need. Like a kid playing !
If you whan t low light go with smaller F stop. Is wont make your subjet not move. Is will jelp you to stay steady but your subject still can move (even plant in wind) So for low light I recommand faster F I will help you get faster shutter to freez the subject. SOme time 1 stop is more they you need. Like a kid playing !
Alexandre Trudeau-Dion aka ALEXPHOTOS http://www.pbase.com/alexphotos <=== http://www.Alexphotos.ca
- Posts: 18
Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:46 pm
It is always a complicated trade off and it depends on the subject you are shooting.
IS will help with camera shake and allow you to shoot relatively stationary subjects with slower shutter speeds. It effectively is a partial replacement for a tripod. It will typically be usefull for a sunset landscape shot ,a forest shot,a building interior shot or perhaps a posed model by a window shot. It will not let you take photos of people in your house unless you are typically using a wide angle ,flash or using a faster shutter speed. It is usefull when combined with a moderately fast lens (f2.8 or faster) for indoor sport. These lens do tend to be sharp with good microcontrast so there may be other reasons for selecting an image stabilised lens. The downside is that it makes the lens heavier, cost lots of money ,uses more electricity but offers little more than a tripod (if you are prepard to carry one) and some times won't get you that indoors shot you want.
Fast lens let you open up the shutter wider to let more light in so that you can open and close the shutter quickly to capture moving subjects without bluring.It effectively is a partial replacement for a good flash although there are difference in the quality of light from a flash and natural light. A very fast lens will get you that shot in doors, but there may be a cost in terms of depth of field. Very fast lens tend to have very shallow depths of field with a 50mm f1.0 lens probably only getting half an eyelash fully in focus in a head and shoulders shot of a person (portrait shots at less than f1.8 depending on lens length tend to have parts of faces out of focus). One of the main benefits of this type of lens tend to be increased microcontrast and colour saturation in resultant photos.The downside is that the lens are big and heavy , generally cost lots of money and some lighting or a good flash may offer better return on your investment.
Having said that I own some moderately fast and image stabilised lens along with a tripod and flash. Cheap options might be a 50mm f1.8 lens or maybe a sigma flash. Remember that camera kit which is heavy or awkward without benefits tends to get left behind.
IS will help with camera shake and allow you to shoot relatively stationary subjects with slower shutter speeds. It effectively is a partial replacement for a tripod. It will typically be usefull for a sunset landscape shot ,a forest shot,a building interior shot or perhaps a posed model by a window shot. It will not let you take photos of people in your house unless you are typically using a wide angle ,flash or using a faster shutter speed. It is usefull when combined with a moderately fast lens (f2.8 or faster) for indoor sport. These lens do tend to be sharp with good microcontrast so there may be other reasons for selecting an image stabilised lens. The downside is that it makes the lens heavier, cost lots of money ,uses more electricity but offers little more than a tripod (if you are prepard to carry one) and some times won't get you that indoors shot you want.
Fast lens let you open up the shutter wider to let more light in so that you can open and close the shutter quickly to capture moving subjects without bluring.It effectively is a partial replacement for a good flash although there are difference in the quality of light from a flash and natural light. A very fast lens will get you that shot in doors, but there may be a cost in terms of depth of field. Very fast lens tend to have very shallow depths of field with a 50mm f1.0 lens probably only getting half an eyelash fully in focus in a head and shoulders shot of a person (portrait shots at less than f1.8 depending on lens length tend to have parts of faces out of focus). One of the main benefits of this type of lens tend to be increased microcontrast and colour saturation in resultant photos.The downside is that the lens are big and heavy , generally cost lots of money and some lighting or a good flash may offer better return on your investment.
Having said that I own some moderately fast and image stabilised lens along with a tripod and flash. Cheap options might be a 50mm f1.8 lens or maybe a sigma flash. Remember that camera kit which is heavy or awkward without benefits tends to get left behind.
- Posts: 26
Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:28 pm
Not sure what you're planning on shooting, but the 17-55 at f/2.8 is as fast as you can go with a zoom and has IS. If that doesn't meet your needs for fast, you'll probably need to look at the primes.
I have both lenses that you named and with 3 kids, needed more speed for indoor shots (especially parties). I bought a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8. Since I shoot with a 30D, these can be a little long indoors and I plan to get a 35mm f/1.4 next.
Bob R
I have both lenses that you named and with 3 kids, needed more speed for indoor shots (especially parties). I bought a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8. Since I shoot with a 30D, these can be a little long indoors and I plan to get a 35mm f/1.4 next.
Bob R
- Posts: 25
Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:15 pm
For low light. Either an F2.8 zoom or a prime 50mm f1.8., Then if shooting action just bump up your speed. And your set.
Lower F preferred
Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:42 am
I would prefer lower F-stop (bigger apperture). With this, I will have the option of stopiing the subject (use bigger apperture).
8 posts • Page 1 of 1
Board index ‹ Equipment ‹ Digital Cameras ‹ IS(Image Stabler) lens or smaller F stop lens?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests