Is it worth having image stabalization on a telephoto lens

swingking

Looking for some advice on a tele-photo lens.

I'm thinking of upgrading to the 70-300 f4-5.6 lens and I know that I can get either a standard version of it for next to nothing OR I can get the same lens with Image stabalization.

Is it worth paying the extra money for this. I'm going to be shooting sports btw.

Thanks for all replies

charybdis

Image stabilization's only use is in reducing camera shake when using slow shutter speeds, this can be particularly useful with long lenses as they are more prone to showing evidence of camera movement. However, if you are shooting fast-moving scenes and want to avoid blur due to the motion of the subjects, you'll almost certainly be using a shutter speed high enough to eliminate blur due to camera movement.

If you are buying a lens for sports, pick as fast a lens as possible; image stabilization will not help.

Fajitas!

Sometimes.

And sometimes the extra weight completely negates having IS

uprising

swingking wrote: »

Looking for some advice on a tele-photo lens.

I'm thinking of upgrading to the 70-300 f4-5.6 lens and I know that I can get either a standard version of it for next to nothing OR I can get the same lens with Image stabalization.

Is it worth paying the extra money for this. I'm going to be shooting sports btw.

Thanks for all replies

I had the standard and now have the IS and the price difference isn't worth it, for the lens it is.
The IS will help a little with handheld camera shake, but wont freeze a fast moving sports person any better than a non IS.
You will get VERY similar results with both lens so I'd save the extra towards something a little more exotic.
Actually I don't even turn the IS on.

DaireQuinlan

uprising wrote: »

Actually I don't even turn the IS on.

That's probably why you didn't notice any difference ! Jeez, this isn't ROCKET SCIENCE here, people !

AnCatDubh

Someone correct me if i'm wrong but did I hear somewhere the theory of lens based IS is that it gives a full two stops of shutter speed equivalence in stabilisation terms. In camera body IS, just being one full stop. Or was that a divisor of 4 and 2. Darn it you forgetful mind - This is where someone who can actually recount the specifics can step in and remind me.

I suspect your sports criteria negates the necessity of having it for the purpose that you are contemplating but you might find it useful for other occasional use.

Valentia

At my age it's essential

Slidinginfinity

I'd buy the standard lens and if camera shake is an issue for you buy a decent monopod.

swingking

Thanks for all the replies.

Might considering investing in a monopod instead along with the standard lens.

Brilliant suggestions. Thanks

joeyvw

Yeah if your shooting sports you dont need it as you will be using a fast shutter speed, you can shoot as low at a 50/40s without image stabalization.

I'd invest in a monopod

the_tractor

I think would be of the opinion that the IS would be worth it for the telephoto lens - if you are looking a sports, your shots will need to be good to sell.

Also a monopod is essential for a big tele lens.