Why do primes not have IS?

theTinker

Tomorrow I plan to buy a 50mm F1.8 II canon lens . I've been using the kit 18-55zoom lens and a larger 55-250mm kit lens since i got my camera.

I've decided to try my hand at portrait photography as a new avenue of learning.

While browsing the primes, I noticed that none ever start Image stablisation is included with them.
Im curious as to why this seems to be the case. I didnt find much helpful information on google about this. If canon can manufacture my cheapie lil kit lens with IS for so little. I cant imagine it really being a cost issue, I'd expect alot of people with a current 55mm prime 1.8 II would probably buy a newer version to replace it.

Am I missing something silly like IS cant work on Primes for some super optics experts only reason?

Borderfox

Super telephoto primes have IS 300/400/500/600mm

No need for IS on portrait length primes, f1.2 negates that

theTinker

Oh so the reason the shorter primes have no IS is because as a faster lens, the duration of the exposure should not be open long enough to introduce noticeable shake?

Randall Floyd

Buy the f1.4.

Borderfox

Most of the portrait primes are f1.8 or wider, the new 100mm macro has IS so this might make a shift towards putting it on more versions. In a dark church I need IS on the 70-200 f2.8 but on the 85mm prime you can get a decent shutter speed albeit with a wider aperture.

theTinker

Randall Floyd wrote: »

Buy the f1.4.

I cant afford the 1.4 at the moment. Recentily unemployed. Im pushing the budget with the 1.8! maybe when things improved Ill just skip to a proper L


@Borderfox. Thanks for the info!

Thecageyone

You raise an interesting question for me, I have a Sony Alpha - which has body IS - the lenses do not have IS. Recently it suffered a knock and the IS function died. I have been worrying over this, and fearing I'm not getting the stabilisation I should be. Can someone point out specifically, when you actually need IS?

I have a 50mm f/1.7, the Sony kit 18-70mm [wisest @ 18 - f/3.5] and a busted Sigma 70-300mm macro [1:2 between 200-300]

Where exactly am I missing the IS?

Sorry to hijack, but it is on topic

theTinker

Thecageyone wrote: »

You raise an interesting question for me, I have a Sony Alpha - which has body IS - the lenses do not have IS. Recently it suffered a knock and the IS function died. I have been worrying over this, and fearing I'm not getting the stabilisation I should be. Can someone point out specifically, when you actually need IS?

I have a 50mm f/1.7, the Sony kit 18-70mm [wisest @ 18 - f/3.5] and a busted Sigma 70-300mm macro [1:2 between 200-300]

Where exactly am I missing the IS?

Sorry to hijack, but it is on topic

its all yours

IS is needed for Camera shake in your hands only. If you use a tri pod, it shouldnt matter. If your opening your exposure for longer than a split second and have it in your hands. You will start to notice blurring in the photo. Try opening it for even 0.5-1 second and you will notice it alot.

your 50mm shouldnt need it (see my conclusion from Borderfoxes help up above). The f/3.5 may. I have a f4.5 zoom lens and often have to some longer than desired exposures. When i knock off my IS with the lil switch, I notice a big difference.

So if your using a fast lens (low exposure time needed) or a tri pod. IS should matter.

my 2 cents

NakedDex

A few weeks ago I shot an American football game (again). Normally I use my 80-200 f2.8 AF-D for this. It gives me most of the reach I need, and generally gives good speed in decent light. However, even on the brightest days, a monopod is a necessity if I'm to acquire a sharp image.
It works, and I'm used to it after this long. The problem is, shooting that sport means I'm up and down the sideline following the play, so a monopod can become cumbersome and more-or-less a pain in the arse (especially if the dynamic shifts with an interception etc).

For this reason I decided to rent a 70-200 f2.8 VR to see if it was worth the upgrade. The difference was rather remarkable and has resulted in it being bumped to the top of my priority list (beyond that UWA that I badly need too).
To give a caveat to the following, the conditions were pretty perfect for action shots, but the point stands. Between the light and the VR, I could actually ditch the monopod completely. I was still getting sharp and nicely frozen shots, but I didn't have the restriction of a six foot pole hanging out of me anymore.
It meant I could follow the plays easier, chase the direction shifts and get some interesting angles I hadn't gotten before.

It's definitely now atop my list, I just need to rustle up 2k to get one first...

PCPhoto

NakedDex wrote: »

A few weeks ago I shot an American football game (again). Normally I use my 80-200 f2.8 AF-D for this. It gives me most of the reach I need, and generally gives good speed in decent light. However, even on the brightest days, a monopod is a necessity if I'm to acquire a sharp image.
It works, and I'm used to it after this long. The problem is, shooting that sport means I'm up and down the sideline following the play, so a monopod can become cumbersome and more-or-less a pain in the arse (especially if the dynamic shifts with an interception etc).

For this reason I decided to rent a 70-200 f2.8 VR to see if it was worth the upgrade. The difference was rather remarkable and has resulted in it being bumped to the top of my priority list (beyond that UWA that I badly need too).
To give a caveat to the following, the conditions were pretty perfect for action shots, but the point stands. Between the light and the VR, I could actually ditch the monopod completely. I was still getting sharp and nicely frozen shots, but I didn't have the restriction of a six foot pole hanging out of me anymore.
It meant I could follow the plays easier, chase the direction shifts and get some interesting angles I hadn't gotten before.

It's definitely now atop my list, I just need to rustle up 2k to get one first...

This is something you shouldn't do as a sports photographer ...(you'll be knackered by the end of the game !!!) for local games its ok but if you cover the national league (Yes we have a number of american football teams in Ireland)... you should be looking at a larger lens than 70-200mm, I did some college ball (American Football) last year with a 70-200mm, 300mm and 600mm.... I spent the first quarter trying to figure out where the best angle was.....and what kinds of pics I wanted.

ended out going on the side near the end zone, interceptions, try celebrations, and collecting passes and tackles..... spent most of the time shooting 300mm and 600mm.

Paulw

I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've used IS on a large prime. When shooting sport, you generally don't use IS at all, since you should be using a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. If you're using IS (VR), then you're not setting your camera up properly.

I agree with PCPhoto. You should generally pick your spot and let the action come to you.

When shooting, if you use a shutter speed that is 1/focal length, then you will not see lens shake. So, for a 50mm lens, then 1/50 will negate movement. For a 600mm lens, then 1/600 sec speed. Obviously, the longer the lens, the easier it is to see motion of the lens.

GavinZac

Paulw wrote: »

I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've used IS on a large prime. When shooting sport, you generally don't use IS at all, since you should be using a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action. If you're using IS (VR), then you're not setting your camera up properly.

I agree with PCPhoto. You should generally pick your spot and let the action come to you.

Is there a disadvantage to using stabilisation if the shutter speed is fast enough to freeze it anyway? I'm using a Sony which has the IS built in and rarely think to turn it off regardless.

When shooting, if you use a shutter speed that is 1/focal length, then you will not see lens shake. So, for a 50mm lens, then 1/50 will negate movement. For a 600mm lens, then 1/600 sec speed. Obviously, the longer the lens, the easier it is to see motion of the lens.

First time I've heard that, thanks!

theTinker

Im re-hijacking my own thread

Rang 8 different places today to find a Canon 50mm 1.8 II and all seem to be out of stock. Argos (all dublin branches), CamCent(all branches), CamExg, gunns on holidays.

Anyone know of any others, preferably along the M50?

Edit:
Yay, Camera Cabin in swords have one in stock!! im omw!

Paulw

GavinZac wrote: »

Is there a disadvantage to using stabilisation if the shutter speed is fast enough to freeze it anyway? I'm using a Sony which has the IS built in and rarely think to turn it off regardless.

Yes, there is.

IS takes time to focus and stabilise. It might be a fraction of a second, but it could be the difference between getting a shot and missing it.

If your shutter speed is fast enough, then IS is going to get in the way.

mrboswell

GavinZac wrote: »

Is there a disadvantage to using stabilisation if the shutter speed is fast enough to freeze it anyway? I'm using a Sony which has the IS built in and rarely think to turn it off regardless.

IS has a tendency to seriously eat into battery power. That might be manufacturer dependent though.

Borderfox

I havent noticed any difference is power consumption with IS on or off.

Thecageyone

Cheers Paul, I had heard something like that before - about the shutter speed/focal length - So long end of my 70-300mm I need to be at 1/300+ without the need for the IS?

mrboswell

Borderfox wrote: »

I havent noticed any difference is power consumption with IS on or off.

I have but only when on IS for the day - batteries don't last as long.

gbee

theTinker wrote: »

I cant afford the 1.4 at the moment. Recentily unemployed. Im pushing the budget with the 1.8! maybe when things improved Ill just skip to a proper L @Borderfox. Thanks for the info!

OMO, the 1.8 is faster and more accurate in AF ~which may sound like a contradiction, as the 1.4 is factually faster, but it hunts a lot more ~ fantastic having a very fast AF HUNTING ?????

gbee

NakedDex wrote: »

It works, and I'm used to it after this long. The problem is, .....For this reason I decided to rent a 70-200 f2.8 VR

VR eats the pants off IS, sorry no comparison and ESPECIALLY no comparison between the lowest budget lens and IS and a PROFESSIONAL lens with either IS or VR ~~ VR professional still beats the pants off IS professional.

The cheap IS might as well not be there, almost **** which is why Nikon were *slow* to implement a useless technology.

VR in Nikon professional, I must restate is a very different beast from the the throwaway IS from Canon in throwaway lenses, AND is better than the PROFESSIONAL IS equivalent in Canon Professional lenses ~that said, most Canon Professional IS users are happy enough.

gbee

I do a regular 2 month stint at a theatre during their festival. I often and routinely get 2,000 to 4,500 shots per charge on my Canon 1DMKIII ~ my record is some 7,000 shots at a sports event ~ .

However, in the festival, 300mm F2.8 and IS ALL THE TIME ~ 300 shots is about all I get, 600 was a record when I had a spare charged battery and could let it die.

This is a BIG difference, and situations that the average user won't replicate,
but my advice is to turn OFF IS/VR as a matter of course.

NakedDex

PCPhoto wrote: »

This is something you shouldn't do as a sports photographer ...(you'll be knackered by the end of the game !!!) for local games its ok but if you cover the national league (Yes we have a number of american football teams in Ireland)... you should be looking at a larger lens than 70-200mm, I did some college ball (American Football) last year with a 70-200mm, 300mm and 600mm.... I spent the first quarter trying to figure out where the best angle was.....and what kinds of pics I wanted.

ended out going on the side near the end zone, interceptions, try celebrations, and collecting passes and tackles..... spent most of the time shooting 300mm and 600mm.

I should probably clear up that when I say following the play, I don't mean chasing it down the sideline as it happens. I mean while the play is dead and the teams are in the huddle, I reset my position to where I want to be relative to the action. So, for example, while the teams are in the huddle I would move to about 10 yards ahead of the ball to capture the action as the offense moves forward.
I'm do actually cover the national league, and have been all season (albeit in an amateur sense). I used to play in it actually, with the UL Vikings, so I'm in the sort of unique position of knowing little nuances that mean moving is useful to me. Seeing a player drop his heel before the snap, or twisting his hand in a certain direction can often tell me exactly what's about to happen and allow me to shift my attention to the approrpiate place. It also means I can make an educated guess at where I should set up before the players even leave the huddle.
It's less a case of me haring up and down the sideline as the players are running themselves, and more a leisurely walk for ten or fifteen yards while the players are in the huddle to get further in advance or behind the ball position.

It's about all I can do given that this is just a hobby and following my old team through the championship so far has already cost me into the thousands this year in my own money. I don't get anything in return apart from some good stories and few thanks, so splashing out on a long prime isn't going to happen any time soon (despite how much I'd love it). The limit of my gear means I sort of have to keep doing what I'm doing if I want to be close to the action. I'm doing it for the love of my team and the love of what I'm learning in my abilities.

I know it's not strictly good sports photographer practice, but I could only dream of being such. I've the utmost respect for anyone doing who are able to yield the results I tend to drool over in magazines and online. Right now, I'll settle for being a hacker of sorts and do what I can with what I can afford.
I've seen what I assume are pro photogs at a few of the bigger games, so I try not to step on anyones toes.


Also, I've gone wildly off-topic here. Apologies.

hopelessOne

I think talking about specific lenses needing IS is the wrong way of going about this. After all, even though you might have a fast 50 (say, f/1.8) lens it may not be suitable to shoot wide open due to the shallow depth-of-field.

Ultimately, it's all about shutter speed. The rule about handholding above 1/focal length (i.e., only handhold a 100mm lens at 1/100 or faster) is a good guide but you can often get away with much slower speed with some good posture, breathing and bracing techniques. If your camera has good ISO capabilities then raising the ISO means you get a faster shutter speed so you can maintain a decent DoF, reduce camera shake *and* reduce subject movement.

I guess my perspective is coloured by being a Sony user and enjoying IS on all lenses. I only turn it off when the camera is mounted on a tripod (as is recommended). If I had to chose which lenses to use IS with, I'd base it on the focal length rather than aperture: long lenses will be far more prone to camera shake than wide angles. I'd live without an IS 17-50 lens but it's going to be required for the 70-300.

pullandbang

Paulw wrote: »

When shooting, if you use a shutter speed that is 1/focal length, then you will not see lens shake. So, for a 50mm lens, then 1/50 will negate movement. For a 600mm lens, then 1/600 sec speed. Obviously, the longer the lens, the easier it is to see motion of the lens.

Does the crop factor come into play here?
EG. 200mm on a 1.6 crop becomes the equivalent of 320mm - so should you use a min 1/320 on your 200mm lens?

charybdis

pullandbang wrote: »

Does the crop factor come into play here?
EG. 200mm on a 1.6 crop becomes the equivalent of 320mm - so should you use a min 1/320 on your 200mm lens?

It depends on what you consider acceptably sharp, which depends on a huge number of factors, but probably the most apparent one is whether or not the image is outresolving the sensor, which also depends on a number of factors, most notably the dot pitch of the sensor which is different in different sensor models.

Arguably, you could use crop factor mathematics to determine a minimum shutter speed but it doesn't really matter, it's just a rule of thumb; you should shoot at as high a shutter speed as you can if you goal is maximum sharpness (which it probably shouldn't be) but realistically, you're going to have to make compromises.

Paulw

pullandbang wrote: »

Does the crop factor come into play here?
EG. 200mm on a 1.6 crop becomes the equivalent of 320mm - so should you use a min 1/320 on your 200mm lens?

I don't know for sure. There seems to be different views.

In general, I'd always shoot faster than the 1/focal length. So, start with 1/400 sec for anything smaller than a 400mm lens, and then 1/640 from a 400mm lens.

You really want to shoot as fast as you can (for sport), depending on the aperture you need.

sineadw

pullandbang wrote: »

Does the crop factor come into play here?
EG. 200mm on a 1.6 crop becomes the equivalent of 320mm - so should you use a min 1/320 on your 200mm lens?

Yep - the rule is 1/*equivalent* focal length. 1/EFL (sometimes referred to as effective focal length, before the pedant brigade move in for the kill )

mrboswell

gbee wrote: »

I do a regular 2 month stint at a theatre during their festival. I often and routinely get 2,000 to 4,500 shots per charge on my Canon 1DMKIII ~ my record is some 7,000 shots at a sports event ~ .

However, in the festival, 300mm F2.8 and IS ALL THE TIME ~ 300 shots is about all I get, 600 was a record when I had a spare charged battery and could let it die.

This is a BIG difference, and situations that the average user won't replicate,
but my advice is to turn OFF IS/VR as a matter of course.

IS Battery drain is not off topic - OP asked if there was any disadvantage to using IS so its fairly relevant.

Ultimately battery drain while using IS will depend how much you track a subject - obviously if the subject is moving a lot and you are tracking a lot (in al servo mode) the IS will be used more and provide more drain on the battery.

Certainly the mk3/mk4 battery will perform better than then mk2 or prosumer camera batteries but since IS uses extra power it goes without saying that a full battery charge will last a shorter time.

I generally don't use IS either but the times that I have used it I have noticed a more significant battery drain.

mrboswell

gbee wrote: »

VR eats the pants off IS, sorry no comparison and ESPECIALLY no comparison between the lowest budget lens and IS and a PROFESSIONAL lens with either IS or VR ~~ VR professional still beats the pants off IS professional.

The cheap IS might as well not be there, almost **** which is why Nikon were *slow* to implement a useless technology.

VR in Nikon professional, I must restate is a very different beast from the the throwaway IS from Canon in throwaway lenses, AND is better than the PROFESSIONAL IS equivalent in Canon Professional lenses ~that said, most Canon Professional IS users are happy enough.

I can't speak for the VR as I've never seen it but the new canon 70-200 mk2 is GOOD, VERY GOOD.

Borderfox

gbee wrote: »

VR eats the pants off IS, sorry no comparison and ESPECIALLY no comparison between the lowest budget lens and IS and a PROFESSIONAL lens with either IS or VR ~~ VR professional still beats the pants off IS professional.

The cheap IS might as well not be there, almost **** which is why Nikon were *slow* to implement a useless technology.

VR in Nikon professional, I must restate is a very different beast from the the throwaway IS from Canon in throwaway lenses, AND is better than the PROFESSIONAL IS equivalent in Canon Professional lenses ~that said, most Canon Professional IS users are happy enough.

Saying it doesnt make it so

CabanSail

Back on topic ...

Some primes do have IS or VR.

My Nikon 105mm Micro has VR. None of my other primes do though. (8, 20, 50, 60, 85)