Image stabilisation v high ISO speed

wersal gummage

Hi folks,

I've obviously spent a while searching online for this but grateful for any insights here.

I remember ten years ago or so my Canon dslr would show visible noise at about 1600iso. There seems to have been big improvements though and shooting at 3200 iso seems no problem anymore. I'm never printing poster sized anyway. I know some cameras go up to 25k plus.

Is it worth paying (up to double the price) for the IS version of a lense when you can just turn up the ISO speeds these days?? Eg 700-200 F4 v the F4is

Thanks

cnocbui

I think Olympus' approach is far more cost effective - building IS into the camera body, then every lens you use is stabilised at no further expense, including old SLR manual focus lenses from last century.

Their IS is good for 5 stops worth of stabilisation in terms of ISO, with hand-held shutter speeds measured in seconds perfectly possible.

wersal gummage

Thanks, but I have the Canon 5d body and several Canon lenses so that's not a viable option for me!

Paulw

It will depend a lot on what you take photos of, and how you take photos.

Using IS takes a few moments to stabilise the lens before you can take the shot. Having a higher ISO means that you save that time and can take the shot quicker.

Most of my lenses have IS, but yet I can probably count on two hands the number of times, over the years, that I have actually used IS.

The camera bodies I use are good at higher ISO values though.

wersal gummage

^
Thanks. I guess a bit mixed, but portraits and nature mostly. No sport and no plans for low light work if that is relevant.

Around 500 quid for the 70-200 F4 and around a 1000 for the is version....

My camera (5D mark ii) seems pretty OK at 3200 iso, certainly I can't spot any problems on a computer screen.

flyingsnail

There is also the 70-200 F2.8 Non IS which is usually priced close to the F4 IS.
Personally I have the 70-200 F4 Non IS and more often I would be wishing I had the extra stop but very rarely did I wish I had IS.

wersal gummage

Yeah I know what you mean but I can't justify the weight of the 2.8. It will be for occasional, amateur usage. I had the 70-200 F4 non is a few years ago, and I had it for a few years. Got some good photos with it. Also would have liked the 2.8 but wouldn't be willing to carry it around. I think I would buy the 100-400 mark II before the 2.8, if I was willing to carry such weight around. Not sure if the IS is worth it on the F4, it doesn't really add any extra weight.

ditpaintball

Depends on what your shooting. If you are shooting sports / fast action then you need the high shutter speed no matter what. IS will not help capturing action. We shoot sports day in and day out.... Of the 10 or so lens we have, only 2 are IS and there are cheap 24-105s.

All the 70-200s are non IS version as I can buy 2 x MK1's for the price of a new MK11 IS.

vectra

This isnnterestin as my son is currently looking at buying a 70-200 F2.8 L is for his canon 6d.
I wonder would he be better off wit hthe 2.8 non is as he mainly shoots city photographs and Cars etc.
Night sohts a lot of time as well.

CelticRambler

I've been playing with IS in recent weekends (Canon body and lenses). All-in-all, I haven't found it to be of any advantage in still photography. You're not actually getting any extra physical stops, so for my pictures the foreground/background blur isn't any different to what it would be with a higher ISO and faster shutter speed, and that's a lot easier fiddle with between shots.

For video, on the otherhand, it's great - especially when working at long zoom lengths. I've just taken delivery of a 55-250mm for which I happily paid a (bit!) extra to have IS after very satisfying experiences with my 10-18mm and 18-135mm. I shot some handheld test footage last weekend. The 50mm prime shots are so shaky :eek: compared with the 18-135mm set at 50 with IS on!