Image Stabilizer lenses

Depends which lens and photo or video, for video I've found it's pretty much useless, but with a lens like a 70-200 IS or something more expensive it may be better than say a kit lens 18-55.
 
For what application? photo or video?

And the fact a purple name is making this thread is slightly unsettling.
 
Some of those lenses seem to work pretty well for cutting out vibrations, but not so much for making an image like you'd have off a glidecam or such
 
Basically I'm wondering how much BS is contained on this page. Or if it actually works that well. I'm just curious if it works like that I don't really care either way. I know I've heard people say they wouldn't get a high zoom lens without IS - I'm sure it works to an extent. But the examples on the page are impressive, and I'm skeptical.
 
Depends on the focal length and price of the lens.

You may get a few extra stops but don't expect miracles.
 
Marketing is taking actually engineering, then crapping on it and inflating it to an incomprehensible size with an added asterisk.
 
IS seems like its a great tool for photos, as for video its completely worthless.
 
Maybe not though. I can't speak for cannon lenses, but I have a sony DSLR and with the in camera/in lens stabilization I can see some difference while filming. I find it helps on cutting down vibration from skiing over surfaces. It isn't a huge difference, but I don't think it can be written off as worthless!
 
I too have a sony lens with image stabilization and its worthless. It might take out very small bumps but not enough to make your image smooth while moving and if you're on a tripod it doesnt matter at all. Its a gimmick for video, sorry man.
 
cBs3_i9n7dukP0-hE00jY5fEMHoeCUIhhGxZIEJbfzU.png
 
From my experience, the IS does help on long focal lengths when shooting on a cheaper tripod. At 200mm+, simply touching the record button will make the image jump around on my 5d. The IS helps that a bunch, but don't expect it to do anything for you wider or handheld.
 
IS is only to be able to shoot at a lower shutter speed in order to get a non-blurred image with stills photography. It has no application in video, because with a single CMOS, it's just going to jelly out before any IS/VR/OS whatever is able to smooth your image out. It's mostly only good on focal lengths longer than standard, so 70mm or greater. Any lower than that, and there's just not enough movement of the image while shooting handheld for it to entirely make sense.

on that note, riddle me this, Canon... why the FUCK are you coming out with IS versions of the 24, 28, and 35mm base primes rather than 85, 100, 135 etc that could actually use it?

hell... why not a 50mm f1.8IS? that would make far more sense than a 24 f2.8IS.. I mean wtf. At least on crop bodies it's a telephoto... a 35mm f2is barely even makes sense on a 7D.
 
I'll still probably pick up a cheap T2i as a B-camera or something. I have a lot of vintage glass options that I can't use on Nikon now.
 
hahahah wow you guys. Try shooting a run and gun interview with your camera on a shoulder mount. You will absolutely see a difference in stabilization of the shot. I can't believe I actually used to listen to you guys
 
You seem to be the only one who thinks so...

I've used IS lenses handheld and on a shoulder mount, I think you have a false perception about it
 
Since you're the only person who seems to think it works, maybe you need glasses.

The IS on canon lenses is made for photos. Even the IS on my Sony lens that is made for video makes very little difference.

Also I have amazing vison.
 
Are you serious...? Sure it might do something (like micro shakes at very best), but hardly worth shelling out extra cash for an IS lens.

I must commend your wealth of knowledge about that subject, so I thought I'd try to learn more about it. I googled, "does IS" and it filled in the rest with "does IS work with video" and the link you provided was the top link. Well done, I'm trusting you may have learned ctrl c+ ctrl v recently too.

That being said and although I take what is said here with a grain of salt, I trust newschooler's M&A over the majority of other forums about camera gear.
 
I never said it did nothing I said:

"You might notice something but it doesn't really help at all"

You will definitely notice something but it doesn't necessarily help out for any practical situations. It doesn't make a shoulder mount butter smooth, a good operator does.
 
yeah that's a really good idea...

and next time you might want to use your fancy copy and paste before you start talking out of your ass.

and here goes eheath trying to pretend he was right the whole time. no surprises today
 
Get a less shitty mount and learn to hold the camera still, IS does nothing for video, and causes blurry images with photos if not used handheld. No one needs IS unless you are at 600+, photographers have gotten by without it for way longer then it has been available. Brands should worry about making better class then IS, the optical quality of so many of the canikon tam/sig lenses with IS is very dismal.
 
stopped reading here. and don't you only do pictures? anyone that doesn't agree with my "opinion" right now is wrong, because my opinion just so happens to be a fact
 
Well that escalated...

Don't point the finger at Eheath and say he's the one talking out of his ass, just about everyone else in here totally agrees with him based on their own experiences. You're the exception who's trying to start shit rather than show anything to back up your claim.

Find a youtube video or something of IS/VR/OIS actually helping in real-world shooting situations. I'd personally be far more inclined to open my aperture up a stop if I needed to, rather than chunk down for IS...

I wouldn't even want IS or VR for photos unless I was using something over 200mm in length while shooting film or an older DSLR that can't get good images over 800iso. I don't own a single lens that has it, and I'd be absolutely content if I never did. (though, if I was sticking with canon, I'd probably get that 24-105... but for the range/sharpness/construction quality, not for the IS)

 
while I do only put out photos, I have owned cameras with video capabilities, have hands on time with FS700's, Canon C systems, a red scarlet, black magic's, the works, a number with L lenses with IS and having spoken with product reps, working professionals, and am friends, IS is completely worthless for video.
 
Okay, you seriously must be trolling now because you're acting too much like a jackass for any of us to take you seriously anymore.

 
oh im trolling so hard right now....you're a fucking internet nerd and so is eheath. look it up- I'm not the only one that knows that IS does something while in video mode. For people that are on the interweb as much as you, you'd think you'd go out and research the shit you spew. I've done comparisons myself, but if you refuse to believe me or do research on your own then there's really no sense in debating it. I'm surprised you can even speak with eheaths hate boner in your mouth
 
Hahaha this guy...

YouMad.jpg


I get it, you don't like Eheath and think he's full of shit. Well, he certainly isn't in this case.

I've personally used IS, VC, VR and OIS lenses first hand. I don't really NEED to do research, but the research itself sure as fuck isn't conclusive to the shit that YOU are spewing. It doesn't do anything to make your video better. /thread

 
but you do though.

oh well, I've tried to educate you noobs but you're all too stubborn to realize it. Back to making money using my IS lenses! No complaints here
 
Why the fuck would I NEED to do research if I had actual hands-on experience... That's actual physical in-person experimentation that doesn't rely on other people's likely bullshit.
 
you don't NEED to do anything, but learning how to google is pretty basic stuff and I highly recommend it, especially for you
 
have not read this whole thread. But i feel that IS does help. I use it on my 24-105 all the time and i will switch it of then switch it on and i notice a significant difference. I use it regularly. And it wokrs for me.
 
After reading the thread more. Am i the only one that sees a difference with it? I find when shooting hand held it takes out a good amount of shake. I have heard that it is useless for video. I thought it was because it did weird things to the video. Hmmm.... Well it works for me.
 
no you're definitely not the only one... we're just on NS and unfortunately alot of people base their judgements on what comes out of eheaths peanut brain. Unfortunately it seems like the people with colorful names in this thread are "different" only because they don't know what they're talking about. Do what works for you and keep rocking that IS handheld and seeing the difference!

 
can I just say, what the fuck are you even talking about? "Chunk down for IS"???

Please explain this statement...because it seems like you think aperture has something to do with stabilization
 
I believe he's referring to photos, the whole point of IS is the ability to use a slower shutter speed in order to gain more stops of light.
 
It's definitely an advantage in video mode -

0:18 in particular.

Test Estabilitzador Olympus OM-D E-M1 from El Cocu on Vimeo.
 
The shot you referred to looks like they used warp stabilizer haha also a wide lens with IS is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Defaulting to a more expensive lens instead of properly stabilizing your system for less money seems silly to me, which is why I think IS is pointless for video.

I'd like to make a point very clearly here, since its been overlooked.

I never said IS did nothing

Dingo and I both recognize that IS does "something" for video but in our opinions its not worth the extra cost of an IS lens to buy it just for that purpose. Not only is it more logical just to buy proper support for you camera (tripod or glidecam or shoulder mount) but IMO paying more money so you can walk around like a joey with your dslr in your hands is fucking stupid. Any respectable filmmaker have a support system for their cameras and Sour if you NEED IS for your shoulder mount maybe you need to work on your technique a little more, but apparently you're the all knowing ruler of what is right and wrong, so I'll just trust you know what you're doing...
 
"chunk down" meaning the ridiculous extra cost of IS... Here's a prime example...

For Nikon...

80-200 F2.8 AF (push-pull version): >300$ used,

(per KEH.com)

*this version is also lightyears better for video on Nikon (or Canon for that matter) because it has an aperture ring, and can change aperture during live-view.

80-200 F2.8 AF-D (faster focusing 2-touch version): 500-900$ used.

70-200 F2.8 AF-S VR II: ~2400$ new, ~2000 used...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...L6GhOCBmr0CFVFp7AodY1YAfg&Q=&is=USA&A=details

For Canon...

80-200 F2.8L ~700-900 used.

(Per KEH)

70-200 F2.8L IS ii ~2500$ new, ~2100 used.

(also per B&H)

Hell, the F4 IS/VR versions of both lenses run you well over 1000$ and they aren't even close to as good as the cheaper, full stop faster F2.8 lenses that cost well under the price... and in the case of Canon, the cheapest L lens is the ~500$ 70-200 F4 L non-IS, which is under half the price of the IS version... and from what I remember, sharper.

 
Could not agree more.

And Dingo you're comparing different lenses... you're not even comparing the 70-200 f/4 to the f/4 IS, or f/2.8 equivalent. Even then that would not be a fair comparison of IS cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top