Is Image stabilization important when considering a zoom lens?

Question

I currently have an the orginal canon 18-55 kit lens, the canon 10-22mm wide angle lens, and now II'm considering a zoom. Also, I don't carry and extra flash ( just the one on the camera that pops up).Which would you reccommend the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L? Canon 70-300mm with IS? Or the Canon 28-135mm with IS?

Answer 1

I would choose one of the 70-xxx series lenses. The 28-135 is a nice lens, but I would not choose it for a few reasons:

1) It overlaps slightly with your other lenses, and I don't think 135mm will be long enough for you unless you don't plan to photograph any distant objects in the near future
2) The IS is an older version than in the 70-300 IS. The 28-135's IS is purported to offer 2 "additional stops of handholdability" while the 70-300's IS offers three.

The 70-200 f/4 versus the 70-300 IS was a hot debate for a long time. Some of the differences between them...

70-200 f/4 pros:
1) Fixed aperture (300 is 4-5.6), so some additional flexibility in lower light
2) Build quality is reported to be better than the 70-300
3) Can take a teleconverter (offered by Canon, Sigma, etc) to increase focal length. A 1.4x teleconverter will extend it to a 98-280, bringing it close to the 70-300's range at the loss of one stop (making it a 5.6 instead of f4)

70-300 pros:
1) Increased range
2) IS
3) Black finish instead of white. Some people are paranoid about their lenses standing out, so they shy away from the white finish on the f4.

So, depending on what you're shooting, I would take either the 70-300 or 70-200. I personally went right for the f2.8 series, but I was considering both of these lenses at one time. Unless you need the extra aperture stop of the f4, I'd say go for the 70-300 IS. The two lenses have almost the exact same great image quality, but the 300 gives you extra range with IS, which is critical at that sort of focal length.

Answer 2

I own Nikon Cameras but the lens that jumps out at me here for you is the 70-300mm IS. I have the 70-300mm VR (Vibration Reduction) for my Nikons and this lens won me one shot in particular that has made my a bit of money and this was hand held at 1/10th of a second! That was not a typo! So that is the lens I would recommend to you.

Answer 3

You'll be better off with the lens with Image Stabilization, especially at the longer zoom lengths. Whether you need the 28-135 or the 70-300 depends on what you plan to photograph. The longer lens would be suggested for wildlife and sports.

Regardless of which lens you choose, buy a quality HAZE/UV filter and keep it on the lens. Its cheap protection for that front element. One scratch or smudge turns your lens into a paperweight. The HAZE/UV filter "cuts through" haze you see in distant scenics.

Another good filter to have is the Skylight 1A or 1B. It eliminates the bluish tint seen in distant mountain scenes or in photos taken in open shade.

Answer 4

Another thing people here forget to say is about Tripods. It is easy to over look tripods but they can also make or break a shot sometimes too. especially if you get a large zoomer you will really be thinking about having that tripod, wether having a monopod(onelegged) or the traditional tripod. i find the monopod is a blessing alot but for that scenery shot i usually use a tripod. for the action i carry the monopod.
Image stabilization either in the camera or in the lens will help on the large zooms. One place i have discovered to look for zooms is in the pawn shops...you would not believe the deals you can get on zooms in these shops...yeah a respectable pawn shop will copy your id and fingerprint if you sell anything to them just incase the stuff is stolen.

Answer 5

Image Stabilization - Vibration Reduction

If you want to take pictures that are not so blurry, especially if you are having trouble using a telephoto lens, look for a lens that is designed to help you eliminate this blur caused by slight hand shaking. This technology is known as "image stabilization," "vibration reduction," "shake reduction," "optical stabilization," and "anti-shake" by the various manufacturers. It is "for real" and makes a visible difference most of the time. If you are using an average point and shoot camera without a monstrous zoom lens, you will see the difference in lower light situations where the camera will be using about 1/60th of a second or lower.

If you are using a telephoto lens, the effect will be noticeable at roughly anything slower than the inverse of the focal length, which used to be our standard for deciding when you should use a tripod. If it's a 200 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/200 or slower. If it's a 500 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/500 or slower. Actually, you will notice a difference at slower speeds than this, but I'd say that this threshold is where it can be called a distinct advantage. Macro shooting benefits from "IS/VR" also, because any movement will be greatly magnified when you are working at extreme close range with high magnification. Also, I feel that "IS/VR" helps if you are using a point and shoot camera at arm's length as you compose in the LCD monitor. It is much harder to hold the camera still with your arms out in front of you. "VR/IS" would be helpful there, even with the shorter focal lengths.

Please understand that "VR" or "IS" (etc) will NOT stop motion in a moving subject. You need to use a high shutter speed and/or pan along with the subject in order to do that. VR is only to minimize the effects of camera movement to give you a better chance at getting a clear picture. It won't work miracles there, either. You have to at least TRY to hold still. You can't go down a bumpy road in speeding car and expect to get great shots.

This is a composite I made to demonstrate "vibration reduction," which is also called "image stabilization" and "shake reduction" by various camera and lens manufacturers. For the best results, you should click on "All Sizes" and then "Original" before making your comparisons. I tried to remain consistent for all three shots, but I guess as clouds move in and out, things varied by an f-stop or so. I do not think that depth of field is an issue in this test, though. I did not move my feet at all during the test, so the point of view is identical. All three images were made using 1/60th of a second, which I consider to be the low shutter speed for hand-holding a 60 mm lens. I made a reference shot with my 60 mm Nikon macro lens, since I know this to be a fairly sharp lens. I tried to hold as still as I could, but I did not use a tripod, which would negate the need for "VR" anyhow. I then made two more exposures with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, set at 62 mm. I was trying to match the 60 mm lens, but I did it by just remembering some landmarks and zooming to match. As I used the VR lens, however, I did my best to actually "vibrate" the camera by inducing a tremor in my hands as if I was shivering in the cold. I took one photo with the help of VR and one without. It was extremely odd to look through the lens as I shook my hands.

Since the VR was working, even though I knew I was shaking the camera, the image appeared steady in the viewfinder! Okay, compare the shots for yourself. You won't see too much difference in the top two, but the effect of vibration reduction is very obvious when you see how the picture comes out when "VR" is turned off.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 60 mm Macro and Nikon 18-200 VR with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/511455669/

I realized that the first VR demo (above) may not be a "real world" demo, as I was TRYING to shake during the exposure. Who does that? I was originally trying to answer a question for someone who had a problem with severe tremors, so I was trying to induce tremors in my own hands. Well, I should ask, "Who does that on purpose?"

So in this pair, I was trying to hold still for both shots. The white balance is different, as I am trying to learn about that, but I realized that the first shot I took had the "VR" turned off. Everything else is the same, because I didn't move and the shots were made less than 30 seconds apart. The exposures were the same for both shots. I did not do ANY post-processing at all, as that would defeat the purpose of the demo.

Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 70-300 VR @ 240 mm with and without VR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/755244335/

For a detailed, yet easy to understand explanation, see:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

That L-lens must be nice - and expensive. Canon's 70-300 was recently reviewed in Popular Photography. So was the 70-200.

70-200: http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3855/lens-test-canon-70-200mm-f4l-ef-is-usm-af.html

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2259/lens-test-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-is-usm-af.html - they make a cheaper one, but I can't find the review.......

It's not a Canon lens, but you can see several shots I have on-line that were made with the comparable Nikon 70-300 "VR" lens here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/70300 Canon has a similar lens for a similar price. ($550 instead of the $1,150 lens...) This review says that the lens is "okay" and "targeted at amateur photographers." http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx My Nikon is at the same price point and I can see its shortcomings, but maybe it's just whetting my appetite forone of the "big boys."