Please briefly comment on the addition of image stabilization.

Editor's picture
Now that independent lens makers like Tamron and Sigma have announced “shake-free” lenses it seems that vibration reduction lenses are becoming more common and available for all. Does the addition of image stabilization add value to a lens for your work?
Please briefly comment on the addition of image stabilization.
1) Yes, the ability to have more exposure leeway in low light and with long lenses is certainly worth any extra expense.
96% (583 votes)
2) No, I’d rather work with a faster lens and don’t find noise objectionable if I raise my ISO to a reasonable speed.
2% (14 votes)
3) I don’t need these lenses because my camera body has vibration reduction built in.
2% (11 votes)
Total votes: 608
Share | |
Comments
David's picture

I shoot both 35mm and digital. Lenses that work with both cameras, I use Nikon, are much more important to me than shake reduction. I believe that there is a tendency to design lenses that include shake reduction that do not work with 35mm cameras and this is not acceptable to me.

Joel Katz's picture

I'm sure you realize what it is like not to carry a heavy tripod into the wild and not necessarily be restricted by a blind because of the heavy tripod. You do not have set up time anymore to great extent because of this and you are able to move around relatively free.

Ellen C.'s picture

Have been using the Canon IS lenses for several years!

Jimmer's picture

Absolutely! Vibration reduction would allow me to unchain myself from my tripod and allow better shooting in awkward positions or in places (e.g., museums) where tripods are not allowed.

Jan Roejskjaer's picture

Sharpness is so critical to an excellent photo and IS delivers.

Dale Hazard's picture

I think anything to help us make better images is always a plus, but I'm still going to drag my tripod with me and use it regardless of where I go.

Donnie G.'s picture

The typical consumer based all-in-one zoom lens user can benefit from using either the lens or camera body based approach to image stabilization. However, if you are an action shooter who relies on long lenses to capture your subjects, then lens based stabilization is the tool you need to up your percentage of keepers. It responds faster, is more accurate, and even more fuel efficient (less battery drain) than camera body stabilization. Now ask yourself, who are the camera makers with a large base of big glass users and who are not. It should be pretty easy to figure from there why a company favors one approach to vibration control over another. For the photographer its a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. Choices are a good thing.

Al Eynon's picture

At my age (70), stabilization if for ALL lenses.

George Hrnjak's picture

As I get older I find image stabilization more valuable.

William Lawson's picture

I now have two Nikon VR lenses and am pleased with their performance so far.

Joe Dlhopolsky's picture

I find them useful. However, I'd like to see a little more technical information. For example, I often shoot from a pitching sailboat. The degree of movement is somewhere between hand held, where IS is useful, and panning, where it is not. I'm still not sure if it's helping me in this setting.

cena's picture
I'm delighted to read this

I'm delighted to read this article thanks for the valueable information..000-032
COG-112
000-315
9L0-403
9L0-314
9L0-353
9L0-062
1Z1-054