Please comment briefly on your experience with image stabilized lenses.

Please comment briefly on your experience with image stabilized lenses.
Yes, if I can get steadier shots in a lens that is not too expensive it is worth it.
55% (63 votes)
No, I'd rather work with a "faster" lens, with or without image stabilization.
39% (45 votes)
I haven't had a chance to work with an image stabilized lens so I'm not sure.
5% (6 votes)
Total votes: 114

Joseph Carabott's picture

I have the Tamron AF28-300 F/3.5,5-6 3XR Di VC LD and I am very disappointed with its "VC".

Frank K.'s picture

It works, but I would rather spend the cost of IS or VR on the "faster" lens.

Mark Jordan's picture

I have used many and my opinion is that when you are at the professional or semi-professional level that IS is not a top priority and only a benefit ad on. A skilled photographer with proper training and experience know how to make a photo without IS. I think it is great for novices and for family vacation pictures, but when you are in the serious mode, you know what and how to make a good shot. I have lenses with IS and I find mostly I leave this turned off. On the 70-200mm f/2.8 it does help some if you are hand holding but in general, when I break out a serious lens, and have a table tripod to mount it on with me. It all comes down to being prepared and having the correct equipment with you. I believe the average soccer mom on Saturday morning has a greater need for IS than most portrait and landscape photographers. Give me the absolute best quality lens and make it affordable and I can do without the 300-500 dollars increase for IS.

Dennis Caputo's picture

While image stabilized (IS) lenses weigh more than a comparable lens without IS, the weight gain is nothing like the gain a photographer would experience if she were to shoot with a lens that were 3 or 4 stops faster. Lens weight influences how stable a photographer can hold a lens, particularily a telephoto. A stable lens will yield a sharper photograph.

Max Burke's picture

I have an older 4 year Image Stabilizer lens (Nikon VR 18-200mm) and feel it is not effective as I thought it would be, but newer products, including Nikon, seem to do much better.

Dale Keith's picture

IS has helped me to hand-hold my camera at my age when my hands are not as steady as in my younger days.

Bill's picture

The Nikon DSL image stabilized lenses that I have work very well and I can count on the IS to do its stuff. On the other hand, I have a Canon with built-in IS and although I use it all of the time, the IS is iffy because I find myself trying to shoot at lower than practical shutter speeds. I'll go with the Nikon when it really matters.

Harry M.'s picture

I get almost 2 stops more with my Canon 100-400mm IS.

Dale Hazard's picture

I think image stabilization lenses are nothing more than a band-aid for lazy photographers. When all else fails, use a tripod.

David O'Connor's picture

I've been very pleased with my first IS lens, a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS. It's not always practical nor possible to use a tripod.

Bill Girimonti's picture

I have been using Canon stabilized lenses and am very pleased. 70 - 200mm f/2.8L IS 24 - 105mm f/4 L IS Thinking of buying the 100 - 400mm L IS.

Karin Wilcox's picture

I find that image stabilization actually hinders me sometime. Especially if I am shooting macro.

Samuel Ostrander's picture

There are a lot of places that tripods are neither allowed nor practical; therefore, any time you can get an assist its a good thing.