Posted by eric weight on April 24, 2008 at 1:06 AM
My lens collection has reached the stage where all I have left to hanker for is a big 500mm + lens. Andy Astbury suggests in his last grebe post that IS is a waste of time on lenses of this size. That would make it an easier choice for me as I could look a lot closer at what Sigma have to offer. So - is he right? I will only buy one of these lenses once and I would hate to spend that sort of money on the wrong one. Any thoughts on long lenses and IS would be most intersting. Eric
I couldn't be without my IS. It's makes a massive difference for me Eric, even on a tripod. But what did people do before IS....probably came down to good long lens technique and images don't seem any sharper nowdays. Good luck
IS is nice but an F2.8 or F4 lens is much more flexible when working with teleconverters it reduces likelyhood of hunting when effective aperture exceeds F5.6, A F4.5 500mm even with 1.4 tc is pushing the AF system ability of most bodies. If shooting Canon than you are restricted to central AF point with 1 series bodies instead of full 45, not sure about Nikon bodies
I used a non IS 500 for many years, the biggest problem for me was the tc issue. Yes you get many more keepers with IS, but it is not essential. Look at the images from the Sigma 800 & 300/800 lenses that are on this site. At end of the day technique is more important than any equipment shortfalls.
Hi Eric
I would not get a lens without IS. I have been saved so many time by having IS on my lens. Last week again I was shooting from the car on a bean bag....it is so easy....even at very low speed.
Frederic
Posted by John Chapman on April 24, 2008 at 4:40 AM
Hi Eric you do not say the Camera that you are working with. My own personal experience I would not be without IS as I like doing flight shots.
John
I would hardly say it was a waste of time, thousands of pro photographers world wide might tend to disagree. Of course it will not stop the picture bouncing from a boat or even a floating hide, as it was designed to eliminate small movements such as camera shake when hand holding a lens weighing 8.5 lbs, and also wind movement when on a tripod. I agree with the last poster, it is invaluable when taking flight shots hand held A waste of time it is not.
Posted by Andy Astbury on April 24, 2008 at 4:55 AM
Eric, now did I say 'waste of time' or 'waste of money'
This is how I look at it - if I was going to use a lens hand-held, then if IS/VR/OS wasn't going to cost me an arm and a leg over the cost of of a non stabilised version then I'd have it as it might just get me the odd extra usable shot - but if it's going to cost me 50% more than a lens of equal sharpness and reliability then I'll leave it on the counter.
At present I'd kill for a Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR because it's one heck of a sharp lens AND it's got VR.
Now my hand-held panning isn't too bad though I say it myself, but a bit of vertical oscillation does creep in there more times than I care for and the VR system would give more more usable shots below 1/500th of a sec.
However, would that same VR system give me as many extra usable shots on a 500mm VR below 1/800th hand-held - I doubt it very much, as that vertical oscillation in my panning technique would be exacerbated at the camera end by the increased weight and at the subject end by excessive movement of the image.
Any image stabilisation system can only do so much and I think a lot of folk give it a lot more credit than it is due.
Graeme does himself an injustice - give him a calibrated Sig 500mm and he'll produce just the same number of sharp images as he does now
Once you make the jump to 600mm and above Eric the lenses take on a whole new meaning as there shear size and weight comes as a bit of a shock to the system - a 600mm or 800mm prime bears no resemblance whatsoever to a 500mm + 1.4 or 2x tc, and a 300-800 isn't even in the same solar system weight and bulk-wise so hand-held usage is out for the main part.
Those little bits of movement that represented fractions of an inch at the subject plane through a 300mm now represent feet at the same subject distance with an 800mm, and no IS system can correct errors of that magnitude.
So couple that with the lack of hand holding capability and you begin to see the lack of relevance any IS system has on so called super tele lenses.
Some folk have the ability to hand-hold a 600mm for short periods and perhaps even a Sig 800mm - their technique must be flawless.
And remember, the Sig 800mm has no IS.
Mike got it dead right - big glass technique is everything and there's no way of getting around that fact.
Always bear in mind though Eric that I'm a cantankerous old git, everything I say is always just my opinion and we all know what we say about those
Buy whatever you feel happiest with - afterall, it's your money and they are your pictures - if you feel happy with your gear than you will produce good images whatever you use
On a rock steady tripod, on a rock steady platform IS will not help. In most other situations, especially the longer the focal lengths, IS is the rocks equivelent (within reason).
That said, it you have a shutter speed of about 5X the focal length there is some debate that it may slow focus aquisation slightly.
I would not buy any telephoto lens without IS because a) so much of the good photography is at less than ideal light b) sometimes a tripod simply is not an option c) this is the sunny UK.
T
Posted by Paul Inglis on April 24, 2008 at 5:58 AM
Hi Eric,
Lens lust is a very serious condition, not to mention highly contagious! Apparently every photographer suffers this from time to time and is only treatable with a purchase of the desired item but it usually takes longer than the anticipated time causing further agony and distress!
I have just suffered this fate for over three months! I have agonised over whether I should have purchased a 500mm, 600mm, 800mm or the 300-800mm. Then I heard that Nikon were going to release three models the 400mm, 500mm & 600mm with VR (Vibration Reduction – the same as Canon’s IS (Image Stabilisation). I could only stretch to a 500mm VR and had a very good discount with it. It was placed on back-order and it went from; it’ll be a week or two, to three months later being told it’ll be another five months yet!
Oh, how I wept, wailed and howled! I spent the next few weeks in excruciating pain trying to decide what to do. Checking out the older models to see what was and wasn’t available. No 500mm in stock anywhere, only the 600mm but no VR. What should I do – wait 5 months or purchase a non VR version!
I’m fortunate to own a 200-400 f/4 VR so I personally decide that purchasing the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 would be a waste of money for me (a beautiful lens at a good price IMHO!). I decided I needed more reach. The Sigma 300-800mm is a beast, far too much for me as is the Sigma 800mm. My reasoning was I can’t drive so I have to carry my gear everywhere therefore the sheer size of the latter two lenses is simply too much for me.
I spent some time looking at various second hand models from certain dealers as I felt it would be more justifiable. Many bargains are to be had with some dealers offering a twelve month guarantee!
A good discount was offered on a 600mm so it persuaded me to opt for a non VR model. Having used both VR and non VR lenses I have to admit that I have gotten used to VR and miss it on the 600mm but all that means is I have to perfect my long lens technique.
You only have to look at the sheer quality and tack sharp images that are produced every single day on this forum to see whether IS or VR is really essential! It’s a personal thing! Many lenses used don’t have VR or IS yet tack sharp images are still obtained! If money isn’t an issue by one with IS as you can always turn it off, giving you the best of both worlds but if price is a consideration then I suggest a non IS model new or a second-hand IS!
If you buy second-hand then get opti-clean from Speed Graphic for bring that piece of Glass up like new!
After all that and you’re still none the wiser! Best of luck!
Posted by Paul Inglis on April 24, 2008 at 6:06 AM
Oh by the way if you place a VR or IS lens on a tripod and lock it all up then you have to turn the VR or IS off! But leave it on if panning on a Gimbal!
Having used a Canon non IS 600/4 for 3 years and recently "upgraded" to a IS 600/4, I must admit I noticed the difference straight away. The IS version is so much quicker at focusing and I think gives a much better end result (I'm using 1DMKII & 1Ds MKII). But as Tom says any lens IS or non IS if well supported will give excellent results. One thing I can do with the IS version is hand hold it for flight shots, something that was near impossible with the non IS.
There really is a vast difference in weight between the Canon 500/4 and 600/4, If you are reasonably strong then handholding the 500/4 should not be a problem.
My view is that IS is one of those things that once you have that option, it may be difficult to return to a non IS lens.
For me, it is a similar senario to me relatively recently aquiring AF.
For years i felt no need for AF, and tended to ignore situations where AF would be useful, however, i could not do without AF now, and suspect the same would apply if i got myself an IS lens.
Saying that, i do tend to agree with Andy, and feel no burning desire to own an IS lens, especially as today we have at least a four-stop advantage with regards to iso speeds { not counting the very latest bodies}.
I do feel that bird photography is different to other areas of long-tele work, as we often shoot at close range, even with long lenses {due to small subject size}, which reduces the risk of visable camera shake, whilst increasing the risk of visible subject movement {which IS does not cater for, i believe }.
I think the difference in 'old school' thinking is becoming far more apparent these days, and many of the old 'rules of thumb' do not necessarily apply today.
Although bif shooting was rare a number of years ago, it was commonly thought/mentioned that hand-held panning allowed greater ease/stability than shooting hand-held with a static subject.
My VERY limited experience with bif does echo that thought, and i feel it is more to do with using a lens that has a comfortable design for hand-holding. I found difficulty in handholding my old 300mm f4, yet find my 'twice as heavy' 400mm f3.5 extremely comfortable to hand hold.
There is no dought that i could put an IS lens to good use, especially in the depths of a Cumbrian winter, although as a hobbiest, i can't justify the upgrade costs for the small percentage of times that i can't cope with very low light {especially as that percentage is reducing, due to usable medium/high iso's}.
As a lifetime user of non IS lens's, i find the days of having many shakey frames per film, have now become a distant memory { but a useful and expensive experience to go through, with regards to long-lens technique}, and although i still get the odd shakey frame, i feel there is less excuse for it today..............hooray for usable 800iso!!
Of course, it could be that i subconciously avoid situations where my technique would not be up-to-par with { low light-level hand holding etc}, as i did prior to gaining AF, so maybe i am unwittingly missing out on specific situations by not having an IS lens.
It could also be that pixel peeping has mysteriously muscled its way into the 'circle of confusion' subject {where it doesn't truely belong IMO}, and instead of viewing prints at their appropriate distances for their enlargement, there is a tendency nowadays to place a nose on a print.
Just the ramblings of an old fart
Alan
Posted by eric weight on April 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Thanks for that terrific response, so much wisdom and experience on offer there. I guess that like everybody else who has been here, I am in a state of indecision over 1) how I justify the price of a used car going on another lens. and 2) whether I really need it it or just want it. I am so impressed by the work of people on here that has been produced on 300 mm lenses that I am not even sure that I shouldn't be looking at 300 or 400 mm primes that might work better with the teleconvertor than my current lens does. It would seem that IS is worth having, so I shall probably start looking at those. Sorry if I misrepresented you Andy - not my intention, but it has got me some good advice to work with.
Thanks Guys. Eric
Posted by Andy Astbury on April 25, 2008 at 1:52 AM
That's not a problem Eric - feel free to hang me out to dry anytime matey
Discussion
13 repliesI used a non IS 500 for many years, the biggest problem for me was the tc issue. Yes you get many more keepers with IS, but it is not essential. Look at the images from the Sigma 800 & 300/800 lenses that are on this site. At end of the day technique is more important than any equipment shortfalls.
Mike
I would not get a lens without IS. I have been saved so many time by having IS on my lens. Last week again I was shooting from the car on a bean bag....it is so easy....even at very low speed.
Frederic
John
This is how I look at it - if I was going to use a lens hand-held, then if IS/VR/OS wasn't going to cost me an arm and a leg over the cost of of a non stabilised version then I'd have it as it might just get me the odd extra usable shot - but if it's going to cost me 50% more than a lens of equal sharpness and reliability then I'll leave it on the counter.
At present I'd kill for a Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR because it's one heck of a sharp lens AND it's got VR.
Now my hand-held panning isn't too bad though I say it myself, but a bit of vertical oscillation does creep in there more times than I care for and the VR system would give more more usable shots below 1/500th of a sec.
However, would that same VR system give me as many extra usable shots on a 500mm VR below 1/800th hand-held - I doubt it very much, as that vertical oscillation in my panning technique would be exacerbated at the camera end by the increased weight and at the subject end by excessive movement of the image.
Any image stabilisation system can only do so much and I think a lot of folk give it a lot more credit than it is due.
Graeme does himself an injustice - give him a calibrated Sig 500mm and he'll produce just the same number of sharp images as he does now
Once you make the jump to 600mm and above Eric the lenses take on a whole new meaning as there shear size and weight comes as a bit of a shock to the system - a 600mm or 800mm prime bears no resemblance whatsoever to a 500mm + 1.4 or 2x tc, and a 300-800 isn't even in the same solar system weight and bulk-wise so hand-held usage is out for the main part.
Those little bits of movement that represented fractions of an inch at the subject plane through a 300mm now represent feet at the same subject distance with an 800mm, and no IS system can correct errors of that magnitude.
So couple that with the lack of hand holding capability and you begin to see the lack of relevance any IS system has on so called super tele lenses.
Some folk have the ability to hand-hold a 600mm for short periods and perhaps even a Sig 800mm - their technique must be flawless.
And remember, the Sig 800mm has no IS.
Mike got it dead right - big glass technique is everything and there's no way of getting around that fact.
Always bear in mind though Eric that I'm a cantankerous old git, everything I say is always just my opinion and we all know what we say about those
Buy whatever you feel happiest with - afterall, it's your money and they are your pictures - if you feel happy with your gear than you will produce good images whatever you use
On a rock steady tripod, on a rock steady platform IS will not help. In most other situations, especially the longer the focal lengths, IS is the rocks equivelent (within reason).
That said, it you have a shutter speed of about 5X the focal length there is some debate that it may slow focus aquisation slightly.
I would not buy any telephoto lens without IS because a) so much of the good photography is at less than ideal light b) sometimes a tripod simply is not an option c) this is the sunny UK.
T
Lens lust is a very serious condition, not to mention highly contagious!
I have just suffered this fate for over three months! I have agonised over whether I should have purchased a 500mm, 600mm, 800mm or the 300-800mm. Then I heard that Nikon were going to release three models the 400mm, 500mm & 600mm with VR (Vibration Reduction – the same as Canon’s IS (Image Stabilisation). I could only stretch to a 500mm VR and had a very good discount with it. It was placed on back-order and it went from; it’ll be a week or two, to three months later being told it’ll be another five months yet!
Oh, how I wept, wailed and howled! I spent the next few weeks in excruciating pain trying to decide what to do. Checking out the older models to see what was and wasn’t available. No 500mm in stock anywhere, only the 600mm but no VR. What should I do – wait 5 months or purchase a non VR version!
I’m fortunate to own a 200-400 f/4 VR so I personally decide that purchasing the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 would be a waste of money for me (a beautiful lens at a good price IMHO!). I decided I needed more reach. The Sigma 300-800mm is a beast, far too much for me as is the Sigma 800mm. My reasoning was I can’t drive so I have to carry my gear everywhere therefore the sheer size of the latter two lenses is simply too much for me.
I spent some time looking at various second hand models from certain dealers as I felt it would be more justifiable. Many bargains are to be had with some dealers offering a twelve month guarantee!
A good discount was offered on a 600mm so it persuaded me to opt for a non VR model. Having used both VR and non VR lenses I have to admit that I have gotten used to VR and miss it on the 600mm but all that means is I have to perfect my long lens technique.
You only have to look at the sheer quality and tack sharp images that are produced every single day on this forum to see whether IS or VR is really essential! It’s a personal thing! Many lenses used don’t have VR or IS yet tack sharp images are still obtained! If money isn’t an issue by one with IS as you can always turn it off, giving you the best of both worlds but if price is a consideration then I suggest a non IS model new or a second-hand IS!
If you buy second-hand then get opti-clean from Speed Graphic for bring that piece of Glass up like new!
After all that and you’re still none the wiser!
Having used a Canon non IS 600/4 for 3 years and recently "upgraded" to a IS 600/4, I must admit I noticed the difference straight away. The IS version is so much quicker at focusing and I think gives a much better end result (I'm using 1DMKII & 1Ds MKII). But as Tom says any lens IS or non IS if well supported will give excellent results. One thing I can do with the IS version is hand hold it for flight shots, something that was near impossible with the non IS.
There really is a vast difference in weight between the Canon 500/4 and 600/4, If you are reasonably strong then handholding the 500/4 should not be a problem.
Regards
Rob
For me, it is a similar senario to me relatively recently aquiring AF.
For years i felt no need for AF, and tended to ignore situations where AF would be useful, however, i could not do without AF now, and suspect the same would apply if i got myself an IS lens.
Saying that, i do tend to agree with Andy, and feel no burning desire to own an IS lens, especially as today we have at least a four-stop advantage with regards to iso speeds { not counting the very latest bodies}.
I do feel that bird photography is different to other areas of long-tele work, as we often shoot at close range, even with long lenses {due to small subject size}, which reduces the risk of visable camera shake, whilst increasing the risk of visible subject movement {which IS does not cater for, i believe
I think the difference in 'old school' thinking is becoming far more apparent these days, and many of the old 'rules of thumb' do not necessarily apply today.
Although bif shooting was rare a number of years ago, it was commonly thought/mentioned that hand-held panning allowed greater ease/stability than shooting hand-held with a static subject.
My VERY limited experience with bif does echo that thought, and i feel it is more to do with using a lens that has a comfortable design for hand-holding. I found difficulty in handholding my old 300mm f4, yet find my 'twice as heavy' 400mm f3.5 extremely comfortable to hand hold.
There is no dought that i could put an IS lens to good use, especially in the depths of a Cumbrian winter, although as a hobbiest, i can't justify the upgrade costs for the small percentage of times that i can't cope with very low light {especially as that percentage is reducing, due to usable medium/high iso's}.
As a lifetime user of non IS lens's, i find the days of having many shakey frames per film, have now become a distant memory { but a useful and expensive experience to go through, with regards to long-lens technique}, and although i still get the odd shakey frame, i feel there is less excuse for it today..............hooray for usable 800iso!!
Of course, it could be that i subconciously avoid situations where my technique would not be up-to-par with { low light-level hand holding etc}, as i did prior to gaining AF, so maybe i am unwittingly missing out on specific situations by not having an IS lens.
It could also be that pixel peeping has mysteriously muscled its way into the 'circle of confusion' subject {where it doesn't truely belong IMO}, and instead of viewing prints at their appropriate distances for their enlargement, there is a tendency nowadays to place a nose on a print.
Just the ramblings of an old fart
Alan
Thanks Guys.