 BetterPhoto Member |
Camera Lens and Image Stabilizer I am looking to buy a 75-300mm lens for my Elan 7e camera. I want to know if the "Image Stabilizer" feature is worth the extra money. Thanks
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sajeev S. Chacko |
The *Image Stabilizer* feature is simply great. But the overall optics of the lens (75-300mm) is not very good, especially at the longer end. You can have very sharp photos at 300mm if you use very grainy film (100 ISO or slower) or a slide film and a good sturdy tripod. Otherwise the IS is not going to help you much, especially in low light condition.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christie E. Kleinert |
Now I don't know anything about the optics of the lens but I do know I was looking at this very lens and the one just below it in price. It is very bulky and has a big diameter, if you backpack or plan on carrying it a long way to the photo shoot go with the lighter one. I'd think it would be better to save up for a fast lens if you are working in low light as opposed to buying the IS lens. Some are only about $400 more than the IS. Good luck shopping!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Elaine S. Robbins |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John A. Lind |
I'll ask a question in response to the question . . . What do you intend to use the lens for? IS is an interesting technology. Those who find it most useful are shooting racing, sporting events, etc.; subject material that is very fast moving which requires panning. Another question: How did those that routinely created fine photographs with fast moving subjects manage it without IS? The answer is in their techniques and practice. IMO it's a convenience, useful for some things, but definitely not a necessity (see remarks about compromises below). If you intend to do landscapes and still-lifes with it (I've exaggerated a little with this; most work shouldn't need the IS), then a tripod or monopod is much more appropriate for many aspects of photography than using an IS lens. The IS feature *is* a compromise in lens design; the fact it's a 4X zoom is also a compromise. How much this affects your photographs will depend on how much you intend to enlarge them and how often you are shooting with high risk of flare. Decisions about some lens features are trade-offs between one quality or feature and another. Which way the decision falls depends on what you consider more important. -- John
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Richard Waldron |
The beauty of an IS lens is that you can handhold at lower shutter speeds. I take many pictures from a canoe. Both handheld camera movement and the fact that a tripod on the bottom of the canoe would be unsteady have led me to Canon's IS technology. I started with the 75-300 IS lens, then the 28-135 mm IS, and finally traded the 75-300 for the 100-400 IS. I still use a tripod on occasion, but I don't need to drag it everywhere to get sharp pictures. When I traded the 75 - 300 lens after using it for 2 years, I received 80% of the purchase price towards the new lens. If you lead an active lifestype and a tripod would slow you down, by all means give the 75 - 300 IS lens a try. If you are worried about the sharpness of the lens and money is no object, you could also go with the new 70 - 200 f2.8L IS zoom lens. To paraphrase an old saying, a lens can be sharp, inexpensive or loaded with features, pick any two.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Doug Vann |
Jane - The first response saying that 100 speed film is granier is wrong. The faster the film the granier it gets. In other words 400 speed film is granier than 100 speed film. I own a Canon 75-300 lens but it does not have IS. The lens works fine for normal pictures but if you are planning on enlarging I would go to one of the "L" lenses for maximum sharpness. Also if you plan on enlarging - the slower the film the better.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Ken Pang |
Just for your information: a) Both lenses (IS and non-IS) are excellent in the 75mm range, with an MTF rating of 0.9 and 0.92 respectively. So the non-IS lens is sharper. A good lens is above 0.75 and excellent lens is above 0.85. A pure vacuum that doesn't impede light is a theoretical 1.0 Towards the edge of the lens, the IS lense retains a rating of 0.9, while the non-IS lens drops off to 0.82. In this regards, the IS lens is better for sharpness through the whole picture, not just the edge. B) On the 300mm end, the IS lens has an MTF of 0.85 in the centre, and 0.78 at the edge. Still very good. The non-IS lens, is 0.8 at the centre and retains this all the way through. For optical sharpness the IS lens is better in most situations. Although there are better lenses, both lenses perform better than acceptably under all conditions. It is worthy of note that all measurements here were taken at f/8 both lenses drop signficantly when at fully open apertures. Hope this helps.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Colin Bell |
Hi Jane. I use Canon IS lenes and find them Superb. The one point I would make, is that you don't use them on a tripod, The IS function stops camera shake when the camera is hand held. On a tripod the IS function should be turned off, if it isn't it vibrates and your pics can be blurred. It even mentions that in the lens manual. "Men they never read the Instructions". OK second point, I find the lenes value for money. In Australia the L series lens, cost a mint. So if you arn't a professional or are very rich, get the IS lens, I find that they perform very well in low light situations and of course for distance work. Hope I helped in some way. Regards, Colin Bell
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||