IS in Camera or IS in lens?

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:06 am

Is it best to use the image stabalisation on the camera or that on the lens? Obviously you can't use both at the same time. Since IS must add to the cost, weight and size of a lens does anybody know of a macro lens of the same image quality of the Sigma 150mm which doesn't include IS?

Dave

Dave Mac · Post by **Dave Mac** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:20 am

I've never tried a camera with IS but I have a couple of lenses that have it. It is probably true that it makes a lens heavier and bulkier and it certainly makes them more expensive but if possible discount all of that because IS is magic
Dave

Trev Sawyer · Post by **Trev Sawyer** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:46 am

The Sigma 150mm macro lens doesn't have I.S. does it??!!... or did you mean to say "..which DOES" Dave?

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:31 pm

Well since I don't have an dSLR or the Sigma 150mm... Although my existing camera does have Anti-shake (Minolta Z5) in fixed macro mode (62mm APO) you do need to get a bit close.

Gruditch · Post by **Gruditch** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:46 pm

No the Sigma 150mm hasn't got IS or OS in Sigmas case. I've had a go on a few cameras and lenses with IS, and I would say that in some cases its a gimmic and in others its fantastic, the Canon 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS USM in particular, great lens. None of the big boys have stuck any form of IS on a macro lens so far, (unless you count Nikon)

, a Sigma 150mm F/2.8 OS Macro, yes please.

I still don't get all this weight stuff, Lisa is 7 stone and she dosen't have any problems.

Gruditch

eccles · Post by **eccles** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:38 pm

My Sony A100 DSLR has image stabilisation built in meaning all my lenses are automatically stabilised.
This shot was taken yesterday in fading light with a 400mm f5.6 Sigma telemacro at full aperture and 1/25 second. It is sharp down to pixel level. I had a monopod attached to the lens tripod mount but it was retracted so the shot was effectively hand held. Although holding the kit like a Uzi probably helped keep it steady, there is still no way a non stabilised camera could have taken it.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:31 pm

That's a great image Eccles.

M.

eccles · Post by **eccles** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:44 pm

Thanks Martin. The subject is a doddle to photograph as he's always there, guarding his patch, and he is used to me, but I do like that image stabilisation. It does sometimes miss but when it catches it can be very impressive. Of course it does rely on the subject to keep still so with a bluetit for instance this wouldn't have worked. Should be ok for most butterflies though.

LCPete · Post by **LCPete** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:22 pm

Hi Eccles thats a superb shot really sharp.
I have read that IS is supposed to be better in lens rather than in camera, but I recon in camera is more practical as IS lenses are expensive and not all lense types are avialable with IS. For example you cant get an IS macro lens for a Canon.
Pete

Adrian Hoskins · Post by **Adrian Hoskins** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:46 pm

Hi there

That robin shot is fantastic !

Anyway, getting to the point of the original question :

Image stabilisation in the lens offers a very significant advantage over in-body stabilisation, because the viewfinder image is stabilised as well as the image on the sensor. This means that the image in the viewfinder is much less "shaky", making it much easier and more comfortable to view and compose the picture. This is particularly noticeable when using long focal length lenses e.g. 300mm teles. The only downside is the cost, as stabilised lenses are significantly more expensive than unstabilised models.

Image stabilisation in the body is certainly effective in reducing camera-shake. It operates by using a motor to drive the sensor up and down and from side to side in accordance with camera movement. Unfortunately because it is in the body, the torque and speed is not tailored to the varying requirements of different lenses. Because the stablisation takes place on the sensor behind the mirror, the viewfinder image is unaffected and is a lot shakier when using a long zoom or macro.

Another disadvantage of in-body stabilisation is that flash sync speed is reduced ( my Sony a100 syncs at 1/160 with the in-body stabiliser switched off, and 1/125 when it is turned on ). The difference is minimal, but it's usually best to use the highest sync speed possible when shhoting with fill-in flash, to avoid out-of-registration daylight/flash images ( double-images ).

In practice there is probably little difference in the results, but lens-based stabilisation makes the picture taking experience more comfortable.

eccles · Post by **eccles** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:34 am

Of course, the really big nasty about in-lens stabilisation is that it relies on an extra lens element having to be stuck in there, which means the lens IQ isn't as sharp. Sorry, it isn't. You can't add a lens element and expect it to have no effect on IQ. Of course, this assume you actually can get a stabilised lens for the focal length that you want. With in-camera IS it's a no brainer.

eccles · Post by **eccles** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:14 pm

the torque and speed is not tailored to the varying requirements of different lenses.

Yes it is. It uses info from the chip in the lens to tailor the image stabilisation. You DO get less effectiveness when using a non-chipped teleconverter because the lens info is wrong.

Rogerdodge · Post by **Rogerdodge** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:30 pm

.......the lens IQ isn't as sharp. Sorry, it isn't.......

Eccles
I am not sure you are right here.
For example, the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS zoom is considered one of the sharpest lenses available (primes included) and it has IS, and is a zoom!?
Roger Harding

eccles · Post by **eccles** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:00 pm

Nevertheless, adding a lens element to correct for camera shake is surely detrimental to the lens's performance. The lens you quoted is good despite the IS component rather than because of it.

Malcolm Farrow · Post by **Malcolm Farrow** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:42 pm

None of the big boys have stuck any form of IS on a macro lens so far, (unless you count Nikon)

Statements such as this may confuse beginners reading this thread. Whichever way you measure it, Nikon are, with Canon, the leading camera/lens manufacturer in the world and the Nikon 105mm VR AFS Micro is a state of the art macro lens with vibration reduction built in. It's ideal for hand held butterfly photography.

Of course, the really big nasty about in-lens stabilisation is that it relies on an extra lens element having to be stuck in there, which means the lens IQ isn't as sharp. Sorry, it isn't. You can't add a lens element and expect it to have no effect on IQ. Of course, this assume you actually can get a stabilised lens for the focal length that you want. With in-camera IS it's a no brainer.

As far as I'm aware the VR elements are part of the optical formula of the lens and do more than merely provide that feature. I've used the Nikon 105 VR for two years now and have no doubt it's at least as good as any other macro lens I've tried (Sigma 180 f3.5, Sigma 105 f2.8, Tamron 90mm f2.8 and Nikon 60mm f2.

- I wouldn't use it if it wasn't up to the job.

Whether it's the perfect focal length or not is open to debate but VR/IS is unquestionably an advantage.

Best wishes

Malcolm

Gruditch · Post by **Gruditch** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:58 pm

Gruditch wrote: None of the big boys have stuck any form of IS on a macro lens so far, (unless you count Nikon)

Wow I made that little Nikon jibe in November, and it's taken till now to get a response

Gruditch

Malcolm Farrow · Post by **Malcolm Farrow** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:03 am

Wow I made that little Nikon jibe in November, and it's taken till now to get a response

Look on the bright side - at least you wont have to check every day to see if anyone has now!

All the best

Malc

eccles · Post by **eccles** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:25 pm

As far as I'm aware the VR elements are part of the optical formula of the lens and do more than merely provide that feature.

But don't you feel just a little uneasy that precision optics that are aligned to the 'n'th degree to produce extremely high detail has an element that wobbles? On purpose?

Rogerdodge · Post by **Rogerdodge** » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:07 pm

But don't you feel just a little uneasy...............

The Canon 70-200 f2.8 I.S. is STILL rated as one of the sharpest lenses anywhere (non IS/VR/OS primes included!!).

The results I have seen from the Nikon Macro with VR are astonishing, so..............

What works, works..........

Roger

p.s. I read somewhere that the laws of physics and aerodynamics prove that bees cannot fly - it's a good thing no one has told the bees isn't it!

eccles · Post by **eccles** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:58 pm

Aye, but ye cannae beat the laws of physics, Captain.

I must admit to posting the last couple of additions to this thread just to stir, and the lenses you mention are undoubtedly excellent.
Both IS systems work and each will have their supporters. Once you have decided on a particular system and bought into it then switching mounts will usually be a costly and rather pointless exercise.
If I was perfectly honest the main reason why I prefer in-camera image stabilisation is that I'm a bit of a cheapskate, and I just like the idea of only having to pay for one stabiliser for all my lenses. Having said that, I'm currently mulling over the A700. My life already...

IS in Camera or IS in lens?

IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Lens stabilisation best

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?

Re: IS in Camera or IS in lens?