raptort Loc: Saginaw, MI

Hello, first post other than intro and this question has been on my mind since I have followed the forum. I’m on a tight budget but want the best quality for the price. Currently have Canon 7D with two main lenses. Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 DC OS for scenics and Sigma 170-500mm 5-6.3 APO DG for wildlife.The long zoom is fine with a tripod but not so much handheld. Many opportunities come while driving and while results have been ok just not what I want. I’ve seen many posts stating handheld is the way to go. I know OS/VC would help but thought I would still need tripod for full reach. But seeing results for Tamron G2 150-600 handheld and checking reviews I feel I am really missing out. I also need to make big time improvements on my post processing but is there that much of an improvement with the new lenses, a no brainer? Retirement around the corner and I see wildlife photography as my new passion. Felt this may be the right upgrade.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Rap, Welcome to the Hog!
It does make a difference but mostly at speeds that are to slow for your abilities to handhold.
If you shoot in good light a fast speeds, IS is not needed. And the wider the lens the less IS is needed as well.
Everybody's needs are different. IS is not magic, it ONLY stops some of the movements of the lens/camera, it will NOT stop any movement of the subject if you are shooting that subject at slow speeds and the subject moves.
SS

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's all about lens magnification, camera/lens weight and your ability to hold still. Any lens used at it's minimum focus distance can give you a magnification of 1:2 to 1:5 - you will be more prone to movement than if you shot subjects at infinity.

A heavy camera has a bit of inertia, so you may find that a 5 lb camera and lens may provide less movement than a 1 lb one at the same magnification.

Your ability to keep still - did you drink coffee, tea or an energy drink earlier in the day? Is your lens and camera causing you fatigue because it is too heavy? Are you holding the camera correctly with the lens barrel cradled in your left hand and your elbows at your side? Are you breathing normally and lightly pressing the shutter at the end of an exhale?

That being said, the picture below shows a 4 1/2 stop improvement from OS. If you accept the widely held notion that for reliable results shooting hand held one should try to shoot no longer than 1 over the focal length, then this is how I arrived at the improvement number. I used a 600mm lens meaning that I routinely should not use a shutter speed longer than 1/600 without stabilization and a shutter speed of 1/25.

(Download)


(Download)

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

It does to me and I would not be without it for a moment: Some say it is not required or is ineffective beyond a certain shutter speed, or distance for macro. Well I've put this to the test and found that in my hands stablisation provides better results regardless of SS or distance. I used to use a Canon 7D mark II + Canon 300mm f2.8L IS + Canon 2 x TCIII hand held - but only because the lens was stablised.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

IS is a God send.
It helps greatly in hand held shooting with longer lenses. Tes proper technique is still a must and general physical ability. But beyond that, regardless of shutter speed I love it due to the stable image I see when looking. Try it without being on the have it on and see the difference. It is quite annoying to see the motion compared to when IS is on and the much steadier view.

frjack Loc: Boston, MA

The in-body stabilization on the Olympus OMD-EM1 markii makes a remarkable difference in shooting in low light. I've been able to get crisp hand-held results at shutter speeds of 1/2 second and even lower. Body position etc. has something to do with that of course. I rather doubt it would make as much of a difference for someone holding the camera at arm length using live view as it would using the viewfinder thus stabilizing the camera against the fact. That said, turning the stabilization off during tripod work is also important. Learned that the hard way.

Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington

I get my best results from using a tripod, second best results from using IS/VC/OS, and third best just handheld with no IS/VC/OS. Personally, I'm not as steady-handed as I wish I was, so stabilization is always a help.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"Rap, Welcome to the Hog!
It does make a difference but mostly at speeds that are to slow for your abilities to handhold.
If you shoot in good light a fast speeds, IS is not needed. And the wider the lens the less IS is needed as well.
Everybody's needs are different. IS is not magic, it ONLY stops some of the movements of the lens/camera, it will NOT stop any movement of the subject if you are shooting that subject at slow speeds and the subject moves."

whwiden

With IS /VR, I can reliably hand hold 28mm at 1/5 a second.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Just remember that stabilization doesn't stop your subject's movement. Whether or not it helps depends on the situation and your abilities to hold the camera properly as well as the focal length involved. Pre stabilization we used tripods so if money is a concern and you have a decent tripod, you can consider that route.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I still use a Nikon 70-210 f4 because it does the job and its paid for. Sure I would like the Nikon 70-200 f4 vr but I can get along with out the stabilization. It wasn't that long ago that none of us used any form of stabilization aside from a tripod, monopod, of natural support of some sort and we got the job done.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

IS, oh yeah...

raptort Loc: Saginaw, MI

Thanks for all the replies. I knew I would get a lot of varied advice to think about which is what I wanted. Besides the VC the Tamron lens seems to be much better quality than my present one so that all will be considered.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

One of the reasons I switched to the Canon system around 2001 was because it was the only system offering Image Stabilization at that time. Three out of the four lenses I bought initially had IS. Over the years since, my lens kit has expanded gradually and I now use nine IS lenses. I've made hundreds of thousands of shots with them and, particularly with the longer teles I use a lot, I feel IS is a HUGE help! I'm able to get sharp, steady shots I never could before, thanks to IS.

The most recent models give you a 3 to 4 stop advantage. That means you'll be able to get a steady shot about 3 to 4 stops slower shutter speed than you could without it. For example, if you needed 1/500 with a particular lens without IS, you'll get a good percentage of sharp shots with IS at 1/60 or even 1/30. Earlier IS versions were rated to give 2 to 3 stops worth of assistance. Not quite as good, but still nothing to sneeze at! A lot still depends upon the user's ability and their technique.... but whatever you can do in terms of holding steady shots, IS can help you do even better.

IS was probably more of a help to me back when I was shooting ISO 50, 100 and... maximum... 200 film. With much higher usable ISOs in DSLRs today, that partially offsets IS. OR, another way of looking at it, along with higher usable ISOs, IS makes even lower light shooting possible.

IS is most helpful with telephotos... the longer the focal length, the more useful IS. In fact, many wide to normal lenses still don't have stabilization. But more do each year and, while I don't consider it as high priority a feature on shorter focal lengths, it can't hurt and might help!

I agree with previous responses... one thing IS can't do is stop subject movement. If you're shooting action and want to freeze motion, you still may need to use a faster shutter speed.

IS also is of somewhat limited help with macro work. The higher the magnification, the less effective it will be. You still might need a tripod if you're shooting macro. Canon's "Hybrid IS" on their 100mm L is about the best implementation of stabilization on a macro lens. It's rated for 3 to 4 stops assistance at non-macro distances and probably good for about 1 stop's worth of assistance at that lens' highest 1:1 magnification. Stabilization in other brands might not be as effective at that level of magnification.

Most Canon IS lenses can be used on a tripod without concern. If there's no movement detected, it simply turns itself off. There are a few, mostly older, now-discontinued models that require you turn off IS if using the lens on a tripod. Those are the original EF 75-300mm IS USM (1st lens to get IS, long-ago discontinued)... EF 300mm f/4L IS USM (2nd lens to get IS, still in production), EF 100-400 L IS USM (first version, push/pull zoom, now discontinued), and EF 28-135mm IS USM (discontinued in 2017). Even though it's not on Canon's "official" list, I also include the EF 24-105L IS USM (first version, now discontinued) because there have been reports of it causing the same sort of problems when on a tripod. All other Canon IS lenses will "self detect" and turn off IS automatically, when it's not needed.

Many Canon lenses have Mode 1 and Mode 2 IS. Mode 1 is two-axis correction... counteracting both vertical and horizontal movement. Mode 2 is single axis, intended for use when doing panning shots where you want to blur backgrounds with the movement, correcting only vertical movement (and, yes, it detects camera orientation and will correct the vertical whether you're using either portrait or landscape orientation). Some recent Canon IS lenses also have Mode 3, which is "instant" IS that only acts during the actual exposure. Otherwise it's the same two-axis correction as Mode 1.

Many modern lenses don't provide means of changing those modes... Instead they self detect panning movement and switch to Mode 2 automatically, when needed. Otherwise they simply use Mode 1 style correction.

None of this applies to Sigma OS or Tamron VC... which may or may not behave the same way. Following Canon's lead - which began in the mid-1990s - all manufacturers now offer some form of stabilization either in their lenses (Canon, Nikon... as well as Sigma and Tamron to be used upon them) or in the camera itself (Oly, Pentax), or both (Sony). But even though the various systems serve the same purpose, each is patented by and unique to it's manufacturer. For that reason, they're all likely to be different in certain respects and may give different performance. For example, many Nikon shooters feel that VR slows down autofocus to some small degree, and there seems to be some evidence to support that assertion. OTOH, after using Canon IS lenses for over fifteen years, i feel that it does exactly the opposite... assisting and speeding up AF... although I have no way to confirm it.

Seeing how you are looking at a Tamron lens, you should search for more feedback on it and the VC system it uses. Personally I don't have much experience with that (though I currently use some Tamron lenses without VC and have used many more in the past, and find Tamron's better "SP" lenses, in particular, to be quite good).

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Amfoto1, you are long winded and thorough in explaining things and you should write a book!