anotherview Loc: California

Experts say the shutter speed should match the effective focal length to ensure sharpness. So for example, if shooting at 100mm, then set the shutter speed at 1/100 sec. This formula applies to hand held shots.

Image stabilization mechanisms allow for hand holding at slower shutter speeds than those that match the focal length. Yet, still, the photographer should learn how to hand hold the camera to promote image sharpness.

pahtspix

My Tamron 150-600mm G2 ALWAYS has VC "ON" at #3 both on and off a tripod/monopod..For over 2 years now. Coupled with my Nikon D500.. It works for me!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

That is a rule of thumb for the *minimum* shutter speed, for a hand held shot without VR.

And if shooting with a cropped sensor you must apply the crop factor to the shutter speed. Thus with an APS-C sensor, and 100mm lens, you would want 1/150 or faster for you shutter speed, M43 1/200, etc.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

My take via example - I recently picked up a Nikon AF-P 70-300 VR F4.5-6.3 to try out since I heard good things about the AF-P series. It was going to be compared to my Nik 70-300 AF lens (sharp lens, no VR). Used the AF-P lens for a day (in bright Florida sun) and found that while the VR worked, in bright conditions the older AF lens is sharper, and the AF is fast enough for most work. I was going to send the AF-P back, even had an RMA for it.

Next day was cloudy and just generally a dull grey yucky day. Thought, well maybe I should give it a go in low light before I send it back. Glad I did, while not as tack sharp as the older AF lens, it could quickly focus and stabilize at very slow to fairly high shutter speeds, and produce a good crisp image, even one handed off balance shots came out well, something that probably would not happen with the non-VR lens. I shot till near dusk, and got shots the older Nikon lens would have severely struggled to get. So now I have 2 70-300 lens. The old AF lens is sharper, but has low light limitations for AF. It is fine for manual focus, but I'm not always doing manual focus.

I do agree that at faster shutter speeds it becomes less and less important, till you reach a point/speed where there is no gain.

If I were to do anything different, it would be to go for the (higher $$$) Nik AF-P VR F4.5-5.6. But I can't complain, the F4.5-6.3 was only $120 delivered from MPB and while called used, looks brand new, box, paperwork and all.

My lenses are split about evenly between non-stabilized and stabilized for my Nikon bodies, My Sony bodies all have IBIS, so those lenses are non-stabilized A-mounts. Is VR/IS/OS/IBIS etc. worthwhile, yes, there are circumstances where it is very helpful. Do you need it if you mainly shoot tripod (or other stabilizing methods), or manual focus, maybe not. But if you are on the move, have steadiness issues, shooting in low light w/o assist, shooting off-balance one handed, etc. It is worth having. My humble opinion, YMMV.

anotherview Loc: California

Agree.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

My use of VR is limited to shutter speeds under 1/focal length which works well for me. I also consider which lens/camera body I'm using and what I am doing into the equation as well. VR DOES slow down autofocus a bit, so when shooting sports, handheld or on a monopod, I rarely use it as my shutter speed takes care of the issue. Interestingly, I do find that the VR on my Nikon 300/4 PF is VERY useful and tend to have that on quite a bit. Just my personal opinion. Best of luck.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Thanks for the help. My camera is a 7D was curious because I am considering up grading to L glass. I have a tremor in my left hand, so I wsas wondering of spending the extra $ for IS models. Because of the hand shake I mostly use shutter priority, as high a shutter speed as the light will allow. Plus I always try to use sme kind of support, usually a monopod whenever I can. My walk around is an 18-200, and I am lookind at a 75-300n as a birthday present to myself, but I vcan't make up my mind, between the Canon L model or the Sigma and save $500. Both have IS. Either way I will use KEH as I have good results with them in the past. Thanks again.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

If the tremor affects your shots then YES, you will be very happy with it or any form of image stabilization!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hey boberic, like many UHH topics, you can see this subject produces directly contrary comments. For my work with lenses with Canon IS, everything I've posted to UHH from IS lenses is with the IS active, regardless if using a tripod, monopod or handheld as well as regardless of the shutterspeed. In the photo gallery and other sections, as well as links from my signature, you'll see landscape images from tripods as well as fast flying jets and flying birds. Most of the recent work includes the use of both 2x and 1.4x extenders, another alleged detriment to AF performance.

The specific models of the lenses and cameras have a great deal to do with the performance characteristics as well as the photographer's abilities. Longer, heavier lenses are just physically harder to control handheld and track a moving subject. The L-series lenses with Canon's newest IS mode 3 have been my preferred models.

As you consider a lens in the 70-300 zoom range, consider the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM. I've owned the 70-300L in the past. A great lens, but large, heavy and expensive, a rugged lens built to last, but well out of date relative to the series II models Canon has released for other L-series models with IS. The non L model is 300+ grams lighter that can help significantly; it's cheaper too. The 100-400L II is the true leader in 70-400 range, where used prices are now starting to show up in the $1500 range. This is back to the larger and heavier, but the 100-400L II features all of Canon's cutting edge technology and Canon's Series II / Mode 3 capability.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Try looking through a hand held 400mm lens with IS off vs on Android you will never do it without it on unless the IS is crappy and jumps around.
All mine do not do that but just a very steady wonderful view.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Great post Paul! I have wondered about the extender thing for a while. Even certain less expensive extenders work well with certain lenses. For OS/IS/VR/IBIS, I think I usually leave the image stabilization on all the time, cause I start to forget it is on, and I rarely ever use a tripod, even when I should!!

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If anything but FF, don't forget the "crop factor".

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Depends on focal length, lens resolution and sensor density (and how fast your subject is moving). I try not shoot my stabilized 600mm lens under 1/1600 without a monopod and even then I need to be VERY careful. My 35mm with no IS I need to be at 1/125 or better in my 5DmkIV due to the incredible resolution of the lens and the higher mp of the sensor.

It seems there is no perfect formula. To answer your question, just leave the IS on for all the reasons the other posters have said....

(PS. What I discovered shooting sports is that the "speed" of my camera shake exceeded the speed of the target relative to the sensor. Hence the longer the focal length, the higher the shutter speed....and the 1/focal length rule starts to not work very well. When I say camera shake, i mean very slight movements but at 600mm, that slight movement is magnified immensely. My monopod allowed a lower shutter speed...more impact than IS frankly. I only needed 1/640 to stop the action but had to shoot at 1/1600 to overcome hand held camera shake at 600mm. (Could shoot 1/800 at 200mm) Monopod solved the problem.)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The short answer, in my opinion, is "No".

And it's way too simplistic to try to choose a set shutter speed where IS may not be needed. It depends upon and varies widely with lens focal length and/or magnification... camera sensor format... user skill, capabilities and technique... as well as the local conditions while trying to get a "steady shot". For example, a long telephoto like a 600mm might call for 1/600 on full frame or 1/1000 when used on an APS-C camera or even faster shutter speed if used on smaller formats such as micro 4/3. In contrast a 24mm lens might be hand-holdable without IS at 1/25 on full frame or 1/50 on APS-C, etc. There's also a big difference between shooting while standing on a concrete slab versus shooting from the deck of a ship... or, for that matter, from any vehicle with a motor running.

The long answer is...

I've been using Canon Image Stabilized lenses for over 15 years, have shot hundreds of thousands of images with them, and currently have nine Canon IS lenses in my kit.

In fact, one of the main reasons I switched to the Canon system in 2000/2001 was because of IS. No one else was offering any form of stabilization at that time and in my opinion it was game-changing technology. Canon IS certainly proved to be successful... Enough so that almost every other camera and lens manufacturer had to follow Canon's lead and now have implemented some form of stabilization too. They were about ten years behind Canon, but it's a pretty level playing field now. EXCEPT that each manufacturer's stabilization system is patented, so there's no doubt some differences between them.

I virtually never turn IS off. Sometimes I'm sure it's not serving its primary purpose because I have a plenty fast shutter speed. But it also doesn't do any harm to leave it on (and, seconds later I might have followed the same subject into shadow where a much slower shutter speed will be used). When I experimented with using IS on and off (many years ago now), I saw no change in image quality and very little difference in battery usage. I saw I was getting a lot of help from IS... It improved the vast majority of my images... Especially when I was still shooting films that were ISO 50, 100 and 200 at the fastest most of the time, only occasionally and reluctantly ISO 400.

I also noticed early on that IS also helps stabilize the image in my cameras' optical viewfinders, which can be useful at times when panning and tracking moving subjects, especially with long telephoto focal lengths. In this case, shutter speed is irrelevant.

Further, I have no way of proving it, but I think Canon IS helps autofocus perform better. It makes some sense that a stabilized image would be easier to lock onto (but this pertains to Canon IS only.... seems it isn't the case with all stabilization systems... see below).

Out of thirty or more lenses with it, there are five Canon IS lenses that use a system that needs to be turned off at the switch when there's no camera shake occurring, for the IS to correct. Often people refer to turning it off whenever using a lens "on a tripod". However, not all tripod use fully eliminates all camera shake (IS can even be effective counteracting internal camera vibrations such as "mirror slap" in SLRs). Plus, there can be situations where there's no movement for the IS to correct, even when not using a tripod. Many Canon lenses "self detect" lack of movement and automatically turn off IS when it's not needed. The ones that don't and have a problem include the original EF 75-300mm IS USM (1st lens to have IS, around 1995), EF 28-135 IS USM, and original EF 100-400L IS USM "push/pull zoom". Not officially on Canon's list, the EF 24-105L IS USM (original version) also seems to show similar effects. All four of those lenses are discontinued and/or superseded by new models that do not have the same problem. The 5th and only lens on "the list" that's still in production is the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM. I've used four of these at times and extensively use multiple copies of two of the lenses on this list and have to note that all of them are designs that especially lend themselves to hand-held use.... At least that's the way I've used them.

What happens with those particular lenses' IS when there's absolutely no movement for it to correct, is that the stabilization systems goes into sort of a "feedback loop", where it's actually creating rapid movements that can effect images. The good news is that if this occurs, you'll see it happening in the viewfinder and that will remind you to turn off IS... no harm done. The worst that can happen is some images with movement blur.

Other Canon IS lenses do not normally show this problem. They turn IS off themselves. However, some other times when you might want to turn off IS are when making videos and if shooting an image that requires very precise framing. This because IS often has some slow "image drift" (not to be confused with the rapid movement the above lenses). Also, IS makes some slight noise which may be picked up in the audio of a video.

Canon lens user manuals all tell you to turn off IS when the lens on a tripod. However, Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's tech guru, told me that was primarily suggested to save battery power. Again, I don't think IS draws very much power. I often shoot with a pair of cameras, one fitted with an IS lens, the other with a shorter focal length, non-IS lens. After a long day's shoot I get nearly the same shots per battery from both cameras.

IS is now on many lenses in the Canon system. Originally it was implemented mostly on telephotos where it's probably the most helpful. But it now can be found on much shorter focal lengths such as the ultrawide EF-S 10-18mm and EF 16-35mm f/4, as well as standard zooms such as the EF-S 17-55mm and EF 24-105L II, and even on some primes such as the EF 24mm f/2.8 USM, 28mm f/2.8 USM and 35mm f/2 USM. On these lenses, IS may not be as much of a "game changer" as it is on telephotos. But certainly doesn't hurt either!

Early Canon IS lenses offered 2 to 3 stops of assistance. Newer ones offer 3 to 4 stops, according to Canon.

Some Canon IS lenses have user selectable "modes". Standard IS "Mode 1" counteracts movement both on the vertical axis and the horizontal axis. "Mode 2" is intended for panning, when you don't want IS to counteract motion blur effects in one axis, so it only provides correction to the vertical axis (note: camera orientation is sensed, too... so that single-axis IS is correctly applied regardless). Some of the most recent IS lenses have a "Mode 3" too, which is sort of an "instant stabilization". In this mode the IS is only applied during the actual exposure... which suggests that IS in these lenses is extremely fast acting. (I only use one lens with Mode 3, so am not all that familiar with it yet, but after 2 years it seems equally or more effective than older versions.) Other recent Canon lenses automatically detect panning and self-activate a "Mode 2", without the user having to set anything.

None of this should be interpreted as applying to any other manufacturer's stabilization system. The above applies to Canon IS only and, even though the purpose is the same, I'm certain there are differences in how the stabilization systems of different manufacturers perform. Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and to a lesser degree Sony all produce lenses with optical stabilization. Pentax, Olympus, Fujifilm, Panasonic and to a large extent Sony instead produce DLSRs and mirrorless cameras with stabilization provided by moving the camera's sensor itself to counteract shake. There are some minor differences, but both methods accomplish what they're supposed to do.

A more specific example of some differences... Nikon users often suggest that VR should be be turned off when possible because it seems to slow autofocus slightly. At first I though this might be "sour grapes"... Long time users of Nikon gear justifying why they stuck with the brand for many years when they didn't have stabilization, while Canon kept introducing more lenses with IS. But there seems to be some evidence to support this. However, it's just the opposite of what I think occurs with Canon IS... that it helps autofocus perform a little better.

Other manufacturers' stabilization systems are bound to be unique and each have some nuances of their own. I can only say I've heard that Sigma and Tamron's are very good, roughly equal to Canon's. Sony combines lens-based and camera/sensor-based stabilization to claim some extra high performance. There's talk of systems that apply correction to 3 or 5 axes (horiz., vert., near, far, and yaw). In a sense, continuous autofocus itself can provide some near/far correction (for this reason Canon increased the distance sampling frequency of the AF systems in some cameras by 4X, when those cameras are fitted with OEM macro lenses).

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Great explanation.