May not be totally opposite, I also got very sharp result at 1/4s and 50mm
(80mm equ. at 10D) or so when my object and I are prepare for this slow
shutter. But it didn't provide the best result from a fast shooting
situation, not as fast as car racing but just a busy portrait session with
20-30 photographer surrounding you and the model change her post in seconds
or even sub-second. I got much better results with large aperture lens that
enable me to use high shutter speeds instead of the 1/30 or 1/60s and IS.
For panning, I have no experience personally but I read from pop photo test
for the C*anon 100-400 and N*kon 80-400, the panning sharpness was tested to
be much better with IS enabled. May be on some more experience people's hand
it is better without IS. The C*non 100-400 has a switch to select full IS or
only vertical vibration for pan shoots, I believe the 70-200 2.8 IS also has
the same.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Scharf" <scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Well, my experience is just the opposite...I find IS to be useful
> for shooting with relatively slow lenses in low light with longer
> exposure times. Perhaps my panning technique allows me to hold a
> camera really steady at slow shutter speeds and the IS helps out even
> more. But I have to disagree with C.H. and Moose with respect to IS
> for panning car or bike racing. Personally, I find IS to get in the
> way of my panning. I bought the non-IS version of my one of favorite
> lenses, the superb C*n*n 70-200/2.8L because having shot extensively
> with both the non-IS and IS versions, I felt I got better results
> with the non-IS version. I also feel the non-IS version is sharper,
> and I've talked to a no. of motorsports photographers who feel the
> same way.
>
> The reason is that It seems like it takes time for the IS to "lock
> in" and for racing, and the time it just takes is just too long. To
> be honest with you, most motorsports photographers that use the newer
> lenses that only come with IS turn off the IS for this very reason,
> and many of them have hung on to their, older, non-IS equivalents
> instead of upgrading because they feel they are sharper and work
> better for them w/o IS. It really depends on style and your
> technique and the lens, though. One of the guys I shoot with has a
> Canon 300/2.8L IS and he finds IS useful because when things get
> heated, he tends to get a "whip" in his panning action with this big
> and heavy lens. I've done some motorsports stuff with my 28-135 with
> the IS turned on, and with this non-L lens, the IS is even slower and
> it really gets in the way of getting a picture at times, waiting for
> the gyros or whatever they are to "spin up". I think I IS can also
> help at times when you are shooting big glass (400mm or greater)
> handheld, but you have to change your technique in a way to keep the
> IS "spun-up", much like Ayrton Senna used to rapidly blip the
> throttle to keep the turbos in his F1 cars spun up. There's more to
> motorsports photography than meets the eye, as it were....it's funny
> how "laymen" feel all you need is frame-rate! <chuckle>
>
> If I recall, Mike V. bought a non-IS version of the 70-200/2.8 L on
> my strong recommendation and he loves his; his experience is similar
> to mine in that it is, quite simply, a freakin' incredible lens.
>
> To be honest with you, I think the reason that Mike and I have the
> panning skills we do is from all of those years we shot with OM
> bodies, manual focus Zuiko lenses and slow slide films. All that
> great training really builds your chops. ;-)
>
> -Stephen.
>
> --
>
>
> 2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
>
> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> To contact the list admins:
mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|