Are image stablized lens neccessary for bright sunny days on a super zoom??

[trixstar]

Okay, so I'm thinking about purchasing a zoom lens like the sigma 70-210 AF f/4-5.6 lens. It's not an IS lens and I figure the motor is probably as slow as the 18-55 kit lens I have. I don't have much money to spend either. Anyhow, I'll be using this lens during very bright sunny days in the summer snapping pictures of seagulls and other distant objects. My question is, if I shoot at a reasonably quick shutter, can I get away without the IS??

My budget for a zoom lens of 200mm or higher is under $150..

[CSAgent]

Remember this rule:

Shutter must always = or be > than focal length.

70mm = 1/70 or higher

200 = 1/200 or higher

Have a cropped body?

(70 * 1.6) = 1/125 or higher
(200 * 1.6) = 1/320 or higher

Of course, this rule only applies if you want a 95% chance of having sharp photos. It doesn't take into consideration exposure but that's where your camera can tell you if it's going to be properly exposed or not. For sunny days, I tend to underexpose by a full step or 2.

IS or VR allows you to break that rule up to 3-4 stops - hence their usefulness. In low light this is very, very useful.

[cyder]

I got this one for Nikon, even had a motor to work with my D40. Lots of zoom for cheapish.

http://www.mcbaincamera.com/productd...ain_id=2006773

http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-car...70300DGC&type=
free pickup in London, I got it on sale from here before for 150. Takes 2 to 3 weeks for them to get it in

despite being marketed as macro it isn't a real macro. It's macro range is in the 200-300 range. Good enough for the price, especially for D40 users want a cheap zoom

[trixstar]

I got this one for Nikon, even had a motor to work with my D40. Lots of zoom for cheapish.

http://www.mcbaincamera.com/productd...ain_id=2006773

http://www.cameracanada.com/enet-car...70300DGC&type=
free pickup in London, I got it on sale from here before for 150. Takes 2 to 3 weeks for them to get it in

despite being marketed as macro it isn't a real macro. It's macro range is in the 200-300 range. Good enough for the price, especially for D40 users want a cheap zoom

wow, I think i will opt out for the one you listed. It's a bit over my budget but it looks great. I will look out for that one when I visit Henry's again or vistek.

[jayehs]

Remember this rule:

Shutter must always = or be > than focal length.

70mm = 1/70 or higher

200 = 1/200 or higher

Have a cropped body?

(70 * 1.6) = 1/125 or higher
(200 * 1.6) = 1/320 or higher

I don't understand why having a cropped body would change this. Cropped body just means the picture you get are essentially equivalent to x 1.6 focal length right? Focal length doesn't physically change just because you are using a cropped body so the recommended shutter speed should be the same regardless, no?

[cyder]

I don't understand why having a cropped body would change this. Cropped body just means the picture you get are essentially equivalent to x 1.6 focal length right? Focal length doesn't physically change just because you are using a cropped body so the recommended shutter speed should be the same regardless, no?

it is the magnification that is the problem, any sort of slight shake gets magnified.

Quick way to think about it is if you were taking a picture of a dot on a wall far away and you were not zoomed in much you would see no disceranab;e shake or movement from your hands, and everything would look relatively sharp.

If you zoomed in a lot so that tiny dot is now taking up most of the realestate in the viewfinder the slightest shake from before is very visible now. There are probably btter ways of explaining it but that is the one I choose.

wow, I think i will opt out for the one you listed. It's a bit over my budget but it looks great. I will look out for that one when I visit Henry's again or vistek.

To the above price phot shows henry's selling the lens for 329 or so, they probably have sales on it every once in a while too. Or they might just match the McBain price. Oh and there are two versions of he lens, one with APO glass is priced higher.

[goofball]

wow, I think i will opt out for the one you listed. It's a bit over my budget but it looks great. I will look out for that one when I visit Henry's again or vistek.

Seriously, do yourself a favour and wait until you have the money to buy the lens you will really enjoy. This is not that great of a lens, I have used the APO version on Nikon and it is better than this. On a nice sunny day and shooting seagulls and what not, you will be happier having APO lens. It's not that much more but it is worth getting the proper lens the first time.

[Kasakato]

No lens is better than a crappy lens. Save up for something a little more expensive. Theres no point in wasting money on a bad lens, its the source of the image.

[NiMSo]

Yes - in great lighting you likely would not need image stabilization. On a bright sunny day, you'll typically be getting great shutter speeds. I wouldn't worry too much about image stabilization in your situation (especially if it causes budget concerns). Although image stabilization usually doesn't hurt to have, it's not always necessary.

As for the people who're urging the OP to buy something more expensive - I do not think it would make much difference in conditions with excellent lighting. Most lenses can perform great when there is tons of available light (e.g. sunny days). That's because they can easily be stopped down for maximal image quality and the shutter speeds will still be fast enough for most purposes. A great photographer can take a kit lens and produce stellar shots. On the other hand, I've seen so many hobbyists with amazing pro gear produce horridly boring and uninspired work. Don't get caught up being a gear-head. Just go out and enjoy yourself.

[jayehs]

it is the magnification that is the problem, any sort of slight shake gets magnified.

Quick way to think about it is if you were taking a picture of a dot on a wall far away and you were not zoomed in much you would see no disceranab;e shake or movement from your hands, and everything would look relatively sharp.

If you zoomed in a lot so that tiny dot is now taking up most of the realestate in the viewfinder the slightest shake from before is very visible now. There are probably btter ways of explaining it but that is the one I choose.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. What i'm saying is whether you use 200mm on a full frame or cropped body, the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/200 for both and you shouldn't have to use 1/(200*1.6)=1/320 for a cropped body. Using cropped body doesn't actually physically change the focal length (or magnification). Focal length is still 200mm. It just *appears* to be 320mm because the sensor is smaller.

[cyder]

I don't think you understood what I was saying. What i'm saying is whether you use 200mm on a full frame or cropped body, the minimum shutter speed should be at least 1/200 for both and you shouldn't have to use 1/(200*1.6)=1/320 for a cropped body. Using cropped body doesn't actually physically change the focal length (or magnification). Focal length is still 200mm. It just *appears* to be 320mm because the sensor is smaller.

that is the thing, it isn't just the appearance, it is given the size/scale of the chip

[Asad_A203]

No lens is better than a crappy lens. Save up for something a little more expensive. Theres no point in wasting money on a bad lens, its the source of the image.

Exactly. Only one cheap GOOD telephoto for Canon exists: 70-200L f/4 and it will run you $600.