topic Re: Is image stabilization necessary? in EF & RF Lenses

Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:01:28 GMT

I’m looking at the 24-70 and 28-70 RF L lenses. The 28-70 f2 does not have image stabilization. Is it really necessary? I’m sure there are places where it might and might not be, but I would appreciate help deciding. I’m glad to answer any questions that would help you give me helpful info. I like to shoot nature, but I’ve also taken up doing photos of different events at our kids school. Many of those involve lower lighting (performing arts stage and football stadium at night), but not a lot of fast motion shots. I don’t do sports. Thanks!

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

shadowsports — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:42:49 GMT

Greetings,

This is totally up to you. How steady is your hand. I love lens IS. You can be tired, fatigued shooting indoors in low light and dial your shutter speed down to something you think in your mind no way and you get a beautiful shot.

A full stop of light can make a difference. I prefer the 24-70 over the 28-70 because the heft of the 28 is 95mm. Its a fat heavy lens, and a full pound + heavier that the 24-70 which has a 82mm girth. I hand hold my 70-200 and 100-500 too, but both have IS.

I think you might want to look at the RF 70-200 f2.8 for low light performing arts, and sports related activities. If you aren't close to the stage, 70 isn't going to be enough, nor will it get you close enough to action on the field unless its right in front of you. You can also rent and compare side by side. Then pick the one you like best.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:54:24 GMT

Thanks for the input. I have a 70-200 but it’s EF mount. I love it and it works quite well. I’ve just gotten back into photography though and I’ve got so much to figure out and learn. I have a Rebel DSLR and upgraded last year. My son is playing around with the old camera but he’s not really into it much. I’m sure I’m missing some functionality using the EF instead of the RF but I didn’t have the money to dump on it yet and at the time, I really wanted to be sure I was REALLY interested in sticking with it. The shorter lens is to fill the gaps when I’m interacting with the kids up close. 70 is too tight for closer group shots and stuff. I was looking at the f2 for more light. But the cameras seem to be so good that pushing the ISO real high doesn’t seem to be a big deal. I do wonder sometimes if I should have gone ahead with a full frame instead of the R7, but I really do like it. If the RF lens is indeed better than the EF, I guess I’ll be saving up for that next.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

Tronhard — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:07:00 GMT

If you have the choice between an EF and RF lens, and can afford it, I would always suggest the RF lens, both for stabilization, overall optical performance and, one day, if you sell it, what will the market be like for a legacy EF lens?

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

FloridaDrafter — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:46:52 GMT

Excellent advice from my esteemed colleagues, Trevor and Rick. But, please note that the R7 has "In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS)", so you won't be totally without IS. You will have to enable it when using a non-IS lens, start at page 290 in the users manual for options.

Newton

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

Tronhard — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:34:04 GMT

Hi Newton, nice to catch up!
Yep, I was wondering if the OP has a camera body with IBIS as I cannot see a model mentioned.
At this time, the only bodies with IBIS are R3, R5 (not R5c), R6, R6II, (corrected omission: R7) and R8.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

FloridaDrafter — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:02:43 GMT

@Tronhard wrote:
At this time, the only bodies with IBIS are R3, R5 (not R5c), R6, R6II, R8.

The Canon sales page specs for the R7 say "In-body IS operation can be selected when using a non-IS lens." It's also in the manual, with several options 🙂

I don't have the R7, although I just about bought it for the crop sensor, but after trying one and reading deeper, I passed. I was hoping for an R version of the 7D mark II.

Newton

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

Tronhard — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:33:29 GMT

Apologies Newton, I thought I had included the R7. It DOES have IBIS, so I will correct my list. Thank you for picking that up.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:39:54 GMT

I had no idea! Yeah…that owners manual…holy cow it’s long.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

Tronhard — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:56:03 GMT

Me too Newton, I have written at some length about it's shortcomings in that respect... 😔
There is some suggestion of an R7II coming out later this year. It would need a major upgrade in image sensor (to BSI/stacked), buffer, one card Express CF and significantly upgraded focusing, plus a battery grip and more weather sealing (I realize that's a long list).

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

FloridaDrafter — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:22:59 GMT

@BK5524 wrote:
I had no idea! Yeah…that owners manual…holy cow it’s long.

Not only long, but sometimes hard to find what you are looking for with the PDF search feature, even when you know what feature you are wanting to find. What I mean by that is, what you call something may be noted in the manual as an abbreviated menu item and sometimes not. I think it stems from the manuals being translated from Japanese to other languages and to match the camera menus, which a lot of the times are abbreviated or hyphenated. I sometimes have to resort to doing a web search or YouTube to see where to look in the camera/manual for a particular feature.

Newton

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:35:02 GMT

It’s overwhelming for sure. My biggest problem is that regardless of how much I want to read the info, it just puts me right to sleep. I have t really done much looking at YouTube or even the “Learn with Canon” page either. I run a small business and I’m a horrible time manager. How do you get all that camera/lens info on your replies? Does that help when asking questions, so.the readers can see what you’ve got without having to spell it out every time? (Like I totally forgot to do with some of the info) 😁

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

FloridaDrafter — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:40:04 GMT

@BK5524 wrote:
"How do you get all that camera/lens info on your replies? Does that help when asking questions, so.the readers can see what you’ve got without having to spell it out every time? (Like I totally forgot to do with some of the info) 😁"

Just click your user icon (where you log in) in the upper right corner of the forum page and select "My Settings".

Then click the "Personal Information" tab.

Is it helpful? That may be up for debate, but I find it useful in mine so that folks can see that I actually own the gear that I am commenting on. Although I own and still use many DSLR's, I chose just to list my R/RF stuff because that is what I primarily use.

Newton

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:59:48 GMT

Great! Thank you! I was thinking, if the camera has internal stabilization, that makes the choice between the two lenses tougher. Someone said there was a pound of difference between the two but the specs on the Canon site only show a difference of about 3 ounces. Any further pros cons you c an think of between the two?

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

shadowsports — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:22:35 GMT

Hi Brian,

Specs show 1.98lbs (24-70) vs 3.15lbs (28-70) 🙂. Think I saw this on B&H's website.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:31:15 GMT

Yes, thank you. It seems I misread somewhere. I also had the 24-105mm(?) in the comparison list and I’ll bet that’s where I got the other number. The reviews on the 28-70mm are fabulous though.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

Waddizzle — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 03:17:36 GMT

What range of shutter speeds do expect to use with the new lens in this range?

The general rule of thumb for a minimum shutter speed to minimize the effects of most camera shake is 1/FL, one over the focal length in use. For a 24-70mm lens, that works out to be 1/24 to 1/70 of a second. Let’s round it off to actual shutter speed settings and call it 1/80 second for any focal length setting.

Do you anticipate using shutter speeds as slow as 1/80 second? When I use my EF 24-70mm f/2.8, I am typically around 1/800 sec. Wide angle lenses do not really need Image Stabilization, provided you are shooting at “typical” shutter speeds. Having IS with telephoto and super telephoto lenses is far more beneficial.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:08:46 GMT

As I’m just getting back into this, I really can’t say what shutter speeds I anticipate. Looking at some photos I took at a band concert a week ago, most had higher shutter speeds with f2.8. But I’ve noticed that with such a wide aperture, my photos aren’t as clear as I want them to be in quite a few shots. I’m not sure if it’s because of using the EF lens with a RF adapter or some other factor. I’m finding that it’s more difficult to do indoor shots than I anticipated. I have gotten some good ones, but there’s definitely room for improvement. I also realize that only a small percentage of what I shoot will be deemed “good” in my eyes, or in general. I was very surprised though at the sheer number of shots I’ve been taking. One of the first band competitions I shot (one of my kids is a trumpet player), I kind of thought maybe I took 50 or 60 pics. The reality was that I took well over 200. I’ve been using aperture priority but I’d rather use manual. I’m a little intimidated by it though. I’m used to changing all that with the controls on a Minolta X370 (I told you I started a long time ago) and I find it more difficult on the newer cameras. I’m thinking/hoping that the control ring on the RF lens will help with this ‘problem’.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

p4pictures — Fri, 01 Mar 2024 17:09:33 GMT

I have the RF 28-70mm F2L and picked it over the RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS after renting both. I use the lens on an EOS R6, R6 Mark II and EOS R10 currently.

I mostly capture portraits, either in studio or more often on location. Since people are living breathing creatures they move and no amount of image stabilisation in-camera or lens will ever stabilise a moving subject. This means that I tend to shoot at 1/100th or more so then the question of stabilisation is largely not a concern anymore.

All that said, the RF 28-70mm F2L is a big hefty and bulky lump, but there is something quite special about how it deals with rendering subjects. It's not just at f/2, but at almost any aperture up to f/8 that the "character" of the RF 28-70mm F2L shines through.

Re: Is image stabilization necessary?

BK5524 — Fri, 01 Mar 2024 17:30:34 GMT

Thanks for the input. I pretty much had my

mind made up to go with the 28-70 but I did want input from others before doing so. I appreciate all the feedback. The weight won’t be an issue as I’m already used to lugging around the 70-200 anyway. I can’t wait to try it.