I'm new to the DSLR camera, thinking of buying tele zoom lens and been reading on the PhotoZone on IS (Image Stabilator). It make me wonder when does IS become necessary for tele photo without tripot?
IS is gd to have but not necessary. It is only more necessary on tele lenses.
How wrong you are.
So, start reading forums or make a trip to the library to read more photography books.
Useful link: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html
And most important, take more pics with different settings and keep experimenting
IS lens is expensive but it is a good investment especially if you have problem with handshake while taking picture. Some photographer have steady hands while other not.
Night photography with long exposure will need Tripod and not IS.
There's no right or wrong. It's just a suggestion. If u think IS is so great that it's a must, then u're wrong.
er, i think creampuff meant that you were wrong about it being better on tele lenses
to be honest, i think is is a good to have for almost any focal length, even 10mm. when i was on my latest trip i didn't bring my tripod, could do some night shots (which haven't been posted up yet) with reasonably small apertures (instead of resorting to wide open) and moderate iso settings handheld. without is, i would think this would not be possible. i hope you get what i mean, but nonetheless, T.O.P had mentioned more on this idea/concept in greater detail in one of their not-so-recent articles.
of course, that said, nothing beats a tripod, but a tripod is not so convenient in less static situations.
I fully agree with Snoweagle.I find it more justifiable on tele lenses unless u really take under very low lighting with low shutter speeds most of the time, then IS is gd in general. Take for example my 17-40. Though no IS, but very usable in very low light conditions with low shutter speeds. My record for taking night scenes handheld at Av mode, f/4 and ISO 400, the shutter speed is 1/4 and is still sharp, of cos it's at 17mm end lah.
The bottom line is. Yes, IS is gd to have, but the extra cost for it is just not worth it.
I find it more justifiable on tele lenses unless u really take under very low lighting with low shutter speeds most of the time, then IS is gd in general. Take for example my 17-40. Though no IS, but very usable in very low light conditions with low shutter speeds. My record for taking night scenes handheld at Av mode, f/4 and ISO 400, the shutter speed is 1/4 and is still sharp, of cos it's at 17mm end lah.
The bottom line is. Yes, IS is gd to have, but the extra cost for it is just not worth it.
I fully agree with Snoweagle.
The worst thing about IS is that people expect IS to be a miracle worker for poor handholding skills, poor photography techniques. But in your case your want of an IS lens is definitely justificable.
Just bear in mind that IS is never a replacement for a tripod.
For tele lens with IS, if you're on a budget, consider the EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Definitely cheaper than a 70-200 f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS
yes, of course, it is more justifiable on tele lens, but then again you could say that if you use tele lens you can also use tripod, no? that is my point, that is is good to have. in any case it is never a must-have. nonetheless, i would think that a system with built-in is in the body would have many advantages, because whether you like it or not at least you have the option in that extra situation where you happen not to have a tripod, nothing to brace on, and you need low shutter speed in low lighting. is could help you produce a relatively sharp picture, better than no picture at all. which is why people also purchase stuff like faster lenses.. it isn't just for the sake of throwing bucks away (since when you purchase the same focal length with just perhaps half a stop faster for maximum aperture, don't know how to put it, you pay a lot more), or because they are gearheads, and i highly doubt it is purely for the thinner dof.