From the course: Photo Gear Weekly

Do you need image stabilization?

From the course: Photo Gear Weekly

Start my 1-month free trial Buy for my team

Do you need image stabilization?

“

- When you're making decisions about photo gear that you'd like to purchase of course you're going to want to take a look at the various specifications. In the case of choosing lenses, one of the options that might be available is whether or not the lens includes stabilization. In many cases, you might be able to opt for a version of a lens that does not include stabilization to save a little money. So, then the question is, is it worth spending a little more to have stabilization in your lens? Well, in large part that depends on your style as a photographer. What sorts of subjects you photograph, and the conditions under which you photograph. If you have a lens already that includes stabilization of course, I would probably put it to use in situations where it is warranted. Here for example, I'm along the Hudson River in New York City, photographing some of the boats and helicopters going by, and I'm shooting handheld, so it certainly makes sense to employ the stabilization that is included in this lens. But, when you're making a purchase decision, you'll want to think about how often you're shooting handheld in particular, in circumstances where your shutter speeds are going to be relatively low. Keep in mind, that when shooting handheld there's that general rule about the shutter speed as it relates to lens focal length. Here I'm using a 70-200 millimeter lens for example, so I might max out at 200 millimeters, and so I would want a shutter speed of around 1/200th of a second. 200 millimeters, a 200th of a second, that would typically mean a 250th of a second. If I want a little bit of insurance, maybe I'd go up to a 500th of a second shutter speed. But, under these circumstances, I've got bright sunlight, I'm able to stop down the lens to about f/8 in this case, and I can increase the ISO very slightly up to 400 in this case. And then, framing up my scene here, I'm getting shutter speeds of right about 1000th of a second, that's faster then I actually really need for handheld shooting. In theory, I don't really need that stabilization. It might provide some benefit, but it's probably not a critical benefit. You can think of stabilization as effectively speeding up the shutter speed, not literally, but giving you some stability for handheld shooting as though you were using a faster shutter speed. Generally, somewhere around two or three stops, maybe more in some cases, so let's just assume only two stops of benefits, that's taking me from a 1000th of a second shutter speed up to a 4000th of a second shutter speed, at least in theory, again not literally, but in terms of the stability of the handheld shot, well, do I really need that if 1000th of a second is giving me everything I need in terms of stability, what's the benefit of that stabilization? Now, that's this particular circumstance right now, but then the question is, how often are you photographing under circumstances where that stabilization might become critical, might be something that you really want to be sure to have? You'll need to decide for yourself how often you run into those situations where stabilization will provide a significant benefit, when you're down in circumstances with lower light levels, maybe down to around 125th of a second. That's already pushing your luck at 200 millimeters, but stabilization is giving you that additional benefit. So, depending on those circumstances it may very well be worth spending a little extra money to have stabilization in the lens.

Contents