>
>From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: Digital Bridge Camera
>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:36:29 +0800
>
>Ok, you are right, IS is very useful for still objects and also for panning
>car racing or alike. I also own a C*non 28-135 IS, I agree it is quite
>useful for some internal shoots where my subjects (peoples) are sit or stand
>still.
>
>But I just feel that in many cases they are not so useful, I got some bad
>shots in a company party due to ignoring the people are talking/laughing and
>expected I can hold at slow speeds with the IS, of course eventually their
>faces were blurred, I know it was my problem but it was just not work.
>
>For the Gundam girl photos I took, at the beginning I used the 28-135 IS,
>not only the DOF were too much, at 1/30 to 1/60s most of the shots were just
>"ok" but not very sharp due to the object and my movement. When I switched
>to Zuiko 85/2 the story were re-written, at 1/250s to 1/500s all the shots
>with right focus were super sharp.
>
>Unfortunately, the two affordable IS lenses from C*non are too slow, it
>limited the application of the lenses.
>
>C.H.Ling
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"
|