Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Is fast glass with image stabalizing redundant?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Doug b" data-source="post: 1142224" data-attributes="member: 59143"><p>Preface: If you're EVER shooting on a tripod-NEVER use Stabilization. You'll actually get a more blurry shot by doing this, as opposed to hand holding. Monopod, could be a different story but use caution. If shooting sports, you'll get away with it. A non moving subject? Redundant. Moving on:</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a mixed bag, really. Because you have a fast prime, this does not mean you'll be shooting wide open all the time. There are reasons to shoot wide open vs stopped down, with the latter usually due to needing more detail surrounding the subject as well as every aspect of the subject being in focus/sharp. </p><p></p><p>Secondly, and associated with focus is depth of field. Do you want it to be shallow or not? You might want to read up on this as it encompasses a lot of detail in terms of shooting styles and effects. </p><p></p><p>Lighting: MUCHO IMPORTANTÉ! If you haven't already, go and spend yet MORE money on proper lighting equipment! Using good strobes (or other types of studio lights) is essential in getting a studio shoot done right. I'm not saying that natural light isn't good enough, but if you're shooting indoors, and need a lot of detail on a subject, shadows will always present themselves unless the entire thing is lit up. Even then, you need to manipulate light in ways which allow it to spread evenly. This sometimes takes more than one light, as well as special back drops to reflect etc.. The scenarios are plentiful, so go and do some research on lighting. </p><p></p><p>A lot of the time when shooting in a studio, you'll find yourself wanting to stop down in order to get detail out of everything.. so 2.8 IS kind of redundant, and beyond that, stabilization is just beyond unnecessary and even harmful to the shot. Most people shoot wide open for a special effect or if they're shooting a sports event and their flash won't reach or isn't permitted etc.. </p><p></p><p>After all that, it might sound as if I'm condemning shooting wide open, and I'm not. There's a time and a place for it, and only you can make that decision. It's your subject matter, and only YOU know how it should be presented. That said, there are plenty of great 2.8 lenses which when shot wide open still provide enough detail on the subject matter while producing amazing bokeh for the background. </p><p></p><p>But to answer your original question in general: Yes, it is fairly redundant ! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Being a photographer isn't necessarily a cheap undertaking. Fast prime lenses, good lighting equipment etc will haunt you, but are well worth the investment if you foresee a return in the future. I have to get some things done, or I'd go on.. but I'm sure you'll get good advice from the other photographers here. Good luck ! </p><p></p><p>Doug</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Doug b, post: 1142224, member: 59143"] Preface: If you're EVER shooting on a tripod-NEVER use Stabilization. You'll actually get a more blurry shot by doing this, as opposed to hand holding. Monopod, could be a different story but use caution. If shooting sports, you'll get away with it. A non moving subject? Redundant. Moving on: This is a mixed bag, really. Because you have a fast prime, this does not mean you'll be shooting wide open all the time. There are reasons to shoot wide open vs stopped down, with the latter usually due to needing more detail surrounding the subject as well as every aspect of the subject being in focus/sharp. Secondly, and associated with focus is depth of field. Do you want it to be shallow or not? You might want to read up on this as it encompasses a lot of detail in terms of shooting styles and effects. Lighting: MUCHO IMPORTANTÉ! If you haven't already, go and spend yet MORE money on proper lighting equipment! Using good strobes (or other types of studio lights) is essential in getting a studio shoot done right. I'm not saying that natural light isn't good enough, but if you're shooting indoors, and need a lot of detail on a subject, shadows will always present themselves unless the entire thing is lit up. Even then, you need to manipulate light in ways which allow it to spread evenly. This sometimes takes more than one light, as well as special back drops to reflect etc.. The scenarios are plentiful, so go and do some research on lighting. A lot of the time when shooting in a studio, you'll find yourself wanting to stop down in order to get detail out of everything.. so 2.8 IS kind of redundant, and beyond that, stabilization is just beyond unnecessary and even harmful to the shot. Most people shoot wide open for a special effect or if they're shooting a sports event and their flash won't reach or isn't permitted etc.. After all that, it might sound as if I'm condemning shooting wide open, and I'm not. There's a time and a place for it, and only you can make that decision. It's your subject matter, and only YOU know how it should be presented. That said, there are plenty of great 2.8 lenses which when shot wide open still provide enough detail on the subject matter while producing amazing bokeh for the background. But to answer your original question in general: Yes, it is fairly redundant ! :) Being a photographer isn't necessarily a cheap undertaking. Fast prime lenses, good lighting equipment etc will haunt you, but are well worth the investment if you foresee a return in the future. I have to get some things done, or I'd go on.. but I'm sure you'll get good advice from the other photographers here. Good luck ! Doug [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
Is fast glass with image stabalizing redundant?
Top