Image Stabilization #136

Is image stabilization worth it? The short answer is yes. Most definitely, yes. Image stabilization is the technology meant to mainly counteract hand motion. It can be built either into your lens, your camera body, or both. When it's built into your camera body, it's called IBIS, which I do believe stands for in-body image stabilization. The fact of the matter is that pretty much everyone who is hand-holding a camera has hand motion in one way or another. And the longer the shutter speed and the longer the lens, the more likely you will have problems. Even if you have rock solid hands, there will be a point at which your hands will fail you. And it's not just when you're shooting static objects. It's also for when you're shooting moving objects, like when you're doing a panning shot of a moving car. I'll talk more about that later.

In the early days of image stabilization, about 20 years ago, it was possible to gain up to one or two stops of shutter speed simply due to the stabilization itself. This is huge. However, modern lenses and cameras are now pushing more than four stops of stabilization. And the current Canon R series cameras are now boasting up to eight stops of IBIS, depending on the model and the lens you're using. This is insane. And at this point, pretty much all cameras from the middle to the high end will have in-camera stabilization. This is standard. What is not standard is how much stabilization you get. Do be aware that if you are shooting much more than 100 millimeters, you will likely need in-lens stabilization because IBIS apparently doesn't work very well with long focal lengths.

So how much is it worth to buy a lens with stabilization? Most of the time, the cost of buying a lens with versus without stabilization is only about 30%, but buying a lens that is one stop faster, can be 50 to 100% more if it exists. So yes, stabilization is worth every penny. And I'm told that although IBIS is great, in-lens stabilization at this point is still better. If you're shopping for a new camera, it is also worth knowing how much stabilization the camera will deliver.

Earlier, I mentioned stabilization for times when you are aggressively moving your camera, like when you're panning left and right. On longer lenses, you may see two or three different options for stabilization. The difference depends on the manufacturer, but generally when it's labeled Stabilization 1, also known as normal, it's for everyday shooting. Think vacation photos, things that have little to no motion. Stabilization 2, also known as active or sport, is for when you are aggressively moving your camera left and right or up and down as with sports or other fast moving objects.

One last thing you'll want to know about image stabilization. If you have your camera on a tripod or something solid like a table, you'll want to turn off stabilization because if it does not find motion, it will create motion, causing a slightly blurry image. Modern cameras are supposed to have a system that detects this and turn off stabilization, but they've been saying this for 15 years. And trust me when I tell you, it doesn't always work as it's advertised. So make sure to test your system to see if this is working or not. Otherwise, just turn off stabilization when you're on a tripod.

Focus Limit Switch #135

A focus limit switch is the third switch on your long lens or macro lens. On most lenses you will have at least two switches. The autofocus on and off switch and the stabilization on and off switch. But if you have a long lens or a macro lens, you may have a third switch. This is your focus distance limit switch. Boy, that's a mouthful! The switch will have the word FULL on one side and then a number, the letter M, dash, the infinity symbol, which is a figure 8. It may also have a third option in between with a number, the letter M, dash number, and letter M. So what is this switch and what do you do with it? This switch sets a limit on the distance your camera will focus. For instance, if it says 8M dash infinity, it means that you will only be able to focus on objects that are 8 meters away to infinity. You will not be able to focus on anything closer than that. But why would you want to limit the functionality of your lens like that? Let's say you're shooting gazelles in the distance. By shortening the focusing range, the camera will disregard anything that is closer than eight meters, so that if someone or something comes between you and the gazelle, your camera will not try to refocus there. Which means you'll be able to keep your focus on the gazelle. Also, by shortening the focusing range and disregarding close objects, it means that you'll be able to focus on things in the distance faster. This is definitely a great option. On the complete opposite spectrum, we see on macro lenses the ability to focus on things that are very close to the lens. Again, this will speed up your focusing.

Let's say you're photographing a small flower and you're very close to it, so you'll fill up the frame. You're also using a small focus area because you just want that one flower in focus. But then a slight breeze comes by and blows the flower out of the focus area. If you did not limit your focus, the camera will now try to focus on the ground, which is a few feet away. Then the flower comes back in the frame and the camera has to try to refocus on the flower again. You're starting to see the problem, right?

If you had set a limit on the focus distance to only things that are under two feet from the lens, then the camera would not have tried to focus on the ground and have to refocus back on the flower when it came back into the focus area, making your focus much, much faster. We've all had a situation where the lens is going bzzz, bzzz, bzzz, back and forth trying to find focus, from near to far, from near to far, right? By setting your focus distance limit, you can help reduce this problem.

In the next episode, I'm going to talk about image stabilization.

Variable Aperture Lens #134

This podcast is for Gabrielle in Arizona. Hey dude, hope you're enjoying your new mirrorless. Even though the difference between a prime lens and a zoom lens is obvious, one only has one focal length while the other is variable, there is often another difference between the two. Due to the fact that the prime lens only does one thing, they are often able to gather more light, and hence you can get a much wider aperture opening. Because zoom lenses have to do a lot more, they are often slower offering less light-gathering capabilities. And when you can get a zoom lens that will open to an F 2.8 or even F 2.0, they're rather large, heavy, and expensive. This is where a variable aperture zoom lens comes in. You'll know whether or not you have a variable F-stop zoom lens by looking at the front of the lens. If you see the number one colon and then 2.8 or 4.0, you have a fixed aperture lens. On the other hand, if there are two numbers after the colon with a dash in the middle, you have a variable aperture lens. What this means is that as you zoom in closer to a subject, you will lose light and will not be able to maintain the same aperture, hence variable. Let's say you have a 55 to 200 millimeter lens, and it says one colon four dash 5.6. What that means is that when you are zoomed all the way out to 55 millimeters, you'll be able to open your aperture to f4.0. But as you zoom into 250, you'll only be able to open the aperture to f5.6. You have effectively lost one full stop of light. On the other hand, if you have a fixed aperture, let's say an f2.8, it means you'll be able to open your aperture to f2.8 no matter where you are in your zoom.

The difference between a fixed and variable aperture can be 50 to 100% more in price and 40 to 200% more in weight and size, which indicates that the one extra stop of light is extremely difficult to deliver. So before anyone pooh-poos that one extra stop of light, you need to consider what it takes to deliver it and why it's so important. I have always been a proponent of fast f2.8 fixed aperture lenses, but at this point in my life, the wait is starting to really get to me. So for the first time, I will not have a 2.8 lens in my bag at all.

Although it's nice to say that you want fast lenses, there's the reality of having to carry it day in and day out. In the next episode, I'll talk about focus limit switches. Don't know what that is? Tune in and find out. I hope that was helpful. Until next time, keep on shooting.

Choosing a Lens Feature Face-off #133

This podcast is for Mandy in Sydney. In the previous pod, I talked about the pros and cons of f 4.0 versus f 2.8 lenses. For some, the choice is pretty simple when that's the only deciding factor. Unfortunately, most of the manufacturers have made it harder for us by adding a couple more variables. The first is price. The slower lens can be as much as 50% cheaper, but I always tell people to take the price factor out of it as you only pay for it once. You'll carry that lens for the life of your body, and therefore your back will pay forever.

Let's look at the two new Nikon Ultra Wide Angle lenses. The Z 14 to 35 millimeter f/4, and also the 16 to 35 millimeter f/2.8. While my gut always tells me to go after the f/2.8, my heart would sure like that 14 millimeter. For the past 12 years, I've owned a 16 to 35 millimeter 2.8, and I have loved it. But every time I ran into someone with a 14mm, I was jealous. Oh, did I wish I had such a wide lens. But to get that extra 2mm, I would have to put up with the f/4. What can I do? This is the same debate I had getting the Canon 24-105mm f/4 versus the 24-70mm 2.8. While the 2.8 is truly a beautiful lens, the extra 35mm of the f/4 lens would prevent many, many, many, many more lens changes. And it's a lot lighter, but the 2.8 is really sharp and it's 2.8! In the end, I opted for the extra millimeters and I've been really happy with that decision and I've opted to buy it again as I upgrade to the mirrorless system. Even with that, the decision wasn't straight forward, Cannon has introduced a 24-105 f/2.8. but it's a much bigger lens. So I'm staying with the 4.0, same as what I had for the previous 10 years with my DSLR.

As for the ultra wide, I've decided I'm going with the slightly wider lens, even though in the Canon world, it is only one millimeter wider than the 2.8 version. Is there such a big difference when we're talking about one millimeter? Not really, but it's two more than what I currently have, so I really want it. The smaller and lighter weight is a huge bonus for my small frame. The fantasy in my head is that the extra resolution and high ISO capability of my new camera is going to make up for the slow f/4. As always, I hope that was helpful, but I think I probably just muddied the water a bit more. Sorry about that. Next week, I'll talk about variable aperture lenses.

Street Photography: f/2.8 vs f/4.0 Lenses #132

This pod is for Trish in Brooklyn. Everyone who is a photo snob, and that includes me, thinks it's best to only own f2.8 or faster lenses. Anything other than that is just crap. You are losing too much light, and you are getting poor quality glass, and you certainly shouldn't own anything that's slower. Yep, we think it, and most of us even say it out loud too. But now that I'm older and more experienced, and I did not say wiser, I said more experienced. I'm starting to rethink my position. Is it true that faster lenses are better? Generally speaking, yes. As photographers, we are always looking for more light. And the fact is faster lenses deliver sharper glass and they obviously gather more light. So why am I softening my position on F 2.8 lenses being the end all and be all of lenses? The first couple of reasons is because of the way we view images. And because glass quality has come up so much over the past 10 years, it's difficult to tell the difference between f2.8 and f4.0 lenses. What do I mean when I say by the way we view images? Fundamentally, these days, we are viewing images via a screen and not via a print. And screens don't hold the same high resolutions that prints do, making it difficult to see subtle quality differences. And even if you are producing a high-quality print, It's still difficult to detect the difference without a side-by-side comparison. And even then, I have come to find that unless you are looking at the images with a magnifying glass, it's difficult to detect differences because even the glass quality of amateur rated lenses is so much better now. In the past, you could actually see the poor glass quality right through the viewfinder. That's rarely the case anymore. I have seen some of these lenses but I'm talking about really cheap lenses. And you can certainly not tell the difference with the naked eye between an F2.8 and an F4.0 lens. Another thing that has happened in the last five years is the sensor resolution has improved significantly, such that even images at higher ISOs are incredibly sharp. Because we are becoming less and less concerned about shooting at higher ISOs, it's making it more reasonable to consider the loss of light with a slower lens. The fact is that I purchased my first slow f4.0 lens about 10 years ago, and honestly I haven't felt the pain, and it's my main lens. Another reason I have softened on the idea of shooting a 4.0 lens is because they are lighter and more compact. After 25 years of shooting and sometimes dragging two camera bodies around the world, I've become tired of carrying so much weight. I've not gone to a crop sensor yet. But I'm sure that's in my future too. So if you're young and you have a strong back, I say take the F 2.8 lens. If not, don't worry about it. The F4 will only hurt your ego, not your photography. I'll be talking about other lens features you'll want to consider when choosing a lens over the next few podcasts. So stay tuned. I hope that was helpful. Until next time, keep on shooting.

Street Photography: Photographing Strangers #131

Backing Up In The Field #130