emtp563 Posted October 8, 2005 Report Posted October 8, 2005 I just purchased my first Canon IS lense (28-135 USM IS). With IS on, are you suppose to physically feel and/or hear the gyroscope spinning? I can't hear or feel anything. I can only hear a hum inside the lense if I place my ear right againt the lense body. Is the IS system suppose to be this inconspicuos? Even if I set the camera down on the desk and open the shutter to activate the gyro, there are no vibrations. I was expecting to be able to at least feel some sort of vibration. Quote
Ski Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I just purchased my first Canon IS lense (28-135 USM IS). With IS on, are you suppose to physically feel and/or hear the gyroscope spinning? I can't hear or feel anything. I can only hear a hum inside the lense if I place my ear right againt the lense body. Is the IS system suppose to be this inconspicuos? Even if I set the camera down on the desk and open the shutter to activate the gyro, there are no vibrations. I was expecting to be able to at least feel some sort of vibration. 34921[/snapback] Firstly, I don't own and haven't shot this lens, so I can only go by what guys around me may have said. The 3.5 to 5.6 maximum aperature is a killer for anything I do in sports, image stabalization or not. I know that most people are happy with the lens, that it's sharp at f8 and smaller. It's also pricey as hell, like around $500? Wow. It almost sounds like you're complaining about it's smooth operation. If the "IS" were to noticeably vibrate, then it would have to work twice as hard to stabilize it's own motion. I can't give you a definitive answer, but my feeling is that all is well. But is it working? Set the lens at 135mm's and shoot in your livingroom with the house lights giving you about f5.6 at 1/60th of a second. A headshot portrait would be noticeably soft, unless the IS kicks in and gives you the 1/250/sec. image. Hope this helps. Quote
emtp563 Posted October 9, 2005 Author Report Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) I did a little digging, and it turns out that there is no spinning gyro for IS. It is a solid-state system with two speaker-coil-like actuators. I was misinformed as to believe there was something spinning inside. When I put my ear to the lense body when IS is activated, there is a slight "humming" noise coming from it. Yes, it is pricey. I went to Dan's Camera City looking for two specific lenses, this lense and the Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8. The Canon is f3.5-5.6. I was leaning towards the Tamron, but the sales guy at Dan's talked me in to getting the Canon. I wanted a good carry-around lense for both landscape and action scenes. I alreay have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II for portraits, and a Tamron Autofocus 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for extreme zoom/action shots. The thing that put me over the edge in getting the IS lense over the Tamron f2.8 was my wife. She sucks at taking pictures and does not have a steady hand. When ever she comes home from using the camera, most of her pics come out blurry. But I still think I should have bit the bullet and went for the speed of the Tamron f2.8. What do you think? I did what you said. Here are two pics I just took: 135mm, f5.6, 1/60th, IS Off: 135mm, f5.6, 1/60th, IS On: There is definitely a noticible difference. Edited October 9, 2005 by emtp563 Quote
Ski Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I'm really not a big fan of independant lenses, although Tamron's are by far the best. When I was starting out in college, Tokina had just come out with an 80-200 2.8 lens that was 1/3 the price of the Nikkor equivalent. The downside was that it was crap at anything wider than f5.6. What's the sense of having a 2.8 if it's soft wide open? But if there's really a need for IS, then that lens fills that need. I shoot everything manual focus, which is the other reason I like lenses with the biggest maximum aperature. I even used to have the Nikkor 50 1.2, which made very little sense. I shoot with three camera bodies, so it's no big deal to have fixed focal length lenses, which inherantly have larger max aperatures. A 24 2.0, 85 1.4, 200 2.8, and a 300 4.0 are my working lenses. I've found that the best way to decide if a lens works for you is to rely on it as a main lens for a while and see if it seems like you are missing something. And are you getting the photos you want? Are you having to flash when you wish you didn't? Then other obvious things, such as whether it's long or short enough for what you shoot. I'm glad you have it figured out, though. The IS is amazing technology that they incorporated into 35mm. IS is one of the most underated advances...I remember when it was such a big deal that drive-time tv news helicopters were the first to use it (other than what they did on movie sets) in NYC. I think ABC had it, but CBS and NBC didn't, so every ABC commercial showed split screens of what they were capable of over the competition. Quote
AtomicSkier Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I bought that same lense, the 28-135 USM IS, but I got it for $300 from a friend.... Anyway, you think $500 is expensive ski? Ask Mtnbiker99x how much each of his lenses are...he's got at least 3 f/2.8 lense (wide angle, normal, and telephoto) each easilly over $1200 a piece. Quote
skidude Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I bought that same lense, the 28-135 USM IS, but I got it for $300 from a friend.... Anyway, you think $500 is expensive ski? Ask Mtnbiker99x how much each of his lenses are...he's got at least 3 f/2.8 lense (wide angle, normal, and telephoto) each easilly over $1200 a piece. 34961[/snapback] Or you could just be lazy, and take pictures like me, the lazy way...I just need to stop taking them of butt ugly babies... Quote
AtomicSkier Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 Or you could just be lazy, and take pictures like me, the lazy way...I just need to stop taking them of butt ugly babies... 34964[/snapback] Emtp, I don't know how far you are, but Ritz Camera in the Westgate Mall is very good. A very good friend of mine works there (the one that sold me the lense), he shoots w/ a Canon 10D, and some of the photoshoots he does for my car are just simply amazing. He is definatly very knowledgeable, and may be able to throw you a discount. Let me know if you ever need anything. Quote
emtp563 Posted October 9, 2005 Author Report Posted October 9, 2005 Emtp, I don't know how far you are, but Ritz Camera in the Westgate Mall is very good. A very good friend of mine works there (the one that sold me the lense), he shoots w/ a Canon 10D, and some of the photoshoots he does for my car are just simply amazing. He is definatly very knowledgeable, and may be able to throw you a discount. Let me know if you ever need anything. 34965[/snapback] Westgate Mall is definitely closer to me (I live in Wind Gap). I've never been to the Westgate Mall. I'll definitely have to check it out. Quote
AtomicSkier Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 Westgate Mall is definitely closer to me (I live in Wind Gap). I've never been to the Westgate Mall. I'll definitely have to check it out. 34966[/snapback] Let me know when you go next time, I'll see if my friends there, and I'll make sure he helps you out Quote
Ski Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I bought that same lense, the 28-135 USM IS, but I got it for $300 from a friend.... Anyway, you think $500 is expensive ski? Ask Mtnbiker99x how much each of his lenses are...he's got at least 3 f/2.8 lense (wide angle, normal, and telephoto) each easilly over $1200 a piece. 34961[/snapback] $500 is expensive for a 28-135 zoom, yes. But I used to use our newspaper pool lenses that included a 600 f/4, 400 f/2.8, and a 300 f/2.8...I was just pricing a used 400 f2.8 and will have to spend $2,500, or so. It's all relative, I guess. Quote
Ski Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 BTW, before anyone buys any new or used camera gear, check out: http://www.keh.com/hmpg/index.cfm It's a huge online shop in Atlanta that newspaper photogs have used for years. Their rating on used gear is exact. They'll list, for example, a Canon 28 f2.8 lens, then give prices for NEW, LIKE NEW, EXCELLENT, all the way down to BARGAIN. So you can pay $20 for a beat-up bargain lens, or $100 for a Like New one. I've bought gear from them for 10 years and never once had a problem. Quote
emtp563 Posted October 9, 2005 Author Report Posted October 9, 2005 Let me know when you go next time, I'll see if my friends there, and I'll make sure he helps you out 34967[/snapback] OK, I will. Thanks for the help :-) Quote
LineSki Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I cant wait till I have enough money to buy to buy a digital SLR. After shooting with them, its like night and day compared to a 35mm SLR. Is there such thing as cheap digi SLR? Quote
AtomicSkier Posted October 9, 2005 Report Posted October 9, 2005 I cant wait till I have enough money to buy to buy a digital SLR. After shooting with them, its like night and day compared to a 35mm SLR. Is there such thing as cheap digi SLR? 35006[/snapback] Canon 300D. Pick one up w/ the stock lense for $500? Check on ebay Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.