Image Stabilization

[Black Pearl]

I do know there is a young lad in Sunderland who is very happy he put a £30 Hoya HMC UV filter on his £500 Canon EF 70-200mm f4L lens.

He was changing lenses yesterday morning when he dropped it. The lens cap was off and while the hood was on it was on backwards in its stored position. The front of the lens took the full impact, the filter cracked but once we had removed it the front element was in perfect condition.
Would the front element have been marked if the filter wasn't on? Don't know to be honest but I do know it wasn't with a filter on.

The reason he had the filter on wasn't actually to protect the front element or filter the light in any way it was because Canon says the lens is only weather resistant to their spec if a filter is in place. He had simply done what Canon said he should - and a very relieved chap he it too.

[GrahamH]

Well with a Lee filter holder you can have your polarizer to deepen the sky, didymium to deepen fall colors, GND to control shadow regions, ND for water...that's four. Oh, and a UV filter...that's five

Hands up all those who have used more than three filters at a time? Out of interest, when was the last time you used 5 filters? Or is this merely an exercise in what can be done? (In which case I am sure that most of us can make up some series of stacked filters ourselves to fit some fictitious scenario, so not a learning point for the majority I suspect).

I've asked around my local camera club (small, only 150 members, only asked the most experienced 5), so far no-one has used a 5 stack of filters.
I've never seen any image reproduced in magazines/books/ internet (or anywhere else) where shoot detail has been given.
CAN it be done - well of course,and many other scenarios. Is it anything other than extremely uncommon? No.

Interesting that comment was made on a scenario that is, in practice, unrealistic (and for pities sake, take the spirit of the meaning rather than nitpicking). No comment was made on the ACTUAL scenario where two images were made and no visible difference was seen. (And, I believe, THAT scenario is unusual at best, yet is FAR more likely to happen than someone stacking
5 filters (especially now most people have gone digital).

It has been stated by many a published article that modern lenses for digital cameras are superior to the majority of lenses for analogue cameras. Coatings are far better and supress reflections better than they used to. The technology in creating a modern lens is better, the design is better. Many modern day greats made their images using glass that has now been surpassed. Surely this has had greater impact than if you use a UV filter or not.
The main comment still holds, that in the vast majority of cases using a UV filter makes no discernible difference.
Graham

[William W]

Aside trivia:

The reason he had the filter on wasn't actually to protect the front element or filter the light in any way it was because Canon says the lens is only weather resistant to their spec if a filter is in place. He had simply done what Canon said he should - and a very relieved chap he it too.

That’s interesting . . . I think your friend is ill informed.

Because recently (members of a camera club) were discussing Canon's “moisture and dust resistant lenses” - aka in common terms oft referred to as “weather sealed”.

I understand the EF 70 to 200F/4L is NOT as weather sealed lens.

However, maybe the post has a typo as the EF70 to 200F/4L IS is a weather sealed lens, but this lens, does NOT require a filter on front to make the seal.

If we are commenting on the EF70 to 200F/4L IS, I would be interested knowing your friend's source . . . was it a CANON document which says the his lens requires a filter to complete the seal - certainly the user manual specifically mentions the sealing but does NOT make mention for the need of a filter so to do.

As far as I know there are four Canon lenses which do require a filter (*1) to make the seal, (and the requirement is mentioned specifically in the lens's user manuals).

They are:
EF 16 to 35/2.8L(**2)
EF 16 to 35/2.8L MkII
EF 17 to 40/4L
EF 50/1.2L

Mentioned only because this discussion came up and I was asked my opinion / knowledge specifically because a member of the camera club was “told” by the salesman that he needed the filter for exactly that reason “to complete the weather sealing on his L lens” – and thus he bought a Hoya HD UV – for his new L Lens – the EF35/1.4L . . .
haha!
The 35/1.4 is NOT a weather sealed lens, anyway.

WW

Footnotes:

*1 - If we want to strictly adhere to specs - Canon specify: “a Canon 'PROTECT' filter (sold separately)."

**2 - The EF16 to 35/2.8 early user manual supplied with the lens, did not specify the requirement for a filter to make the seal, but the requirement has been noted in Canon documentation, since.

[William W]

What an interesting thread!
More tit-bits

RE: EF-S Mount:
I don’t believe Canon will (can) release an L Series, EF-S lens because one of the criteria for L Series, is that the Lens is compatible with all the Cameras in the (applicable) Camera Range.
The current Camera Range is “EOS” and only EF Mount Lenses will fit all the cameras in that range

RE Image Stabilization (Canon):
I understand the four (4) Lenses equipped with Image Stabilization and require the IS to be turned off when the lens is mounted on a stable and secure tripod are:
EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS
EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 USM IS
EF 300 mm f/4 USM L IS
EF 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS

***

I am unconvinced by the conclusions of Thom Hogan’s commentary and I am unconvinced of the premise and method of argument also - but I am not interested in arguing in respect of Nikon VR.

Apropos the Image Stabilization Systems of Canon, I can think of no logical reason that using the IS at fast shutter speeds, would result in image quality degradation and I’d expect (and have experienced) in some instances IS would be greatly beneficial, for example at Tv = 1/1250s especially when using a telephoto lens.

In really simple terms and as an example which I have experienced many times - I am shooting, hand held, Swimmers at the blocks at the other end of an Olympic Pool – so – let’s say I am using a 400mm lens on an APS-H camera.
(This lens / body combinations gives a tight full length shot – horizontal framing of two or three swimmers set and diving at the blocks).

If one wants to go through the simple maths and the logic of how Canon IS works, then let’s evaluate if my hand is vibrating such that the end of the lens is rocking through a distance of 0.5mm – the image stabilization system will address that wobble.

0.5mm wobble at the end of the lens, is a wobble making an arc of about 0.1° at the end of the lens.

0.1° of wobble – when “seen” across the Plane of Sharp Focus (at the other end of the 50m pool) is equivalent to a linear movement of about 900mm: what I mean is - the swimmer’s navel appears wobbling to his face and back – for example.

NOW as the shutter speed increases – we will see (represented as a trace of blur) only a portion of the 900mm blur in the final image: but Image Stabilization System is addressing that wobble in the first place, before the shutter is released – the Image Stabilization System is adjusting the lens’ elements making less of the wobble appear in my viewfinder and (when the shutter is released) in the final image.

The Image Stabilization System is addressing the Wobble velocity and frequency . . . not the Shutter Speed.

Also (as written more technically eloquent above) the IS system “reacts to” movement and then adjusts – it does not “memorize and then execute its agenda”, based upon a programme it has made up and then replays.



RE: Stabilization in the camera, compared and contrasted to Canon IS
What Colin wrote – the two systems are NOT the same animal.
The IS in the EF-S 17 to 55 is tuned as a different machine to the IS in the Ef70 to 200/2.8L IS USM, and that is tuned differently to the IS in the 400/2.8L IS USM.


RE Filters (UV etc for “protection”):

I am not even going to enter in to this gem, save to state the following points:

That I do use UV filters.

My filters are expensive – that does not ensure as a statement of fact that I buy extremely good quality filters, but I do believe the filters I use are very good quality.

The UV filters sit on mostly ALL of my lenses MOST OF THE TIME and are there, mainly for physical protection. (yes I do use lens hoods also). BUT I usually use TWO cameras and the second camera is often slung at about hip height – just at the height of table corners and sticky fingers. Also I carry extra lenses in my coat pockets, with hoods reversed. These are the main two reasons for physical protection – but there are others – shooting at the seaside, on sand, is one I do often and walking or crawling through scrub is another.

I cannot tell the difference in a 14 x 11 exhibition quality prints / or pixel peeped images, for MANY images when the UV filter was on the lens, when the shot was made. YES I have done extensive AB tests at the SAME SCENE, SAME LIGHTING.



HOWEVER – whenever this little gem of discussion comes up I have always noticed the following points:

1. There are usually two camps – one for lens protection and one for image degradation.
2. Neither camps moves much.
3. Often neither camp is listening to the sensible comments of the other camp.

Therefore, I shall limit myself to one critical comment and direct it to the camp of those who use UV filters for protection and that is the camp to which I belong


Not necessarily directed anyone on this thread, but just a general comment only:

Many folk who use Filters for Lens Protection, seem to NOT know when to remove the filter if the shooting situation makes it necessary so to do. . . and that's why it is a good idea to do A/B tests to know the "when" for each of your lenses.

WW

[Black Pearl]

Reading some of the enormously complicated replies to the OP has reminded me of something - I need to get out with my camera.

[Splatsworth]

I'll have my say just for the fun of it.

1) image degradation even with really expensive filters all depends on the light and the subject matter.
2) They do stop your lens from getting scratched - they won't stop a bullet though

sometimes I use them, sometimes I don't but I think the most important point was made by Robin, stop worrying about these things and get out there and take photos

I await the flack

[Colin Southern]

I await the flack

Incoming!!! ...

[rpcrowe]

Actually it was 1/320 to 1/30.... A three stop difference would be 1/40 second... one stop = 1/160, two stops = 1/80 and three stops = 1/40 second. 1/30 second is pretty close...

As far as a monopod goes, I will often use one but, other times I just cannot use one because it will cut down my mobility.

I am in the process of converting a 60" walking stick (which I bought today for $8.00 USD) to a monopod by cutting the top flat, sinking a 3/8" bolt in the top and attaching my Kirk MPA-1 Swivel. This will bring my camera right about up to eye level. The reason that I am converting the walking stick into a monopod is that after two total knee replacements and back surgery, I like to use the walking stick as a support when I am walking over uneven terrain. I am not sure if I want to place that much strain on my monopod. Of course, I wont be able to adjust the level of my walking stick monopod but, I can be assured that it will not collapse on me or be damaged if I had to support most of my weight on the stick...

[Colin Southern]

Reading some of the enormously complicated replies to the OP has reminded me of something - I need to get out with my camera.

I can hardly remember which end to point towards the victim

[The Blue Boy]

Just out of interest, (and throw more wood on the fire! ) how many of us actually remember to turn the IS, VR, OS off when we turn the camera off?

Just had a quick peek in one of my manuals and Nikon recommends this. Is it the same for Canon?

More specifically, is it important do you think? Or are they just being cautious?

I'll quote the manual for more accuracy,

"Do not turn the camera off or remove the lens from the camera while vibration reduction is operating. Failure to observe this note could result in the lens sounding and feeling as if an internal component is loose or broken when it is shaken. This is not a malfunction. Turn the camera on again to correct this."

The lens is the 16-85mm but that's irrelevent.

Am I missing something here or is it just Nikon being mad as spoons as usual?

The only reason I mention this is I was asked by a "relatively new to photography person" about it. He'd actually read the manual!

As for filters I'll stick a UV on if I'm near the beach or it's really dusty in a third world country like Africa or India. I prefer to throw these in the washing up* as opposed to cleaning the front element. As far as protection is concerned, I've always been really careful with my stuff and I've never been so clumsy as to drop (or even put at risk of being dropped) a lens. But I get the argument. I'll sit on the fence.

*DO NOT use this method for cleaning a circular polarizing filter!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mark,

More specifically, is it important do you think? Or are they just being cautious?

I'll quote the manual for more accuracy,

"Do not turn the camera off or remove the lens from the camera while vibration reduction is operating. Failure to observe this note could result in the lens sounding and feeling as if an internal component is loose or broken when it is shaken. This is not a malfunction. Turn the camera on again to correct this."

It is my belief that for this, they actually mean 'operating' as in running - so don't whip the lens off or battery out within the second or so after taking a shot before it has stopped whirring. That way I could imagine it getting locked up off axis.

I believe it probably is better to switch off VR, then switch off the camera, before swapping a lens, but I only remember 10% of the time and to switch it back on again sometime later still

[Colin Southern]

Just had a quick peek in one of my manuals and Nikon recommends this. Is it the same for Canon?

Not that I'm aware of, although I suspect that they're referring to the unit being in "active" mode, not just in "standby" (which for Canon would mean not removing the lens within the first couple of seconds after taking a shot.

[William W]

Canon’s User Manuals seem to be more precise. These two extract are typical.
My words in are [square brackets italics]:

[The operating instructions:]
1. Set the Image Stabilizer to ON
2. Select the Stabilizer Mode [if available]
3. When you press the shutter button halfway, the Image Stabilizer will start working

[The Warning in the blue box:]
The image stabilizer operates for about two seconds even when your finger is off the shutter button. Do not remove the lens while the stabilizer is in operation. This will cause a malfunction.

WW

[William W]

As for filters I'll stick a UV on if I'm near the beach or it's really dusty in a third world country like Africa or India. I prefer to throw these in the washing up* as opposed to cleaning the front element. . . .
*DO NOT use this method for cleaning a circular polarizing filter!

Sell your Nikon gear and get a real camera . . .





WW

[The Blue Boy]

Geoff,

I actually think they mean us to turn it off before turning the camera off. Who's gonna remember that?!

Colin,

Same as Geoff. I'm gonna enquire by email though. Will post reply in three weeks.

Bill,

You must have deep pockets to have forgotten to have taken that out. Only a Canon though, eh?

The last time I tried to wash something tricky I was tricked!

[William W]

[The Blue Boy]

Just popped over to Nikon,

"When you wish to remove a Nikon vibration reduction (VR) lens from your camera, it is important not to turn the camera off or detach the lens from the camera while vibration reduction is still in operation. Let the VR system stop or turn the VR system off using the VR on /off switch on the lens before turning off the camera and removing the lens.

If the lens is detached from the camera while vibration reduction function was in operation, a sound can be heard when the lens is shaken. This does not indicate a malfunction or damage to the lens. The sound is produced by the moving parts of vibration reduction mechanism moving. If you reconnect the lens to the camera again and turn the camera on, the this sound will stop, as the vibration reduction system will lock any of it's moving parts in their default storage positions."

Who the hell shakes their lenses? Seriously? Some weird sort of japanese maraka (no, I'm not gonna Google the proper spelling) band? They did give us karaoke so I suppose anything is possible.

Nikon. Mad as a bottle of frogs.

[Photon Hacker]

Who the hell shakes their lenses? Seriously? Some weird sort of japanese maraka (no, I'm not gonna Google the proper spelling) band? They did give us karaoke so I suppose anything is possible.

Nikon. Mad as a bottle of frogs.

Maybe Kai from DigitalRevTV would do.

[Hebetta]

Wow, so many useful information. Thank you very much!