# Image stabilizer on or off when on a tripod?



## Kit Lens Jockey (Apr 28, 2017)

I've read in the past that it's best to turn *off* the image stabilizer with a lens that's equipped with it when shooting on a tripod. Theoretically I guess the IS can actually _induce_ more vibration in the shot that in could mitigate, which should, in theory, be zero.

But in real life, what do you guys think is the way to go? I'm not sure I buy the whole theory of the image stabilizer adding vibrational blurriness to a photo taken on a tripod. Not to mention, in practical terms, couldn't leaving it on help to reduce any vibration induced if the surface that your tripod is on is not completely, 100% stable with no vibration?

Worse yet, since I so rarely mess with that switch on the lens, I find myself forgetting to turn it back on when I'm not on a tripod anymore.


----------



## Click (Apr 28, 2017)

Here is some information

https://digital-photography-school.com/image-stabilization-on-tripods/

"Read your lens manual and you won’t go wrong".


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Apr 28, 2017)

Right, I understand that, aside from a lens that can detect being on a tripod, *theoretically*, under perfect conditions, leaving IS turned on while on a tripod can induce blurriness. But in practice, does anyone really have a tripod-shot photo where they can say "Oh, it would have been great except I left IS on?"

Or, is this difference really just academic, and something that doesn't really hold up in real life? Especially, when you start to account for conditions where maybe the surface your tripod is placed on isn't totally, 100%, absolutely stable and vibration-free to begin with, in which case I would think maybe IS could help.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Apr 28, 2017)

Also, straight from the 70-200 2.8 ii manual:



> Using a tripod also stabilizes the image. However, depending on the tripod and shooting conditions, sometimes it may be better to turn off the Image Stabilizer function.



So, basically, completely inconclusive and wishy-washy as far as whether or not to leave it on or off.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2017)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> ...is this difference really just academic, and something that doesn't really hold up in real life? Especially, when you start to account for conditions where maybe the surface your tripod is placed on isn't totally, 100%, absolutely stable and vibration-free to begin with, in which case I would think maybe IS could help.



Yes it makes a difference, it is not academic. I have tested it and I have seen negative impacts from using IS when on a sturdy tripod. I also have shots that are sharper on a tripod with IS on.

It all depends on the tripod and conditions in conjunction with the specific lens and IS version, that is why there is so much confusion over the issue but fifteen minutes testing with your own gear should answer the question to your standards.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 28, 2017)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Right, I understand that, aside from a lens that can detect being on a tripod, *theoretically*, under perfect conditions, leaving IS turned on while on a tripod can induce blurriness. But in practice, does anyone really have a tripod-shot photo where they can say "Oh, it would have been great except I left IS on?"
> 
> Or, is this difference really just academic, and something that doesn't really hold up in real life? Especially, when you start to account for conditions where maybe the surface your tripod is placed on isn't totally, 100%, absolutely stable and vibration-free to begin with, in which case I would think maybe IS could help.



A wonderful example of this is astrophotography where the IS seems to jump around an awful lot on long exposures.

first image, IS on, second image, IS off. This is only a 1/4 second exposure, I have some examples of 15 second exposures where the bright stars draw something that looks like a Spirograph doodle as a result of accidently leaving IS on....


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 28, 2017)

I have noticed a distinct difference with my 100 f2.8L IS macro when used in macro mode so now I turn it off. I have not noticed anywhere near the same issue under other circumstances.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 28, 2017)

I've only had one lens that did not like the is to be on while on a tripod with slow shutter speeds. That was the 300mm f/4L (manual says to turn IS off).

All the other lenses don't seem to care under normal circumstances. I would definitely turn IS OFF for slow shutter speeds longer than about 1/10th sec. The same for very fast shutter speeds over 1/2000.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 29, 2017)

How hard is it for the OP to make a few tests and determine what works best in various situations?

I don't think Canon is being inconclusive or wishy-washy; I think they are recognizing that several variables, including operator technique, influence tripod stability and the way the IS helps or worsens camera shake.

We all forget to make changes to settings from time to time. Some of us even forget to put CF cards back in our cameras before leaving the house... :-[


----------



## leadin2 (Apr 30, 2017)

It might be a theory but you have to try it for yourself to understand. It happens to me when I'm using slow shutter speed with macro or landscape shot and the image is totally wasted. After that, turning IS off whenever the camera is on tripod has become natural in your workflow.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 30, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> A wonderful example of this is astrophotography where the IS seems to jump around an awful lot on long exposures.



Bingo! In my experience that has been the critical time to turn off IS. Otherwise I usually leave it on just for simplicity. If I have a super stable tripod, remote shooting, etc. than I'll make more of a conscience effort to turn it off.

One good example where I leave it on, is shooting the moon with a a Tamron 150-600, especially with a 1.4x extender. Usually the shutter is in the 1/125 range (give or a take a stop) so the IS/VC can really help, even to just stabilize the viewfinder. Not to mention the moon is sometimes moving fairly quickly across the sky and one is always recomposing the shot.


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 30, 2017)

Here's an example where I desperately wish I had turned it off. I was doing some longer exposures of Provo, UT valley during the blue hour. I made a fantastic panorama shot using the 70-200, and the photo looks just great!



Utah Valley Panorama by Ron Yorgason, on Flickr

At least, until you zoom in a bit and realize that every one of those round city lights is really in a V-shape, due to IS mucking it up. I'd love to blow this up and have a big printout of this on my wall, but it is forever relegated to being a small jpg 



Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Right, I understand that, aside from a lens that can detect being on a tripod, *theoretically*, under perfect conditions, leaving IS turned on while on a tripod can induce blurriness. But in practice, does anyone really have a tripod-shot photo where they can say "Oh, it would have been great except I left IS on?"
> 
> Or, is this difference really just academic, and something that doesn't really hold up in real life? Especially, when you start to account for conditions where maybe the surface your tripod is placed on isn't totally, 100%, absolutely stable and vibration-free to begin with, in which case I would think maybe IS could help.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Apr 30, 2017)

Just my personal experience but I would (did!) just turn IS off and forget about it.

As has been previously shown IS can give trouble on tripods - even with lenses that have tripod sensing IS like my 100-400 Mk2, 300 F2.8 L IS and 800mm. 

Another thing to consider is that under any and all circumstances stabilisers impair AF performance. IS/OS/VR etc slow down subject acquisition and impair tracking. This may only be a matter of split seconds but on moving subjects it is the difference between print and Delete! Naturally for things such as landscapes this is irrelevant. Another problem is that on long exposures stabilisers get bored and wander off looking for something to do - as is nicely shown in the astro shots earlier in this thread.

I found, for a long time, that I was forgetting to turn IS off and losing a lot of shots, but I also found that when I forgot to turn IS on it didn't seem to matter. This got me thinking......... So in December 2013 I turned IS off on all my lenses and thought I would give it a try for a week or two. Well it is now over 3 years later, I haven't found a reason to turn IS on and my keeper rate has improved dramatically on moving subjects whilst I have found no issues with static subjects and no IS. So, for me, for over 3 years IS is just a useless feature that I have to pay for and can muck up my images 

Just turn it off and forget about it - so much better IMO.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 30, 2017)

I think another factor is the prevailing conditions. If the conditions are dead calm (or you are indoors) my experience suggests to turn off IS - if however you have a noticeable breeze the stability of your tripod my determine whether it is best to have IS on.

The problem traditionally with IS is that when you first press the shutter release the system kicks in, reading the vibrations and all the while it is adjusting the IS lens assembly to see what position is best. If there is no vibration it goes into some crazy feedback which messes with its readings and starts to have a negative effect. The third generation IS is supposed to stop when it realises there are no vibrations to correct but I can imagine that even that can be fooled. So if there is a breeze hitting the camera it may just provide the sort of vibration the IS was designed to negate.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Apr 30, 2017)

My V1 100-400 doesn't seem to like being on a tripod with IS on. I blame the IS for ruining what otherwise would have been absolutely stunning images of the Blood Moon (I forgot to turn IS off - and yes, that is tongue in cheek - who knows how they would have turned out??? ). I haven't really noticed a difference with any of my other lenses (mostly f/4 versions of 24-105 Version 1, 24-70, 70-200, plus some others). I usually forgot to turn off IS on standard landscape shots and find it doesn't matter.


----------

