There are two ways that cameras can stabilize themselves so that lower shutter speeds can be used: lens stabilization and in-body image stabilization, also know as IBIS. These technologies are very useful if you can’t use a tripod, but what are the differences between these two?
Table of Contents
Lens Stabilization
Lens stabilization works by moving the glass elements within the lens to counteract camera movement. Lenses with this technology use sensors inside to sense how the camera is moving, and they adust their elements accordingly.
Lens stabilization is refered to with different terms depending on the manufacturer, but despite these differences, they all work the same way:
| Manufacturer | Name For Lens Stabilization |
|---|---|
| Nikon | Vibration Reduction (VR) |
| Canon | Optical Image Stabilization (O.I.S) |
| Sony | Optical SteadyShot Image Stabilization (O.S.S) |
| Fuji | Optical Image Stabilization |
| OM System/Olympus | Image Stabilization (IS) |
| Panasonic | POWER Optical Image Stabilizer |
In-lens stabilization or optical stabilization has traditionally been the most common in the DSLR days when most DSLRs except Pentax did not have any form of in-body image stabilization or IBIS.
Such systems can be quite complex and on higher-end lenses, there is often a switch for various modes of stabilization. For example, on many longer lenses, there is a mode for panning and a mode for holding the lens still.
How effective are these systems? Quite effective. Most modern lenses claim approximately 4-6 stops of image stabilization, which means that instead of shooting at 1/500th of a second, you can use 1/15th of a second—assuming of course your subject remains still as well.
Lens stabilization has another benefit: it provides a calm view through the viewfinder without much shakiness. This is especially useful on DSLRs that do not have any stabilization built in.
Should You Buy a Lens with Lens Stabilization?
Lens stabilization is effective, but often it makes a lens more expensive. Sometimes, you will be faced with a choice between two similar lenses, one with stabilization and one without. This often occurs in choosing between a firsty-party lens and a third-party lens, or an autofocus lens and a manual lens.
The truth is, you may not need lens stabilization, especially if you’re always shooting in good light or on a tripod. If your camera has in-camera stabilization or IBIS that I explain below, then you also probably won’t need lens stabilization.
However, if you are shooting in dim light and your camera does not have any sort of stabilization, it’s really worth it to get a lens with stabilization because it will allow you to shoot at much lower shutter speeds, giving you much better image quality.
Sometimes, you might not even have a choice. This is usually true if you’re buying a longer lens, because almost all of such lenses have lens stabilization.
In-body Image-Stabilization or IBIS
On the other end of the spectrum, we come to in-body image-stabilization, or IBIS. Unlike lens stabilization, IBIS moves the sensor along various axes to compensate for camera movement. IBIS systems can be quite advanced and often have separate modes for video and photography.
These systems are quite effective, and typically give about 5 stops of image stabilization, with the latest cameras like the Sony a9 III promising up to 8 stops.
Not all cameras have IBIS, including some modern mirrorless cameras like the Canon R8, though all Nikon and Sony full-frame mirrorless cameras do have IBIS. IBIS is also present in almost all Pentax DSLRs as well, including their latest model, the Pentax K3 III.
Like in-lens stabilization, IBIS can usually be turned off when necessary.
Should You Buy a Camera with IBIS?
Ideally, you should get a camera with IBIS unless you will be only shooting lenses with lens or optical stabilization. Even if you do plan on shooting only with stabilized lenses, the syncronization function with first-party lenses will give you even more stabilization.
That being said, there are some other cases where you may prefer to get a camera without IBIS. Obviously, if you’re buying a DSLR, it probably won’t have IBIS. Moreover, some Canon cameras don’t come with IBIS like the Canon R8. Yet, these cameras will still work fine even with lenses lacking stabilization, as long as you are more mindful of your shutter speed or you use a tripod.
Personally, I’ve only ever shot a lens and camera combination without any form of stabilization. It was the Nikon D500 with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G, and wow, the experience without stabilization was so strange! Nevertheless, millions of amazing shots were taken without any stabilization so I guess it is possible.
Nevertheless, there is something magical about just walking around with a wide angle lens and shooting landscapes at 1/5th of a second and have them be sharp!
Which is better?
Both in-lens optical stabilization and in-body image stabilization have their own strengths. Lens stabilization systems are built specifically for the lens, and so they are most effective. This difference is mainly noticeable on longer focal lengths.
On the other hand, IBIS works at the level of the sensor. Due to this, longer focal lengths do not work as well with IBIS. Thus, if your camera promises 5-stops of stabilization with its IBIS, then you might experience only one or two stops of stabilization if you’re shooting with a really long lens of a focal length of 400mm or more.
This is in fact why most long lenses still come with optical stabilization, even when camera IBIS systems have gotten very sophisticated. There’s just no substitute for stabilization on the lens.
IBIS has a huge advantage that it works with any lens. Many DSLR users found new life with their DSLR lenses mounted to mirrorless cameras, because they could now shoot at much lower shutter speeds than ever before.
This means that you can adapt old, manual lenses to your camera as well and get pretty good stabilization with them. IBIS also means that shorter focal length-lens designs can be simpler and potentially lighter, since the lens stabilization gadgetry does not need to be incorporated into the lens.
With first party lenses that do have lens stabilization however, they can often work with your camera’s IBIS to provide even more stabilization.
Should you always use stabilization?
Believe it or not, there are actually cases where it’s better to turn off all forms of stabilization, whether it be lens or in-body stabilization. For example, if you’re on a tripod, it may be better to turn off lens stabilization and IBIS.
That’s because there are some cases where stabilization can actually make shots worse while on a tripod. Now it is true that some stabilization systems are meant to work on a tripod, but even when so, it might be better to turn your stabilization off if you’re trying to take shots with exactly the same framing, such as when you are focus stacking.
You might also want to turn stabilization off when you are shooting video on a tripod. In that case, the subtle movement of stabilization systems can also appear, making your video definitely worse than if you had not used stabilization.
Conclusion
At one point, lens stabilization systems were the dominant form of stabilization. With the rise of mirrorless cameras, in-body image stabilization or IBIS became much more common, especially since such systems work so well with shorter focal lengths. Nevertheless, it’s unlikely that lens stabilization systems will go away due to its superior effectiveness with longer focal lengths. In any case, you don’t have to decide between one and the other because both can be used at the same time, and they often work together!
Do you use any form of stabilization? If so, let me know in the comments!
Sony (and Nikon, according to other comments) certainly do IBIS + lens OS/IS combined at the same time, to greater effect, and have been doing it for years. You might want to amend the article.
I think while lens and body stabilization is good for shooters, for when they have to shoot in low-light conditiosn for example, or with longer lenses, nothing trumps good technique. Photographers have been getting sharp images for decades with film and WITHOUT lens and body stabilization. You might have to increase your ISO, but with cameras these days, most cameras can support ISO 3200 for the most part without too much noise. Use IBIS and VR as an aid for the “just in case” my shutter speed was a little too slow, not a crutch for good technique (shooting at faster shutter speeds and higher ISOs).
I guess you missed the R6, R5 and R3 me3mo on combined IBIS and IS by Canon that smokes Sony to oblivion. Especially on long lenses but Canon also includes IS on super WA lenses that combines to work with IBIS again leaving Sony in the rear view mirror and fading fast. Many comparisons showing the lame IBIS of Sony vs Canon IBIS and IS combined looking like a perfect stabilized video gimbal vs Sony with Parkinsons.
Completely false (from IBIS efficacy to WA lenses with IS on Sony). Please take the Canon propaganda fanboyism to the Canon forums.
Sorry, but information regarding two stabilization systems canceling each other out is not right. There are plenty of test showing that they work perfect together. For Sony 7 series its really impressive.
I can say the same for Nikon Z cameras with Nikkor Z-lenses that has VR.
HI, I’m looking to replace my old Nikon D5000 with VR lenses. The options that I consider are:
1. Panasonic G85 with 12-60 mm lens, plus 45-150 mm lens. = $ 950
2. Sony Alpha 6500 with E 18-135 mm lens = $ 1500
3. Sony Alpha 6400 with E 18-135 mm lens = $ 1300
I’m not a professional, but for my vacations and day to day activities I like good pictures.
What do you guys think about it and please explain me why.
Thank you very much.
siting in my living room with my Canon 24-105 IS lens, my brand new sony A7R lll, and a kenyon KS-8 gyro stabilizer i use for aerial work. I found with all three systems on it was difficult to keep the cross hires on a target, So the manual says the camera will pick the best method for stabilization, it cant know i have a external stabilizer mounted so maybe that accounts for the drifting. I found or it appeared to enhance stabilization having both the optical and the body stabilizers on. as for the KS-8 it appears rock solid with either lens or the body stabilization on but not all three.
I am relatively new to the photography world so let me know if I am really off base on this comment.
It appears to me that if one wants to move into a 40-50 meg camera with some really good lenses the choice is a camera with internal stabilization. Then you can buy lenses without the stabilization at a much lower cost. Since I have been told that having stabilization in both the camera and the lenses would require one or the other to be turned off.
Speaking of off, how about some comment on my thoughts. I could be way off on this idea. Help!!!
My another theory about Lens VR/IS/OS is as follows:
1. Lens stabilization needs a floating element or elements to compensate lens movement. This makes a lens less precise, because the lens designer needs to include all the cases that the floating element displacement. This is not exactly same, but a similar effect can be found between Zoom and Prime lenses. A simpler lens is easier to make. Thus, when a same level of technology and investments are applied to a lens, a lens without stabilization will be better.
2. Recently, we all start to see some 3rd party companies, notably one company, significantly sharper lenses without lens stabilization than Nikon/Canon at much lower price. This could be an anecdotal evidence that all of us can clearly see.
3. If this observation is true, in future, we will see more and more highly performing lenses from 3rd party companies than Nikon/Canon. This will make these major companies into a dilemma. Such a major camera company will no longer produce a set of excellent lenses at a reasonable cost (I mean at pro level, and also applicable to pro-consumer level) due to spending their precious resources to lens stabilization rather than spending on improvement of optical performance of lenses.
4. What good for a camera company that can no longer deliver a really optically superb lenses?
My humble plea is for Nikon/Canon to create a simpler and better lens that does not suffer from a compromise due to the extra complication of lens stabilization. If not, soon both companies realizes that they are only producing lenses that are either less performing or overly expensive, which is a really pity.
GO OLYMPUS!!
I owner of Olympus M5 MarkII.
For having good result with IBIS with Wide angle or Télé, Ishould use the electronic shutter. If I use the mecanical shutter gain speed shutter of IBIS is only 2 EV.
When the Olympus company write in the spec of M5 MII that the gain of IBIS is 5 EV, they don’t specify if it was with mecanical or electronic shutter.
Can you clarify please?