Why is it...

divamum

... that I can handhold certain lenses under optimum speed more than others? :scratch

I know I've been writing in jest that "even camera shake looks good when it's the 135L", but having just done a series of shots with that lens taken at 1/100 well over half of which are tack sharp.... I seriously have to wonder HOW it does it?! I don't think it's me, since I typicall7 DO get camera shake with my other lenses when I drop below the 1/focal length rule.

Just wondering if anybody else has experienced this or has a theory? :dunno

ziggy53

There are a couple of things that might be at play. A more massive lens tends to have both more stationary mass and more grip area. The greater mass means that the center of gravity moves from the body more forward, allowing both hands to control "some" of the shake and rotation of the camera and lens.

The larger surface area of a bigger lens allows a better grip and that can mean more control.

Some lenses, especially the most inexpensive zoom lenses, can actually "rattle" internally as a result of the shock of mirror slap and shutter movements. The better lenses tend to have much tighter tolerances and damped movements.

It could also be situational in that "how" you are using a lens might allow better technique and more conscious and deliberate motion.

NeilL

Because you love the 135, DM, you hold it better - doesn't that apply to other things in life as well? You know what it can do, so you help it to do it better, whereas with some other lenses your expectations are lower and you don't try as hard. Never discount the effect of the heart in all matters!:D

Another possibility is that the AF with the 135 is faster, thereby decreasing the length of time that you are holding the camera to take the shot. The less time you hold the camera in taking a shot the less fatigue your muscles experience and the less they are likely to shake.

Neil

divamum

Interesting, both. I wonder if also it's just so ultra sharp to begin with that minor motion blur doesn't seem to be such significant degradation as it might with another lens?

It just intrigues me - it was intended as a serious question (so thanks for treating it as such!). I didn't get the same effect with the 200L (although of course the greater magnification is trickier to handhold anyway and I had trouble shooting that lens without some kind of external support).

TylerW

If the lens in question is heavier, that can certainly be a factor. A heavier overall package will have more inertia and be less prone to camera shake.

NeilL

TylerW wrote:

If the lens in question is heavier, that can certainly be a factor. A heavier overall package will have more inertia and be less prone to camera shake.

I wonder about that. On the one hand more weight is more inertia, yes, but on the other it more quickly fatigues the muscles, causing compensatory movements, and larger ones in proportion to the mass. The 135 is certainly not big and heavy, though the mass of the body must also be considered. I think hand shake is most related to the length of time you are holding the camera up and still, that is the longer you hold the camera to your eye unaided before shooting the more and worse the shaking. Remember, unless you are panning, you are not only supporting the camera but holding it still. They are two different things. Hand shake I think is mostly compensatory movement due to trying to keep the camera still. If you lift the camera to your eye, lock focus nearly instantaneously, there is no time for hand shake to develop, and even if it begins to in that short time it is damped equally momentarily by the inertia of the gear, before fatigue begins to have an effect.

Neil