Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2011
"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
[]
> What was stupid was not putting the I.S. in the camera instead of the
> lens.


Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
viewfinder, nor the image on the auto-focus and exposure sensors. Of
course, it does save you money if you must re-use existing non-IS lenses
rather than buying more recent versions. In-lens is the right place for
image stabilisation.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2011
"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4e897727$0$22468$(E-Mail Removed) u...
[]
>> Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
>> viewfinder,

>
> That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
> expense.


More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.

[]
>> Of course, it does save you money if you must re-use existing non-IS
>> lenses rather than buying more recent versions. In-lens is the right
>> place for image stabilisation.

>
> And having both options even better!
>
> Trevor.


If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I think
I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps US $50.
It's something else mechanical to go wrong. But that's with the lenses I
already have. How much extra would it be worth to you?

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2011

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:j6bi74$7i4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> What was stupid was not putting the I.S. in the camera instead of the
>> lens.

>
> Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
> viewfinder,


That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
expense.
In any case as I've said elsewhere, having the option to use in camera OR in
lens IS/VR is the best of both worlds IMO.


> nor the image on the auto-focus and exposure sensors.


I can't say that's ever been a real problem IME with non IS lenses.


> Of course, it does save you money if you must re-use existing non-IS
> lenses rather than buying more recent versions. In-lens is the right
> place for image stabilisation.


And having both options even better!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2011
"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> In article <j6bi74$7i4$(E-Mail Removed)>, David J Taylor says...
>> Hardly, as in-camera IS doesn't stabilise the image seen in the
>> viewfinder,

>
> It does, if the camera is using an EVF. OVFs will gradually disappear
> from most cameras.
>
>> nor the image on the auto-focus and exposure sensors.

>
> That depends on the camera. If the main sensor is used for metering and
> AF, in-camera IS will stabilise the image on the AF and exposure
> sensors.
>
> The trend is that mirrorless cameras will gradually replace cameras with
> mirrors and separate AF and metering sensors. The new Nikon 1 for
> instance has an imager with in-built phase AF.
> It's just a matter of time until the classic DSLR design disappears or
> becomes restricted to very few cameras. The future is mirrorless, with
> one main sensor for framing, metering and AF and an EVF.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon


Yes, but that's sufficiently far ahead that it would likely mean a
complete system change, and the purchaser would evaluate the options
available at the time. I've not seen an EVF with good enough image
quality or low enough lag so far.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2011

"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4e8ab49f$0$3035$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:j6bv6e$aeb$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
>>> expense.

>>
>> More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
>> conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.

>
> I'd gladly forego it for a $500 saving or more on each lens!
> (as many canon lenses are, and probably Nikon too I bet)
>
>
>> If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I
>> think I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps US
>> $50. It's something else mechanical to go wrong.

>
> And it can't when *in the lens* at a far higher cost???
>
>
>> But that's with the lenses I already have. How much extra would it be
>> worth to you?

>
> Well I'd pay at least a couple of hundred or more, since it's a once off
> cost that works with all my lenses.
>
> Trevor.


No-one has yet posted a link to a comparison of in-lens and in-body IS,
for a wide range of focal lengths, so $200 for in-body may not buy you the
best IS/VR. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens cost,
since we buy different lenses (mine are not the more expensive) from
different manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2011

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:j6bv6e$aeb$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the extra
>> expense.

>
> More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
> conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.


I'd gladly forego it for a $500 saving or more on each lens!
(as many canon lenses are, and probably Nikon too I bet)


> If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I think
> I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps US $50.
> It's something else mechanical to go wrong.


And it can't when *in the lens* at a far higher cost???


> But that's with the lenses I already have. How much extra would it be
> worth to you?


Well I'd pay at least a couple of hundred or more, since it's a once off
cost that works with all my lenses.

Trevor.




 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2011

"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4e8acbe6$0$22471$(E-Mail Removed) u...
[]
>>We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens cost, since we buy
>>different lenses (mine are not the more expensive) from different
>>manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.

>
> You don't have many lenses then. And I'm *amazed* you are so worried
> about the IS performance and yet place so little value on the rest of
> the lens performance!
> Frankly I'd pick a better lens without IS than a cheap IS kit lens in
> almost every case. And almost certainly a better quality lens with
> in-camera IS over a cheap kit IS lens!
> But you are welcome to your choices, it's your money and your photo's!
>
> Trevor.


Excluding unwanted kit lenses, I have five lenses I use [10-24, 35/1.8,
16-85 VR, 18-200 VR, 70-300 VR]. I made a conscious decision to reduce
the number of lenses I carry round when I replaced film SLR with digital
(all film lenses sold), and normally I have just the 18-200 mm VR, perhaps
with the 10-24 mm Tamron. The weight, and the time taken to change lenses
were the prime reasons (and 35mm equivalents for those lenses were either
not available, too heavy, or not affordable 15-20 years back). If a
little barrel/pincushion distortion is required, that's easy to do. Wider
aperture lenses which (for me) are too heavy would likely be left in the
hotel or at home, so what's the point in having them?

As you say (almost), it's my photos, and I choose what is the best
compromise for me. Most of my results are viewed on LCD displays of up to
40-inch (2 MPix) in size, and I don't print bigger than A4 size (297 x 210
mm), so I don't need the ultimate in resolution or quality. I appreciate
that others may take photography more "seriously", and will have different
priorities.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2011

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:j6ef2v$lru$(E-Mail Removed)...
> No-one has yet posted a link to a comparison of in-lens and in-body IS,
> for a wide range of focal lengths, so $200 for in-body may not buy you the
> best IS/VR.


Never said it would, I said it would work better than nothing for my lenses
that don't have it. And I'd happily pay another $200+ to have that option.

>We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens cost, since we buy
>different lenses (mine are not the more expensive) from different
>manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.


You don't have many lenses then. And I'm *amazed* you are so worried about
the IS performance and yet place so little value on the rest of the lens
performance!
Frankly I'd pick a better lens without IS than a cheap IS kit lens in almost
every case. And almost certainly a better quality lens with in-camera IS
over a cheap kit IS lens!
But you are welcome to your choices, it's your money and your photo's!

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2011
On 10/4/2011 4:11 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
>
> "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4e8ab49f$0$3035$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>
>> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> message news:j6bv6e$aeb$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> That is over-rated AFAIC. Nice, but hardly enough to justify the
>>>> extra expense.
>>>
>>> More than nice, Trevor, it can be very helpful when framing in windy
>>> conditions. That's what I find, anyhow.

>>
>> I'd gladly forego it for a $500 saving or more on each lens!
>> (as many canon lenses are, and probably Nikon too I bet)
>>
>>
>>> If I had the choice between two cameras with and without body-IS, I
>>> think I would be reluctant to pay much extra for in-body IS, perhaps
>>> US $50. It's something else mechanical to go wrong.

>>
>> And it can't when *in the lens* at a far higher cost???
>>
>>
>>> But that's with the lenses I already have. How much extra would it be
>>> worth to you?

>>
>> Well I'd pay at least a couple of hundred or more, since it's a once
>> off cost that works with all my lenses.
>>
>> Trevor.

>
> No-one has yet posted a link to a comparison of in-lens and in-body IS,
> for a wide range of focal lengths, so $200 for in-body may not buy you
> the best IS/VR. We are going to have to agree to disagree on the lens
> cost, since we buy different lenses (mine are not the more expensive)
> from different manufacturers. For me, in-lens IS adds little extra cost.
>


Here's a one size fits all solution. With this external stabilizer,
which worked very well when I tested it, you don't need either in lens,
or in body stabilization.



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-04-2011
> Here's a one size fits all solution. With this external stabilizer,
> which worked very well when I tested it, you don't need either in lens,
> or in body stabilization.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter


... although you may not be allowed to use it in some establishments!

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase? David J Taylor Digital Photography 62 11-12-2011 02:32 AM
Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase? Robert Coe Digital Photography 4 10-04-2011 12:13 PM
NoMethodError, most likely foolish... Adam Cohen Ruby 1 06-14-2010 07:52 AM
Macro lens on a camera with a macro setting??? mitchell.chris@gmail.com Digital Photography 2 09-28-2005 07:55 AM
HELP!!! Foolish Wives comparison Edward Holub DVD Video 1 09-08-2003 01:44 AM



Advertisments