«

Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
image stabilized lenses?

Wally

In article <>, Wally
<> wrote:

> Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
> wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
> And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
> Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
> image stabilized lenses?

no, because other companies put stabilization in the camera.

in-camera stabilization has the advantage of stabilizing all lenses,
but unfortunately, it's less effective at longer focal lengths because
of the amount the sensor must move to compensate.

Wally escribió:

> Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
> image stabilized lenses?

Yes (well, up to 400 anyway). But for Canon and Nikon bodies. I have a
stabilised Sigma 120-400 with EOS fitting.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
Follow the link at your peril.
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 19:35:40 UTC+1, Wally wrote:
> Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
>
> wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
>
> And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
>
> Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
>
> image stabilized lenses?
>
>
>
> Wally

Sigma does, look for OS (IS/VR equivalent), 50-500mm and 150-500mm, no prime though.

DanP

Wally <> wrote:

> Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
> wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
> And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
> Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
> image stabilized lenses?

You can have image stabilisation on non-stabilised lenses with cameras
which offer in-camera stabilisation, e.g. Sony, Olympus, Pentax. My
favourite long wild life lens is Sony's reflex 500mm, because it's
very small and light (for a 500mm), and on a Sony camera has both
autofocus and image stabilisation. I always use it with a monopod
because even when the 'pod is folded up and not standing on anything,
just its length and weight give extra stability, plus a good solid
widely spaced two handed grip. I've got some good shots at 1/50th sec
like that.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 10/10/2012 19:34, Wally wrote:
> Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
> wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
> And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
> Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
> image stabilized lenses?
>
> Wally

Tamron - 400+ mm on DX/APS-C format cameras:

http://lenshero.com/lens/Tamron-18-2...o-Nikon-f-lens

Sigma - 375+ mm on DX/APS-C:
http://lenshero.com/lens/Sigma-18-25...M-Nikon-f-lens

Sigma 150 - 500 mm (225 - 750 mm equivalent on DX)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150-5...g-os-hsm-sigma

All have image stabilisation, which is a major advantage as the image in
the viewfinder (and on the focus and exposure) sensors is kept stable,
unlike cameras with in-body IS/VR which does nothing for the optical
viewfinder image making it more difficult to use the extreme focal
lengths in non-deal weather conditions.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:02 -0600, Wally <> wrote:

>Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
>wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
>And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
>Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
>image stabilized lenses?

You have not specified what lens mount. Panasonic in their m4/3 cameras has
the stabilization in the lenses. Their 100-300mm lens is equivalent to
200-600mm. It only weighs 520g. Panasonic's new GH3 body weighs 540g.
That's a total of 2.33 lbs for 600mm. You can do it for less weight, if you
are willing to settle for a lesser body.

Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).

Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:02 -0600, Wally <> wrote:
>
>>Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
>>wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
>>And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
>>Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
>>image stabilized lenses?
>
>You have not specified what lens mount. Panasonic in their m4/3 cameras has
>the stabilization in the lenses. Their 100-300mm lens is equivalent to
>200-600mm. It only weighs 520g. Panasonic's new GH3 body weighs 540g.
>That's a total of 2.33 lbs for 600mm. You can do it for less weight, if you
>are willing to settle for a lesser body.
>
>Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).


You clearly don't do wildlife photography, as your web site confirms.
The m4/3 system is effectively useless when it comes to wildlife
photography because the contrast detect AF systems used in all m4/3
cameras to date do not allow continuous AF to be effective. The
latest m4/3 cameras have particularly fast and decisive single shot AF
but good continuous AF is something that eludes m4/3 at this time.

I don't think Olympus OM-D E-M5 owners would be happy with your
implication that theirs are lesser bodies than the Panasonic GH3. On
the contrary, for stills photography, the GH3 still lags behind the
Olympus OM-D E-M5.

It is sad that there seems to be developing an Olympus/Panasonic
schism in m4/3 that seems destined to go the way of Nikon/Canon
rivalry in DSLRs.

In article <>,
Bruce <> wrote:
>
>It is sad that there seems to be developing an Olympus/Panasonic
>schism in m4/3 that seems destined to go the way of Nikon/Canon
>rivalry in DSLRs.

Over on the OM-D Flickr groups, people rave about the "Panaleica"
25mm lens--which, since it doesn't have image stabilization, is best
used on a camera body that does. So, there is fraternization with
the enemy.

--
Money is Speech
Corporations are People
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

On 10/14/2012 2:42 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:02 -0600, Wally <> wrote:
>>
>>> Long teles (approx 500mm or longer, 35 mm equiv) are needed for
>>> wildlife photography. It is a big advantage to be able to hand hold.
>>> And if you are going to hand hold, it is very helpful to have IS / VS.
>>> Does anybody besides Canon and Nikon make long teles (500mm equiv)
>>> image stabilized lenses?
>>
>> You have not specified what lens mount. Panasonic in their m4/3 cameras has
>> the stabilization in the lenses. Their 100-300mm lens is equivalent to
>> 200-600mm. It only weighs 520g. Panasonic's new GH3 body weighs 540g.
>> That's a total of 2.33 lbs for 600mm. You can do it for less weight, if you
>> are willing to settle for a lesser body.
>>
>> Don. www.donwiss.com/pictures/ (e-mail link at page bottoms).
>
>
> You clearly don't do wildlife photography, as your web site confirms.
> The m4/3 system is effectively useless when it comes to wildlife
> photography because the contrast detect AF systems used in all m4/3
> cameras to date do not allow continuous AF to be effective. The
> latest m4/3 cameras have particularly fast and decisive single shot AF
> but good continuous AF is something that eludes m4/3 at this time.
>
> I don't think Olympus OM-D E-M5 owners would be happy with your
> implication that theirs are lesser bodies than the Panasonic GH3. On
> the contrary, for stills photography, the GH3 still lags behind the
> Olympus OM-D E-M5.
>
> It is sad that there seems to be developing an Olympus/Panasonic
> schism in m4/3 that seems destined to go the way of Nikon/Canon
> rivalry in DSLRs.
>

The above message was sent by a noted wildlife photographer, who deems
us not worthy of seeing his images.


--
Peter