Long telephoto lenses with image stabilization -- any manufacturers other than Canon and Nikon?

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

 

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:

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

 

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

DanP

 

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.

 

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

http://lenshero.com/lens/Tamron-18-270mm-f3.5-6.3-Di-II-VC-LD-Macro-Nikon-f-lens

Sigma - 375+ mm on DX/APS-C:
http://lenshero.com/lens/Sigma-18-250mm-f3.5-6.3-DC-OS-HSM-Nikon-f-lens

Sigma 150 - 500 mm (225 - 750 mm equivalent on DX)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150-500mm-f5-63-apo-dg-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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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