[sc_john]

Can anyone comment of the effectiveness of SR on the new 645 lenses (DA 28-45mm and D FA 90mm)? TIA.

John

[672]

I found the 90mm SR very useful when shooting from a boat to a glacier. Not sure what the use is on the 28-45……….

[2351HD]

I have both the 28-45 and the 90 and both work well.

The OS on the 28-45 is excellent! The OS on the 90 is great for landscape/travel walkaround etc, but bordering on useless for macro, that lens needs a tripod for macro.

---------- Post added 03-28-15 at 04:26 PM ----------

I cant wait for them to release a new 80-160 or 90-180 OS lens!

[Kolor-Pikker]

The IS on the Canon 100L macro was useless at macro distances too, so it's not a lens thing, but a macro thing.

I found the 90mm SR very useful when shooting from a boat to a glacier. Not sure what the use is on the 28-45……….

SR on the 28-45 means you can hand-hold it at slow shutter speeds, probably down to 1/8th, which is a must due to the f/4.5 aperture, or you can go for a small aperture if the light is good. Either way, I can't see why someone would take a tripod along for the 28-45 unless they specifically want to make long exposures for flowing water or after dark.

[2351HD]

I use the 28-45 on a tripod every time I go out. What the OS does mean is that if I want to roam about from my tripod I now feel free to and not suffer any loss by doing so.

[Kolor-Pikker]

I really only use a tripod for longer lenses, since the shutter speed required goes up pretty fast in no time, but I guess it depends on your expectations. Shooting at 28mm with SR and backed by crazy ISO capability... sounds like overkill as it is.

To answer the OP: I made a series of shots with 645z/ 90 Macro.


With optimal technique I got sharp results with 1/60 sec (no SR) against 1/20 sec with SR turned on. Same motif etc. So, the difference is about 1.6 stops.


Carsten

[sc_john]

Thanks for helpful comments, everyone. I am trying to figure out if I want to move in the direction of these most recent lens designs. While they get superb sharpness ratings, I am put-off a bit by their weight and price. So, I am trying too assess real benefit of SR as an additional feature that could drive my decision. I guess next step will be to rent and have hands-on experience. Thanks again.

[mazwick]

Thanks for helpful comments, everyone. I am trying to figure out if I want to move in the direction of these most recent lens designs. While they get superb sharpness ratings, I am put-off a bit by their weight and price. So, I am trying too assess real benefit of SR as an additional feature that could drive my decision. I guess next step will be to rent and have hands-on experience. Thanks again.

Hi there,
it all depends on how and for what you want to use your system.

I intended use the 28-45 foremost for landscape photography, that was my initial plan. For that usage SR is useless! Over the time however, I learned to love the SR especially in combination with the high iso quality.

Night/dawn scenes in cities (not cityscapes) can be done easily without tripod. ISO 1600 to 3200, lens wide open with SR. Perfect combination. You can go down to 1/15 with amazing results.
Same if you want/have to shoot in museums or indoors where no tripods are allowed.

the size and weight of the 28-45 is crazy. It is more difficult to handle than my 100-400 full frame Canon wildlife lens. Strange design decision. Therefore I keep my 35A for shoots where I have to be carefull with weight and size.

Martin

[2351HD]

SR is very valuable for landscape work. Any handheld shooting will benefit from SR, with perhaps exception of fast panning, and they even have IS for that too.