In Body SR vs. Sigma OS

Docrwm · 12-05-2014, 05:34 AM

Ok, there are a couple threads on this but the most relevant ones are from 2010 and I think the tech may be a wee bit different in 4 years time.

So, for long lenses like the Bigma and its variants which is better SR or OS? If it's OS, then for the newer lenses they have two levels - which is better or is it situational? If it's situational, how do you know when to go from 1 to 2 on OS with the lens? Whew!

**MJSfoto1956** · 12-05-2014, 06:12 AM

all I know is that I saw a huge increase in "keepers" when moving from Nikon D7100 + AF-s 70-300mm VR vs. Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm -- especially at the long end.Pentax is obviously doing something right.

YMMV

Michael

**boriscleto** · 12-05-2014, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Ok, there are a couple threads on this but the most relevant ones are from 2010 and I think the tech may be a wee bit different in 4 years time.

So, for long lenses like the Bigma and its variants which is better SR or OS? If it's OS, then for the newer lenses they have two levels - which is better or is it situational? If it's situational, how do you know when to go from 1 to 2 on OS with the lens? Whew!

For the lil'Bigma use the in lens OS. Mode 1 is for normal shooting, Mode 2 is for panning.

Docrwm · 12-05-2014, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

For the lil'Bigma use the in lens OS. Mode 1 is for normal shooting, Mode 2 is for panning.

Gracias. Is there a big difference in keeper rate?

**WPRESTO** · 12-05-2014, 06:31 AM

An in-lens system may have one or two user selectable VR choices - choose one then the lens responds and corrects the same way over the entire zoom range. The in-camera system gets focal length information from the lens and sets the VR system accordingly. In theory, and I think in fact, for zoom lenses equipped with proper electronics, a Pentax body will change the way the sensor corrects for vibration depending on the zoom focal length when the picture is taken (more correction @ longer FL, less at short FL). Theoretically, this would be superior for zoom lenses. For SFL lenses, the in-lens OS system is in theory matched to the focal length so it should operate as well as an in-camera sensor-adjust system. Unless I'm mistaken, the OS system was developed first, and early adapters including CANIKON are committed to, or stuck with that system. Pentax waited, or was slow installing a VR system and therefore installed the later developed sensor-adjust system which has multiple advantages (continuous adjust for changes in zoom focal length; can use old manual-focus SFL lenses or those from other manufacturers after manually inputting a focal length to the VR system).

Docrwm · 12-05-2014, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by WPRESTO

An in-lens system may have one or two user selectable VR choices - choose one then the lens responds and corrects the same way over the entire zoom range. The in-camera system gets focal length information from the lens and sets the VR system accordingly. In theory, and I think in fact, for zoom lenses equipped with proper electronics, a Pentax body will change the way the sensor corrects for vibration depending on the zoom focal length when the picture is taken (more correction @ longer FL, less at short FL). Theoretically, this would be superior for zoom lenses. For SFL lenses, the in-lens OS system is in theory matched to the focal length so it should operate as well as an in-camera sensor-adjust system. Unless I'm mistaken, the OS system was developed first, and early adapters including CANIKON are committed to, or stuck with that system. Pentax waited, or was slow installing a VR system and therefore installed the later developed sensor-adjust system which has multiple advantages (continuous adjust for changes in zoom focal length; can use old manual-focus SFL lenses or those from other manufacturers after manually inputting a focal length to the VR system).

Thanks. I'm well aware of the SR-OS differences. There have been comments for years about how OS may work better in extreme telephoto situations. Given that the last good review/discussion on this topic here on PF was around 2010 I thought revisiting it based on current technologies would prove useful. Boriscleto is correct that I am specifically asking about my new lil' Bigma with Sigma's two sage in-lens OS.

**boriscleto** · 12-05-2014, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Gracias. Is there a big difference in keeper rate?

I don't know about a difference in the keeper rate as I have only used the in-lens OS. I usually forget to switch to Mode 2 when doing BiF. I usually forget to switch to multi-point AF too...

6BQ5 · 12-05-2014, 07:30 AM

How many axis of stabilization does in-lens OS support vs IBIS?

**blackcloudbrew** · 12-05-2014, 09:09 AM

With my Sigma 150-500, I have found the OS system to work better for that lens than the Pentax IBIS. Somewhere on this site is an old post about the limits of the IBIS. As I recall, the member found that IBIS works well to about 100mm focal length and then is less effective after that. For the Sigma, I shot with a rented copy for a month last year covering the America's Cup races in San Francisco. From that, working a longer distances and with action, the Sigma OS system was better by far.

IchabodCrane · 12-05-2014, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Thanks. I'm well aware of the SR-OS differences. There have been comments for years about how OS may work better in extreme telephoto situations. Given that the last good review/discussion on this topic here on PF was around 2010 I thought revisiting it based on current technologies would prove useful. Boriscleto is correct that I am specifically asking about my new lil' Bigma with Sigma's two sage in-lens OS.

Here's my suspicion for why OIS has been touted as a better option for very long telephoto lenses. Disclaimer... I'm not a lens expert.

With IBIS, the amplitude of the sensor shift must increase with increasing focal length. At some point, theoretically, you reach a limit in what it can do, especially when vignetting concerns are present.

For OIS, the system can be designed specifically for that lens's focal length or range. Additionally, vignetting concerns from stabilization wouldn't come into play.

How much of that did I get wrong?

Docrwm · 12-05-2014, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by blackcloudbrew

With my Sigma 150-500, I have found the OS system to work better for that lens than the Pentax IBIS. Somewhere on this site is an old post about the limits of the IBIS. As I recall, the member found that IBIS works well to about 100mm focal length and then is less effective after that. For the Sigma, I shot with a rented copy for a month last year covering the America's Cup races in San Francisco. From that, working a longer distances and with action, the Sigma OS system was better by far.

Thanks. I'm particularly interested in action shots use so that is very helpful.

**boriscleto** · 12-05-2014, 10:00 AM

One other thing I always forget is to turn IBIS back on when using other lenses. I took my 55-300 to the zoo because the 150-500 is too big to use when pushing someone in a wheelchair...didn't use IBIS the whole visit.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/benmcgann/sets/72157648088138669/

promacjoe · 12-05-2014, 10:55 AM

I have the Sigma 150-500, and find the OS, and the SR,very close. One thing that should be noted, is when using a rear mount Teleconverter, The OS is better. I guess because the images stabilized before it gets to the converter. With some converters, SR can receive the wrong focal length information.

Docrwm · 12-05-2014, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by promacjoe

I have the Sigma 150-500, and find the OS, and the SR,very close. One thing that should be noted, is when using a rear mount Teleconverter, The OS is better. I guess because the images stabilized before it gets to the converter. With some converters, SR can receive the wrong focal length information.

Thanks. Which converters have you used on the lens? I have several but am in the initial 'getting to know you' phase of my relationship with the lens and so have not introduced anything extra to the optical formula.

promacjoe · 12-05-2014, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Thanks. Which converters have you used on the lens? I have several but am in the initial 'getting to know you' phase of my relationship with the lens and so have not introduced anything extra to the optical formula.

I have two Kenko Teleconverters That I carry, a 1.5 and a 2x, mainly for an 80-200 F2.8. Although, If the conditions are right both converters can be used on that lens, I only use the 1.5x with that lens, When I have no other choice. Sigma makes one that is designed for that type of lens.

Have fun with your new toy. And don't pay any attention to those who say it is not sharp at wide open aperture. Used correctly, it is a extremely sharp lens.

12-05-2014, 05:34 AM	#1
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	In Body SR vs. Sigma OS Ok, there are a couple threads on this but the most relevant ones are from 2010 and I think the tech may be a wee bit different in 4 years time. So, for long lenses like the Bigma and its variants which is better SR or OS? If it's OS, then for the newer lenses they have two levels - which is better or is it situational? If it's situational, how do you know when to go from 1 to 2 on OS with the lens? Whew!

12-05-2014, 09:30 AM	#11
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285 Original Poster	Originally posted by blackcloudbrew With my Sigma 150-500, I have found the OS system to work better for that lens than the Pentax IBIS. Somewhere on this site is an old post about the limits of the IBIS. As I recall, the member found that IBIS works well to about 100mm focal length and then is less effective after that. For the Sigma, I shot with a rented copy for a month last year covering the America's Cup races in San Francisco. From that, working a longer distances and with action, the Sigma OS system was better by far. Thanks. I'm particularly interested in action shots use so that is very helpful. Last edited by Docrwm; 12-05-2014 at 09:37 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Optical IS (in lens) vs optical SR (body sensor shift) vs DS (pixel tracking)	rburgoss	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	10	10-20-2014 07:07 PM
Sigma 50-500 OS vs non-OS	Rmagers	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	07-24-2013 06:34 PM
SR Vs OS, which works better?	Reportage	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	06-03-2012 10:20 AM
In-Body SR vs. In-Lens SR Pros and Cons?	uchinakuri	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	32	09-23-2010 09:42 PM
Can Sigma OS lens be used with SR?	amphysics	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-19-2009 08:58 AM

12-05-2014, 06:12 AM	#2
MJSfoto1956 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: Boston Posts: 1,305	all I know is that I saw a huge increase in "keepers" when moving from Nikon D7100 + AF-s 70-300mm VR vs. Pentax K-3 + DA* 60-250mm -- especially at the long end.Pentax is obviously doing something right. YMMV Michael

12-05-2014, 06:17 AM	#3
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by Docrwm Ok, there are a couple threads on this but the most relevant ones are from 2010 and I think the tech may be a wee bit different in 4 years time. So, for long lenses like the Bigma and its variants which is better SR or OS? If it's OS, then for the newer lenses they have two levels - which is better or is it situational? If it's situational, how do you know when to go from 1 to 2 on OS with the lens? Whew! For the lil'Bigma use the in lens OS. Mode 1 is for normal shooting, Mode 2 is for panning.

12-05-2014, 06:30 AM	#4
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285 Original Poster	Originally posted by boriscleto For the lil'Bigma use the in lens OS. Mode 1 is for normal shooting, Mode 2 is for panning. Gracias. Is there a big difference in keeper rate?

12-05-2014, 06:31 AM	#5
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,108	An in-lens system may have one or two user selectable VR choices - choose one then the lens responds and corrects the same way over the entire zoom range. The in-camera system gets focal length information from the lens and sets the VR system accordingly. In theory, and I think in fact, for zoom lenses equipped with proper electronics, a Pentax body will change the way the sensor corrects for vibration depending on the zoom focal length when the picture is taken (more correction @ longer FL, less at short FL). Theoretically, this would be superior for zoom lenses. For SFL lenses, the in-lens OS system is in theory matched to the focal length so it should operate as well as an in-camera sensor-adjust system. Unless I'm mistaken, the OS system was developed first, and early adapters including CANIKON are committed to, or stuck with that system. Pentax waited, or was slow installing a VR system and therefore installed the later developed sensor-adjust system which has multiple advantages (continuous adjust for changes in zoom focal length; can use old manual-focus SFL lenses or those from other manufacturers after manually inputting a focal length to the VR system).

12-05-2014, 06:37 AM	#6
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285 Original Poster	Originally posted by WPRESTO An in-lens system may have one or two user selectable VR choices - choose one then the lens responds and corrects the same way over the entire zoom range. The in-camera system gets focal length information from the lens and sets the VR system accordingly. In theory, and I think in fact, for zoom lenses equipped with proper electronics, a Pentax body will change the way the sensor corrects for vibration depending on the zoom focal length when the picture is taken (more correction @ longer FL, less at short FL). Theoretically, this would be superior for zoom lenses. For SFL lenses, the in-lens OS system is in theory matched to the focal length so it should operate as well as an in-camera sensor-adjust system. Unless I'm mistaken, the OS system was developed first, and early adapters including CANIKON are committed to, or stuck with that system. Pentax waited, or was slow installing a VR system and therefore installed the later developed sensor-adjust system which has multiple advantages (continuous adjust for changes in zoom focal length; can use old manual-focus SFL lenses or those from other manufacturers after manually inputting a focal length to the VR system). Thanks. I'm well aware of the SR-OS differences. There have been comments for years about how OS may work better in extreme telephoto situations. Given that the last good review/discussion on this topic here on PF was around 2010 I thought revisiting it based on current technologies would prove useful. Boriscleto is correct that I am specifically asking about my new lil' Bigma with Sigma's two sage in-lens OS.

12-05-2014, 06:38 AM	#7
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by Docrwm Gracias. Is there a big difference in keeper rate? I don't know about a difference in the keeper rate as I have only used the in-lens OS. I usually forget to switch to Mode 2 when doing BiF. I usually forget to switch to multi-point AF too...

12-05-2014, 07:30 AM	#8
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	How many axis of stabilization does in-lens OS support vs IBIS?

12-05-2014, 09:09 AM	#9
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	With my Sigma 150-500, I have found the OS system to work better for that lens than the Pentax IBIS. Somewhere on this site is an old post about the limits of the IBIS. As I recall, the member found that IBIS works well to about 100mm focal length and then is less effective after that. For the Sigma, I shot with a rented copy for a month last year covering the America's Cup races in San Francisco. From that, working a longer distances and with action, the Sigma OS system was better by far.

12-05-2014, 09:11 AM	#10
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Docrwm Thanks. I'm well aware of the SR-OS differences. There have been comments for years about how OS may work better in extreme telephoto situations. Given that the last good review/discussion on this topic here on PF was around 2010 I thought revisiting it based on current technologies would prove useful. Boriscleto is correct that I am specifically asking about my new lil' Bigma with Sigma's two sage in-lens OS. Here's my suspicion for why OIS has been touted as a better option for very long telephoto lenses. Disclaimer... I'm not a lens expert. With IBIS, the amplitude of the sensor shift must increase with increasing focal length. At some point, theoretically, you reach a limit in what it can do, especially when vignetting concerns are present. For OIS, the system can be designed specifically for that lens's focal length or range. Additionally, vignetting concerns from stabilization wouldn't come into play. How much of that did I get wrong?

12-05-2014, 10:00 AM	#12
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	One other thing I always forget is to turn IBIS back on when using other lenses. I took my 55-300 to the zoo because the 150-500 is too big to use when pushing someone in a wheelchair...didn't use IBIS the whole visit. https://www.flickr.com/photos/benmcgann/sets/72157648088138669/

12-05-2014, 10:55 AM	#13
promacjoe Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 340	I have the Sigma 150-500, and find the OS, and the SR,very close. One thing that should be noted, is when using a rear mount Teleconverter, The OS is better. I guess because the images stabilized before it gets to the converter. With some converters, SR can receive the wrong focal length information.

12-05-2014, 12:00 PM	#14
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285 Original Poster	Originally posted by promacjoe I have the Sigma 150-500, and find the OS, and the SR,very close. One thing that should be noted, is when using a rear mount Teleconverter, The OS is better. I guess because the images stabilized before it gets to the converter. With some converters, SR can receive the wrong focal length information. Thanks. Which converters have you used on the lens? I have several but am in the initial 'getting to know you' phase of my relationship with the lens and so have not introduced anything extra to the optical formula.

12-05-2014, 01:43 PM	#15
promacjoe Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 340	Originally posted by Docrwm Thanks. Which converters have you used on the lens? I have several but am in the initial 'getting to know you' phase of my relationship with the lens and so have not introduced anything extra to the optical formula. I have two Kenko Teleconverters That I carry, a 1.5 and a 2x, mainly for an 80-200 F2.8. Although, If the conditions are right both converters can be used on that lens, I only use the 1.5x with that lens, When I have no other choice. Sigma makes one that is designed for that type of lens. Have fun with your new toy. And don't pay any attention to those who say it is not sharp at wide open aperture. Used correctly, it is a extremely sharp lens.