Rumor: 5 new Sigma lenses

Entropy · 03-15-2010, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by WMBP

I think I'll always want it in the body so I don't have to keep buying it over and over again.

I've read many times that image stabilized lenses stabilize the finder. Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing, but this has has never been a problem for me.

I would be reluctant to pay for image stabilization in a lens for my Pentax cameras.

Will

It matters more for longer lenses. It's really nice to have past 200 with my 18-250, and I really wish I had it for my Bigma...

For wider lenses (for example, 17-70), there's no real point.

legacyb4 · 03-15-2010, 03:30 PM

The 17-50 would be nice, depending on size. My old Canon 17-40 was a beaut of a lens, especially with the internal focus so that the lens never changed length.

WMBP · 03-15-2010, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Entropy

It matters more for longer lenses. It's really nice to have past 200 with my 18-250, and I really wish I had it for my Bigma...

Yes, this is what I've been told before. But I shoot with at 300mm—and sometimes with a 1.4x teleconverter. Never noticed "finder shake" as a problem. Perhaps I'm just not very observant.

Will

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
here's a rumor for you	jimr-pdx	Pentax News and Rumors	2	08-03-2010 08:20 PM
Not even a rumor, but...	Gimbal	Pentax News and Rumors	55	03-06-2010 07:04 AM
For Sale - Sold: FA: *ist DS, sigma 18-125, sigma EF-430 flash + other lenses...	owlpages	Sold Items	0	10-24-2007 06:28 AM
ProMaster lenses....Are they repackaged Sigma and Tamron lenses?	meyjo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-06-2006 07:48 PM

03-15-2010, 02:07 PM	#121
Entropy Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Owego, NY Posts: 976	Originally posted by WMBP I think I'll always want it in the body so I don't have to keep buying it over and over again. I've read many times that image stabilized lenses stabilize the finder. Maybe I just don't know what I'm missing, but this has has never been a problem for me. I would be reluctant to pay for image stabilization in a lens for my Pentax cameras. Will It matters more for longer lenses. It's really nice to have past 200 with my 18-250, and I really wish I had it for my Bigma... For wider lenses (for example, 17-70), there's no real point.

03-15-2010, 03:30 PM	#122
legacyb4 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,784	The 17-50 would be nice, depending on size. My old Canon 17-40 was a beaut of a lens, especially with the internal focus so that the lens never changed length.

03-15-2010, 08:07 PM	#123
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by Entropy It matters more for longer lenses. It's really nice to have past 200 with my 18-250, and I really wish I had it for my Bigma... Yes, this is what I've been told before. But I shoot with at 300mm—and sometimes with a 1.4x teleconverter. Never noticed "finder shake" as a problem. Perhaps I'm just not very observant. Will