In-body stabilization + lens stabilization

ntx · 02-21-2009, 02:55 AM

While I haven't buy my k200d yet, I got some question arise.
The local store (where I go trying a bit the camera... and it's wonderful and perfectly fits on my hands: I have really to thank my father to hint me to the Pentax!) has many lenses from Sigma and Tamron (very few from Pentax but they showed me they also deal with used lens), I would like to know if the in-body stabilization conflicts or has problems with stabilized lens. Do both stabilizations works together (may be giving even better results) or they annoy each other?
I'm asking this cause there are interesting Sigma lenses which seems to come stabilized only... so I hope there would be no problem in using them in the k200d.

Bye
Jenner

joele · 02-21-2009, 04:32 AM

Neither sigma nor anyone else makes stabilised lenses in Pentax mount, so no issue..

In Olympus mount there are stabilised bodies and lenses, but they cannot work together..

PFH · 02-21-2009, 04:42 AM

As far as I´ve read, the new Sigma 18-250 actually comes with OS in the Pentax version.
Please correct me if I´m wrong.

flyer · 02-21-2009, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by PFH

As far as I´ve read, the new Sigma 18-250 actually comes with OS in the Pentax version.
Please correct me if I´m wrong.

I'm correcting you. It doesn't come with lens base IS in Pentax mount. The two systems can't work together since they don't communicate together. One system would stabilise the image, and the other system, not knowing that, would stabilise the image on top of first stabilisation, actually putting the shake back in, but in the opposite direction.

ntx · 02-21-2009, 07:06 AM

So Sigma lenses with Pentax mount doesn't have stabilization (that also means many ebay items have wrong descriptions)... even if they cost the same :P (and that's bad)...
Thank you for the answers!

Bye
Jenner

bymy141 · 02-21-2009, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by ntx

So Sigma lenses with Pentax mount doesn't have stabilization (that also means many ebay items have wrong descriptions)... even if they cost the same :P (and that's bad)...
Thank you for the answers!

Bye
Jenner

There are many, many more lenses available without stabilization, specially for the long end.
Comparable lenses from C**** and N**** are much more expensive and heavier, so that is the good news.

- Bert

ntx · 02-21-2009, 03:07 PM

@bymy141: I'm saying it's bad to pay the same for the same lens that have few features (=stabilization). On the other hand - and this is one of the thing that let me pointing to a Pentax - I prefer to have the stabilization in the body instead in the lens... I see the in-lens stabilization as a sort of a cancer: stabilization allows lens manufacturers to have less care in lens quality; it seems they sacrifice the brightness of a lens cause of the stabilization.
I still wonder why I don't see - at an affordable price - a zoom lens ranging from F2.8 to F3.1 like the one in my Fujifilm S5500 (I know, it's a different approach in DSLR)... and, in the meanwhile, I see lens manufactures announce, like it was a sort-of miracle, the new super-zoom with a minimum aperture at F4 and the "super-mega-ultra-hypersonic-stabilization" which allows, to my hears, only to get back the stops you lose in the aperture.

Bye
Jenner

**Just1MoreDave** · 02-21-2009, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by ntx

...I still wonder why I don't see - at an affordable price - a zoom lens ranging from F2.8 to F3.1 like the one in my Fujifilm S5500 (I know, it's a different approach in DSLR)... and, in the meanwhile, I see lens manufactures announce, like it was a sort-of miracle, the new super-zoom with a minimum aperture at F4 and the "super-mega-ultra-hypersonic-stabilization" which allows, to my ears, only to get back the stops you lose in the aperture.

The Fujifilm S5500 has a sensor that is "1/2.7 inch" according to dpreview. That's a lot less area than the APS-C size sensors in typical DSLRs. The smaller sensor means smaller lens elements spaced closer. It's a big difference, and it makes the lens data difficult to compare on an even playing field.

You can zoom out to 370mm (35mm equivalent focal length) at f3.1 on the Fuji. The whole camera weighs 337 grams. The closest Pentax lens is the Pentax-A*400mm f2.8, which weighs 6000 grams and has a front element that's 30% wider than the whole Fuji camera. Admittedly the Pentax has slightly more range and is a tick brighter but it doesn't zoom to wide angle either.

Class A · 02-22-2009, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by flyer

One system would stabilise the image, and the other system, not knowing that, would stabilise the image on top of first stabilisation, actually putting the shake back in, but in the opposite direction.

That's true but it doesn't make an IS lens on a Pentax pointless, because it could demand that either of the two stabilisation systems is switched off.

This way you could use either system when it works best and have a stabilised image in the viewfinder when the lens IS is used.

Not that I'd want an IS lens, too expensive if done right, but just saying that Pentax + lens IS is not a complete oxymoron.

noblepa · 02-22-2009, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Class A

That's true but it doesn't make an IS lens on a Pentax pointless, because it could demand that either of the two stabilisation systems is switched off.

This way you could use either system when it works best and have a stabilised image in the viewfinder when the lens IS is used.

Not that I'd want an IS lens, too expensive if done right, but just saying that Pentax + lens IS is not a complete oxymoron.

Another reason why a stabilized Pentax-mount lens might be useful is for all those users of non-SR Pentax cameras, like all the *istD series, the K110D and possibly film cameras.

Whether those owners would embrace the idea in sufficient numbers to make it economically feasible is another question. Not to mention all the confusion among owners of SR-equipped cameras who can't understand why their pictures are blurry, when they have both the camera and lens stabilization systems active.

ftpaddict · 02-22-2009, 03:11 PM

Stabilized lenses for Pentax cameras would not be possible because, as someone on these forums very cleverly pointed out that the contacts necessary to power the stabilizing optic do not exist.

bymy141 · 02-22-2009, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by ntx

@bymy141: I'm saying it's bad to pay the same for the same lens that have few features (=stabilization). On the other hand - and this is one of the thing that let me pointing to a Pentax - I prefer to have the stabilization in the body instead in the lens... I see the in-lens stabilization as a sort of a cancer: stabilization allows lens manufacturers to have less care in lens quality; it seems they sacrifice the brightness of a lens cause of the stabilization.
I still wonder why I don't see - at an affordable price - a zoom lens ranging from F2.8 to F3.1 like the one in my Fujifilm S5500 (I know, it's a different approach in DSLR)... and, in the meanwhile, I see lens manufactures announce, like it was a sort-of miracle, the new super-zoom with a minimum aperture at F4 and the "super-mega-ultra-hypersonic-stabilization" which allows, to my hears, only to get back the stops you lose in the aperture.

Bye
Jenner

Jenner, so will be ripped off by Sigma for 5 types of lenses that have OS in them for the same price as the Pentax version. Big deal I guess. It is like me playing darts, I'll never hit bull's eye. There are some many more lenses without OS fit for Pentax that it is not a real problem. Maybe in the future.
Try buying a 16-50 f2.8 weather sealed SDM lens for Nikon and then complain about price! You'll find Pentax so much more affordable in general.

As explaned before, your Fuji has an image sensor with less than 1/10 of the surface of the APS-C sized senors most DSLR's are equiped with.
That extra surface is translated in the same multiplication of glass needed for these DSLR lenses.... Unfortunatly.
You get less portability at the gain of extra image quality. Pick your choice.

Have fun, Bert

ntx · 02-23-2009, 03:52 AM

@bymy141: the Fuji sensor is 1/18 of the k200d sensor... but I don't find that this ratio is reflected on the DSLR optic sizes... I think there's a different way for designing optics for APS-C sensor and also different is the way for designing optics for 3:2 sensors instead of 4:3. The APS-C optics are more compact... even the ones at F2.8.

BTW while the main question has just an answer, my complains are caused by the fear of having AF problems... AFAIK the less the brightness the more the AF problems (or the more the AF is slower)... ok, brightness isn't the only thing affecting the AF performance but it seems to be the main one (well, it could be stupid a lot to just shrink my brain with this things while I still not have bought my k200d...).
Let's take what I do yesterday (22/2/2009): there was a cycling race here... again I was the official-(unpaid)-photographer*... I got a 18% of out-of-focus shots where many of them are located in the second part of the race (when the sun was setting) just because of a 1.5 stop less light than the first part (I got better focus shots in all the pre-focused panning takes I did).

Thank for all your answer!

Bye
Jenner

* - BTW I got one of my shot published by a local newspaper... and this "fighting" against a Canon 50D and Nikon 1D!

jglover · 02-23-2009, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by ntx

@bymy141: the Fuji sensor is 1/18 of the k200d sensor... but I don't find that this ratio is reflected on the DSLR optic sizes... I think there's a different way for designing optics for APS-C sensor and also different is the way for designing optics for 3:2 sensors instead of 4:3. The APS-C optics are more compact... even the ones at F2.8.

The Fuji lens will have a much shorter focal length than the DSLR lens for the same field of view. The equivalent field of view of your Fuji (370mm @ f/3.1) is achieved by a 57mm focal length lens.

It is much easier to design and larger aperture lenses for those short focal lengths as the resultant lens diameter does not have to be so large. The f stop (or focal ratio) is a ratio of the lens focal length divided by the lens diameter, so a 400mm, f/3.1 lens will need a minimum lens diameter of about 130mm....or roughly five inches in diameter. The equivalent in 57mm lens would be only about 18mm, lens than an inch in diameter. To get excellent optics with those large lens diameter is very costly and very difficult to design and build.

AndrewG NY · 02-24-2009, 05:24 PM

Third-party lenses for some of the other mounts also include in-lens autofocus motors (HSM, etc.) that probably cost more than the typical screw-driven design of K-mount glass. This savings does not usually get passed on to us either. However, this is likely going to change as third-party lenses are starting to include Pentax SDM-compatible motors (again, for Sigma, this is called HSM). Perhaps we can blame economy of scale--they probably sell several times as many copies each of these lenses in Nikon and Canon mount.

02-21-2009, 02:55 AM	#1
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61	In-body stabilization + lens stabilization While I haven't buy my k200d yet, I got some question arise. The local store (where I go trying a bit the camera... and it's wonderful and perfectly fits on my hands: I have really to thank my father to hint me to the Pentax!) has many lenses from Sigma and Tamron (very few from Pentax but they showed me they also deal with used lens), I would like to know if the in-body stabilization conflicts or has problems with stabilized lens. Do both stabilizations works together (may be giving even better results) or they annoy each other? I'm asking this cause there are interesting Sigma lenses which seems to come stabilized only... so I hope there would be no problem in using them in the k200d. Bye Jenner

02-22-2009, 01:24 PM	#10
noblepa Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Village, Ohio USA Posts: 1,142	Stabilized lens Originally posted by Class A That's true but it doesn't make an IS lens on a Pentax pointless, because it could demand that either of the two stabilisation systems is switched off. This way you could use either system when it works best and have a stabilised image in the viewfinder when the lens IS is used. Not that I'd want an IS lens, too expensive if done right, but just saying that Pentax + lens IS is not a complete oxymoron. Another reason why a stabilized Pentax-mount lens might be useful is for all those users of non-SR Pentax cameras, like all the *istD series, the K110D and possibly film cameras. Whether those owners would embrace the idea in sufficient numbers to make it economically feasible is another question. Not to mention all the confusion among owners of SR-equipped cameras who can't understand why their pictures are blurry, when they have both the camera and lens stabilization systems active.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[K7]When absolutly NOT to use Image Stabilization?	Ivo_Spohr	Pentax DSLR Discussion	27	09-10-2010 12:49 AM
Proper use of stabilization	DSLRnoob	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	02-02-2010 11:19 AM
Sigma 18-250mm lens for pentax (with in built stabilization)	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	04-10-2009 10:19 AM
W60 Image stabilization	maccawolf	Pentax Compact Cameras	10	04-03-2009 04:57 AM
Camera Stabilization	aamir515	Photographic Technique	10	11-20-2008 02:28 PM

02-21-2009, 04:32 AM	#2
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	Neither sigma nor anyone else makes stabilised lenses in Pentax mount, so no issue.. In Olympus mount there are stabilised bodies and lenses, but they cannot work together..

02-21-2009, 04:42 AM	#3
PFH Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 483	As far as I´ve read, the new Sigma 18-250 actually comes with OS in the Pentax version. Please correct me if I´m wrong.

02-21-2009, 05:03 AM	#4
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by PFH As far as I´ve read, the new Sigma 18-250 actually comes with OS in the Pentax version. Please correct me if I´m wrong. I'm correcting you. It doesn't come with lens base IS in Pentax mount. The two systems can't work together since they don't communicate together. One system would stabilise the image, and the other system, not knowing that, would stabilise the image on top of first stabilisation, actually putting the shake back in, but in the opposite direction.

02-21-2009, 07:06 AM	#5
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61 Original Poster	So Sigma lenses with Pentax mount doesn't have stabilization (that also means many ebay items have wrong descriptions)... even if they cost the same :P (and that's bad)... Thank you for the answers! Bye Jenner

02-21-2009, 08:03 AM	#6
bymy141 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,563	Originally posted by ntx So Sigma lenses with Pentax mount doesn't have stabilization (that also means many ebay items have wrong descriptions)... even if they cost the same :P (and that's bad)... Thank you for the answers! Bye Jenner There are many, many more lenses available without stabilization, specially for the long end. Comparable lenses from C** and N** are much more expensive and heavier, so that is the good news. - Bert

02-21-2009, 03:07 PM	#7
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61 Original Poster	@bymy141: I'm saying it's bad to pay the same for the same lens that have few features (=stabilization). On the other hand - and this is one of the thing that let me pointing to a Pentax - I prefer to have the stabilization in the body instead in the lens... I see the in-lens stabilization as a sort of a cancer: stabilization allows lens manufacturers to have less care in lens quality; it seems they sacrifice the brightness of a lens cause of the stabilization. I still wonder why I don't see - at an affordable price - a zoom lens ranging from F2.8 to F3.1 like the one in my Fujifilm S5500 (I know, it's a different approach in DSLR)... and, in the meanwhile, I see lens manufactures announce, like it was a sort-of miracle, the new super-zoom with a minimum aperture at F4 and the "super-mega-ultra-hypersonic-stabilization" which allows, to my hears, only to get back the stops you lose in the aperture. Bye Jenner

02-21-2009, 03:43 PM	#8
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by ntx ...I still wonder why I don't see - at an affordable price - a zoom lens ranging from F2.8 to F3.1 like the one in my Fujifilm S5500 (I know, it's a different approach in DSLR)... and, in the meanwhile, I see lens manufactures announce, like it was a sort-of miracle, the new super-zoom with a minimum aperture at F4 and the "super-mega-ultra-hypersonic-stabilization" which allows, to my ears, only to get back the stops you lose in the aperture. The Fujifilm S5500 has a sensor that is "1/2.7 inch" according to dpreview. That's a lot less area than the APS-C size sensors in typical DSLRs. The smaller sensor means smaller lens elements spaced closer. It's a big difference, and it makes the lens data difficult to compare on an even playing field. You can zoom out to 370mm (35mm equivalent focal length) at f3.1 on the Fuji. The whole camera weighs 337 grams. The closest Pentax lens is the Pentax-A*400mm f2.8, which weighs 6000 grams and has a front element that's 30% wider than the whole Fuji camera. Admittedly the Pentax has slightly more range and is a tick brighter but it doesn't zoom to wide angle either.

02-22-2009, 04:52 AM	#9
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by flyer One system would stabilise the image, and the other system, not knowing that, would stabilise the image on top of first stabilisation, actually putting the shake back in, but in the opposite direction. That's true but it doesn't make an IS lens on a Pentax pointless, because it could demand that either of the two stabilisation systems is switched off. This way you could use either system when it works best and have a stabilised image in the viewfinder when the lens IS is used. Not that I'd want an IS lens, too expensive if done right, but just saying that Pentax + lens IS is not a complete oxymoron.

02-22-2009, 03:11 PM	#11
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666	Stabilized lenses for Pentax cameras would not be possible because, as someone on these forums very cleverly pointed out that the contacts necessary to power the stabilizing optic do not exist.

02-22-2009, 03:37 PM	#12
bymy141 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,563	Originally posted by ntx @bymy141: I'm saying it's bad to pay the same for the same lens that have few features (=stabilization). On the other hand - and this is one of the thing that let me pointing to a Pentax - I prefer to have the stabilization in the body instead in the lens... I see the in-lens stabilization as a sort of a cancer: stabilization allows lens manufacturers to have less care in lens quality; it seems they sacrifice the brightness of a lens cause of the stabilization. I still wonder why I don't see - at an affordable price - a zoom lens ranging from F2.8 to F3.1 like the one in my Fujifilm S5500 (I know, it's a different approach in DSLR)... and, in the meanwhile, I see lens manufactures announce, like it was a sort-of miracle, the new super-zoom with a minimum aperture at F4 and the "super-mega-ultra-hypersonic-stabilization" which allows, to my hears, only to get back the stops you lose in the aperture. Bye Jenner Jenner, so will be ripped off by Sigma for 5 types of lenses that have OS in them for the same price as the Pentax version. Big deal I guess. It is like me playing darts, I'll never hit bull's eye. There are some many more lenses without OS fit for Pentax that it is not a real problem. Maybe in the future. Try buying a 16-50 f2.8 weather sealed SDM lens for Nikon and then complain about price! You'll find Pentax so much more affordable in general. As explaned before, your Fuji has an image sensor with less than 1/10 of the surface of the APS-C sized senors most DSLR's are equiped with. That extra surface is translated in the same multiplication of glass needed for these DSLR lenses.... Unfortunatly. You get less portability at the gain of extra image quality. Pick your choice. Have fun, Bert

02-23-2009, 03:52 AM	#13
ntx Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 35 km far from Ravenna, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 61 Original Poster	@bymy141: the Fuji sensor is 1/18 of the k200d sensor... but I don't find that this ratio is reflected on the DSLR optic sizes... I think there's a different way for designing optics for APS-C sensor and also different is the way for designing optics for 3:2 sensors instead of 4:3. The APS-C optics are more compact... even the ones at F2.8. BTW while the main question has just an answer, my complains are caused by the fear of having AF problems... AFAIK the less the brightness the more the AF problems (or the more the AF is slower)... ok, brightness isn't the only thing affecting the AF performance but it seems to be the main one (well, it could be stupid a lot to just shrink my brain with this things while I still not have bought my k200d...). Let's take what I do yesterday (22/2/2009): there was a cycling race here... again I was the official-(unpaid)-photographer... I got a 18% of out-of-focus shots where many of them are located in the second part of the race (when the sun was setting) just because of a 1.5 stop less light than the first part (I got better focus shots in all the pre-focused panning takes I did). Thank for all your answer! Bye Jenner - BTW I got one of my shot published by a local newspaper... and this "fighting" against a Canon 50D and Nikon 1D!

02-23-2009, 10:29 PM	#14
jglover Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 98	Originally posted by ntx @bymy141: the Fuji sensor is 1/18 of the k200d sensor... but I don't find that this ratio is reflected on the DSLR optic sizes... I think there's a different way for designing optics for APS-C sensor and also different is the way for designing optics for 3:2 sensors instead of 4:3. The APS-C optics are more compact... even the ones at F2.8. The Fuji lens will have a much shorter focal length than the DSLR lens for the same field of view. The equivalent field of view of your Fuji (370mm @ f/3.1) is achieved by a 57mm focal length lens. It is much easier to design and larger aperture lenses for those short focal lengths as the resultant lens diameter does not have to be so large. The f stop (or focal ratio) is a ratio of the lens focal length divided by the lens diameter, so a 400mm, f/3.1 lens will need a minimum lens diameter of about 130mm....or roughly five inches in diameter. The equivalent in 57mm lens would be only about 18mm, lens than an inch in diameter. To get excellent optics with those large lens diameter is very costly and very difficult to design and build.

02-24-2009, 05:24 PM	#15
AndrewG NY Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Chappaqua, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 688	Third-party lenses for some of the other mounts also include in-lens autofocus motors (HSM, etc.) that probably cost more than the typical screw-driven design of K-mount glass. This savings does not usually get passed on to us either. However, this is likely going to change as third-party lenses are starting to include Pentax SDM-compatible motors (again, for Sigma, this is called HSM). Perhaps we can blame economy of scale--they probably sell several times as many copies each of these lenses in Nikon and Canon mount.