Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-21-2009, 02:55 AM   #1
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

02-21-2009, 04:32 AM   #2
Veteran Member
joele's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,309
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
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
PFH's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 482
As far as Ive read, the new Sigma 18-250 actually comes with OS in the Pentax version.
Please correct me if Im wrong.
02-21-2009, 05:03 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada
Posts: 2,014
QuoteOriginally posted by PFH Quote
As far as Ive read, the new Sigma 18-250 actually comes with OS in the Pentax version.
Please correct me if Im 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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,563
QuoteOriginally posted by ntx Quote
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
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,876
QuoteOriginally posted by ntx Quote
...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
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
QuoteOriginally posted by flyer Quote
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, 01:24 PM   #10
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bay Village, Ohio USA
Posts: 1,047
Stabilized lens

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
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.
02-22-2009, 03:11 PM   #11
Veteran Member
ftpaddict's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yurp
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,669
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,563
QuoteOriginally posted by ntx Quote
@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
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 98
QuoteOriginally posted by ntx Quote
@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
Veteran Member
AndrewG NY's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chappaqua, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 681
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, k200d, lens, lenses, pentax help, photography, sigma, stabilization
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top