Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-10-2010, 12:23 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
I don't know about potential, but back to the subject here: even if Canon & Nikon's system *might* work a little better on the small handful of lenses that offer it - virtually all zooms - Pentax system *definitely* works better on primes, since Canon & Nikon basically don't offer any with IS/VR except for a handufl of mega-expensive long telephotos.

04-10-2010, 12:59 PM   #17
Junior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: East Yorkshire
Photos: Albums
Posts: 47
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I don't know about potential, but back to the subject here: even if Canon & Nikon's system *might* work a little better on the small handful of lenses that offer it - virtually all zooms - Pentax system *definitely* works better on primes, since Canon & Nikon basically don't offer any with IS/VR except for a handufl of mega-expensive long telephotos.
Pentax system offers an advantage but not that much - around 1 stop, I mean in real life. If you have to go further the results are not always predictable and / or repeatable. This applies to lenses such as FA31, FA43, DA70. Maybe my hands are shaking, but this procedure, to wait the "hand" and to be careful even about the breathe is not so effective (at least for me). Of course it is so welcome (better than nothing)

On the other hand, Nikon system is just so much better. I'm not talking about mega-expensive lenses. Take for example the 70-300 VR (around 480 Euros in Greece). It works just instantly from the first press of shutter, in panning, in shaking hands, from moving vehicle etc (there are two options for operation) and the advantage is easily around 4 stops ! So their system does not work just a little better. It really works much better and in a predictable and constant way.

I am not talking from technical specs. But I have both systems and work them a lot. For Nikon primes the old rule of thumb min shutter speed = 1/focal range works just fine, but with D700 high ISO capacity, really there is no worry.

Bye
Paul
04-10-2010, 01:00 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
QuoteOriginally posted by dugrant153 Quote
Also, Canon L prime lenses are really nice (and expensive!)... but I don't know of any Canon L prime lens that have image stabilization.
Really?

How about 100/2.8 IS?
200/2 IS?
300/4 IS?
300/2.8 IS?
400/2.8 IS?
500/4 IS?
600/4 IS?
800/5.6 IS?

I know these probably aren't the prime lenses most of you are thinking about, but they do exist...
04-10-2010, 01:56 PM   #19
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Sorry, I simplified in my post. The only stabilised prime in the range I care about is the 100mm. I looked into this extensively before choosing a camera system and was frankly completely amazed at this fact.

04-10-2010, 05:26 PM   #20
Forum Member
Douf's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 58
So canon / nikon don't have OS through their smaller primes?
Just yet another reason I'm glad I went with Pentax in the end!
Loving the 40mm limited, guessing that if canikon were to make a similar lens it'd be much larger in order to fit the OS or just not have it featured at all...

Big win for Pentax there! (and other brands that may feature IS too!)
04-10-2010, 05:56 PM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 71
IS is not worth it for short/normal lenses

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
The only stabilised prime in the range I care about is the 100mm.
Notice how Canon only has IS on the long lenses? In practice the benefits of IS on short/normal lenses is questionable.

For 100mm, to need IS you have to go below 1/250 or 1/180. In most cases 1/180 is achievable with higher ISO. If you really need to get below 1/180, then subject movement becomes an issue and IS can't do anything about it. If subject movement is not an issue (landscape), just use a tripod.

In practice, there is very little added value of IS in a short/normal lens. Of course, there are times where it's applicable, but Canon obviously think the cost benefit of going after that niche is not worth it.
04-10-2010, 06:06 PM   #22
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Douf Quote
So canon / nikon don't have OS through their smaller primes?
Just yet another reason I'm glad I went with Pentax in the end!
Loving the 40mm limited, guessing that if canikon were to make a similar lens it'd be much larger in order to fit the OS or just not have it featured at all...

Big win for Pentax there! (and other brands that may feature IS too!)
SR does almost nothing for your 40mm lens - you need to shoot slower than 1/125 to need SR. 1/125 is almost always achievable with higher ISO. If you really need to shoot under 1/125, subject movement becomes an issue. But if the subject is static, just use a tripod/monopod.
In practice SR with 40mm only helps for hand-held shots of static subjects in very low light.

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 04-12-2010 at 10:23 PM.
04-10-2010, 06:07 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
QuoteOriginally posted by stanjo Quote
Notice how Canon only has IS on the long lenses? In practice the benefits of IS on short/normal lenses is questionable.

For 100mm, to need IS you have to go below 1/250 or 1/180. In most cases 1/180 is achievable with higher ISO. If you really need to get below 1/180, then subject movement becomes an issue and IS can't do anything about it. If subject movement is not an issue (landscape), just use a tripod.

In practice, there is very little added value of IS in a short/normal lens. Of course, there are times where it's applicable, but Canon obviously think the cost benefit of going after that niche is not worth it.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, with one caveat. In Ok to Great light, image stabilization for wides and normals is not as important. In Ok to Good light telephotos also see the most benefit due to the reasons you mention if you have to go below f/250, with diminishing returns if you have a faster shutter speed.

However, in Poor to Terrible light (such as many indoor situations) where you have to use shutter speeds around or slower than f/60, shake reduction really comes in handy for all lenses as long as your subject is not moving too quickly. The fact that wide lenses are the least prone to experiencing shake also means that coupled with shake reduction you can take sharp photos with some really slow shutter speeds. I'm looking forward to trying this combination with the FA31 f/1.8 and the k-x I just got.

Finally, if you have shaky hands like me, shake reduction is helpful in general.

04-10-2010, 06:09 PM   #24
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by stanjo Quote
In practice, there is very little added value of IS in a short/normal lens. Of course, there are times where it's applicable, but Canon obviously think the cost benefit of going after that niche is not worth it.
Or they think they can maximise profit other ways.

I certainly think that there is value to SR in shorter focal lengths and have taken thousands of shots that have illustrated this beyond any doubt.
04-10-2010, 06:32 PM   #25
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
I don't think that Canon only has IS in their longer lenses though. The 18-55mm IS has it, and the 18-135mm IS has it, not to mention both the 17-85mm IS and the new 15-85mm IS. The older 28-135mm IS also has it.
04-10-2010, 06:46 PM   #26
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
I don't think that Canon only has IS in their longer lenses though.
We were talking primes.
04-10-2010, 06:51 PM   #27
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
We were talking primes.
That makes more sense then! Didn't Canon just release a 100mm L IS lens? (you guys probably mentioned it before, which is where I got the 100mm IS misunderstanding in the first place).

I suppose that is kind of odd that Canon doesn't have stabilized primes, but then again primes are not Canon's best area, considering how few they have, and how expensive that few is.
04-10-2010, 09:41 PM   #28
Forum Member
Douf's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 58
QuoteOriginally posted by stanjo Quote
SR does almost nothing for your 40mm lens - you need to shoot slower than 1/125 to need SR. 1/125 is almost always achievable with higher ISO. If you really need to shoot under 1/125, subject movement becomes an issue. But if the subject is static, just use a tripod/monopod.
In practice SR with 40mm only helps for hand-held shots of static subjects in very low light.
That's true, but there's not too many indoor locations that I'll take the time to set up a tripod just to get a shot.

I shoot a fair amount indoors. I find with the time taken to get a tripod out, set the camera on it and set up your shot, generally the moment has gone.

I have been playing around a bit since I got the lens and I have found the SR system helps in low light hand held situations, as you mention. Might not be much, but it's still a sharper shot than with it switched off.

When I eventually upgrade from the K10D I might find higher ISO's appealing, but for now I'd rather not spend time removing noise from those shots.
04-11-2010, 12:14 AM   #29
Veteran Member
dugrant153's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,059
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
I suppose that is kind of odd that Canon doesn't have stabilized primes, but then again primes are not Canon's best area, considering how few they have, and how expensive that few is.
Really? I know the Canon L prime lenses are expensive (of which they have a few), and I think Canon has a few EF prime lenses that are in the cheaper range (of which they also have a few).
04-11-2010, 03:04 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Albums
Posts: 230
QuoteOriginally posted by reeftool Quote
The big benefit of in body IS is that ANY lens you mount on the camera is stabilized.
correct and period.
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, dslr, image, lenses, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Prime Pentax SMC Lenses SOldBear Sold Items 6 09-08-2009 05:10 PM
Has anyone used a stabilized Sigma lens with their Pentax yet? ftpaddict Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 09-06-2009 12:43 PM
Will Pentax bring out super long prime lenses again ? lesmore49 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 08-28-2008 09:39 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Prime Lenses Ralph Wagner Sold Items 4 04-19-2007 01:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 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