There is little or no evidence than in-lens stabilisation achieves better hand-held rates. The only advantage is that the image appears stable in the viewfinder. The disadvantages include more parts to break and higher prices for lenses, not to mention a complete lack of stabilised lenses in some areas.

German Foto Magazin Feb 10 compared different SR techniques

[rparmar]

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).

In post 18 above Pingfood lists Canon's stabilised primes. It looks quite accurate to my untutored eye.

[pingflood]

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.

I am not going to post the list again, but I counted the ones currently sold and I think it was something like 35 PRIME lenses alone. And they are DAMNED good in most cases, so I wouldn't say it's "not Canon's best area".

Also, they are not always expensive. The 100/2, 85/1.8, 50/1.4, 35/2 and others are very good performers and don't break the bank.

[FHPhotographer]

As I follow this, the issue is not offering primes in the (approximate) 20-70mm range, or offering OS at any length, but offering OS + 20-70mm primes?

It's going to become an issue as mirror-less cameras gain in popularity and consumers who want more than the kit zooms start looking around for lenses like the top-notch Lumix 20 f/1.7 to get the very best out of the systems. A certain percentage of DSLR users select primes for the image quality and we should assume that there is the same market interest in the emerging mirror-less market. The first brand that offers stabilized "small" primes (either in-lens or in-body) is going to steal that market share. Why Samsung or Panasonic didn't build in-body OS into their cameras when they were designing them from the ground up, just eludes me. Somebody will do it, and it would be nice if it could be Pentax getting ahead of the curve this time,
Brian

[pingflood]

Olympus has done in-body IS on their micro 4/3 cameras for a while.

[Marc Sabatella]

Pentax system offers an advantage but not that much - around 1 stop, I mean in real life.

My life is real, and I get more like 2+ stops. Still, even one stop is great when it applies to all your lenses.

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).

That's not a prime - and that's the subject of this thread. Yes, there are some low-end consumer zooms that aren't very expensive, and then some mega-expensive lenses (primes and zooms), but nothing in the middle. Nothing like the wonderful primes I shoot with on Pentax.

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

The world doesn't neatly divide into subjects that need 1/125and subjects for which you can use a tripod. In the real world, there are lots of subjects that can be effectively captured at 1/30", but the situations don't allow for a tripod.

In practice SR with 40mm only helps for hand-held shots of static subjects in very low light.

Not just totally static, but subjects that aren't moving *too* fast. In other words, about 50% of what I shoot - candids & concerts especially.

[Marc Sabatella]

As I follow this, the issue is not offering primes in the (approximate) 20-70mm range, or offering OS at any length, but offering OS + 20-70mm primes?

Not that lengths exclusively, but sure, those are lengths most people use most. And while Canon offers some longer stabilized primes, most they are way outside most people's budgets.

[stanjo]

In the real world, there are lots of subjects that can be effectively captured at 1/30", but the situations don't allow for a tripod.

I just tested myself and can do 40mm 1/30 without SR no problem. I get ghosting at 1/10 and SR does help here.
However, if SR were not available, I could have taken the shot at 1/30 with higher ISO or just fix the exposure in PP (with K100D noise doesn't scare me).

In my reality, lack of SR for short/normal lenses is not a deal breaker. I'd trade SR for Canikon-like auto-focus.

[RolloR]

SR is nice to have! Given my Pentax camera can focus correctly LOL

But seriously, I really appreciate its benefits when shooting VERY low shutter speeds, like 1/10 below. With faster shutter speeds, I just turn it off since it can cause more harm than good. So most of the time, it's turned off, since i'd rather up the ISO than rely on SR and slow shutter (unless if it's SUPER dark, like ISO3200 F1.7 1/8 dark, in which it will be hard to focus anyway, even manually).

[Rondec]

The reality is that if I am taking photos of a static object, I can take a photo with my DA 35 at 1/5 second and have it be quite sharp. Of course, it is no help when I am chasing my kids around, but that isn't all that I do. It is true that the benefits of SR are more obvious at longer focal lengths, but it does benefit shorter ones as well.

[Marc Sabatella]

I just tested myself and can do 40mm 1/30 without SR no problem.

No problem, as in 100% keepers, even when not having the luxury of bracging yourself unusually well? That's pretty impressive. But most people - myself included - wouldn't do quite as well. SR definitely helps my keeper rate a lot at that shutter speed. And it makes an even bigger difference as I get down to 1/20" or 1/15", as is sometimes necessary as well. Subject motion is of course a bigger issue at 1/15" than 1/30", but I've still managed to get some of my favorite shots at that shutter speed.

In my reality, lack of SR for short/normal lenses is not a deal breaker. I'd trade SR for Canikon-like auto-focus.

That's cool. In my world, a difference in AF is not a deal-breaker, as easily half my shots I focus manually, and of the ones I let the camera focus, I don't particularly have a problem with aside from the things that *no* camera can always get right (eg, failure to read my mind regarding which subject near the selected focus point I wish the camera to focus on).

I figure, it's important to be able to see the differences relatively objectively so one can decide for oneself what's most important for his particular needs, and I think we're closer to agreeing on this.

For me, the most important range for SR is 40-135. I'd still want a stabilized prime because I do get twice as many keepers with SR as without. But more important still for my purposes would be the short telephoto range. If there was a stabilized 100mm-ish prime for Canon or Nikon I could get as cheaply as my $100 M100/2.8 - and that would be as small and light - that would help mitigate the difference. But as it is, the Canon and Nikon options are more expensive than and almost as large and heavy as the DA50-135. Kind of defeats the whole appeal of a prime for my purposes.

[falconeye]

No it is true that the lens based IS is better in principle. When the sensor is moving around, that doesn't account for anything except for the movement in the sensor. A lot of the movement that causes blurred photos (hence the extra stops that are mentioned in lens based IS) takes place in the lens, as most of the time it is comparable in size and weight to the camera body. The gyrodes in the lens based IS can help to compensate for that movement, but not movement in the sensor [end of citation]

This is about the most confusing bullshit I have ever seen posted about image stabilization.


Why does somebody like jct us101 who posts so much posts about a topic he knows so little about?

Disclaimer: Because the post is so hopelessly wrong, I'll not going to react on whatever I receive as reaction.

[bkpix]

Some parts of this thread remind me of the Internet naysaying that burst out when Canon introduced IS lenses more than a decade ago.

The arguments against went like this:

• Image stabilization can't possibly be effective, even though I've never actually seen one of the lenses.
  
• If you were a real photographer you would never use it.
  
• Did Ansel Adams need IS?

[manishved]

I recd my Sigma 17-70 OS HSM lens for Pentax and initial testing has proven this lens to be awesome. I turned off SR and shot a few pictures. I believe that you get 1 stop more with the OS compared to in-camera SR. More structured and systemetic testing is due this weekend.....