Certain Canon lenses that don't have IS?

palmor · 03-15-2010, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

I'm sure Canon only tacks on their actual cost of adding IS, out of the kindness of their hearts.

I really wish Canon or Nikon would just cave in and offer in-body IS, then whoever wasn't first will soon follow, and everyone wins. There's really little reason not to offer it; if in-lens IS is as superior as they claim they should have no problem selling IS lenses to the more demanding crowd, and the hobbyists would get all their lenses stabilized.

I agree 100%

That is the #1 thing I miss about shooting with my Pentax. I didn't rely on it all the time but the times I did it was so nice.

I actually don't have any IS lenses because there really aren't any affordable ones I'm interested in. I'm thinking about replacing my Sigma 17-70 DC with the new OS version though.

John

er1kksen · 03-15-2010, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

ps: palmor, hasn't that thread been educational? We've learned not only that in-lens IS is clearly superior, but also that in-body IS makes your pictures noisier. Makes you wonder if the K-x would shoot clean ISO 25600 if that horrible, ineffective, noisy sensor stabilization crap was removed.

I'll try shooting some ISO 25600 shots with the IS set to OFF with mine tomorrow. I'll let you know if there's a difference. You never know, could be a breakthrough moment.

This thread you mention sounds entertaining. PotN, I presume? Any chance you could post or PM a link?

palmor · 03-15-2010, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

ps: palmor, hasn't that thread been educational? We've learned not only that in-lens IS is clearly superior, but also that in-body IS makes your pictures noisier. Makes you wonder if the K-x would shoot clean ISO 25600 if that horrible, ineffective, noisy sensor stabilization crap was removed.

LOL When he started to say that the in body was going to add noise I basically discarded everything he said after that. I get the sense he is still in school or recently was and still has his head in the theory of it all instead of real life experiences.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera	hangu	Photographic Technique	4	08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Is there an adapter for Canon FD lenses?	Deniz	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	04-24-2010 05:26 AM
Question about using Canon lenses...	nitrox28	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	12-16-2009 08:41 AM
Used Canon Lenses	daacon	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	05-09-2009 12:22 PM
For Sale - Sold: Canon lenses	Buffy	Sold Items	0	06-07-2008 10:06 AM

03-15-2010, 07:08 PM	#16
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by pingflood I'm sure Canon only tacks on their actual cost of adding IS, out of the kindness of their hearts. I really wish Canon or Nikon would just cave in and offer in-body IS, then whoever wasn't first will soon follow, and everyone wins. There's really little reason not to offer it; if in-lens IS is as superior as they claim they should have no problem selling IS lenses to the more demanding crowd, and the hobbyists would get all their lenses stabilized. I agree 100% That is the #1 thing I miss about shooting with my Pentax. I didn't rely on it all the time but the times I did it was so nice. I actually don't have any IS lenses because there really aren't any affordable ones I'm interested in. I'm thinking about replacing my Sigma 17-70 DC with the new OS version though. John

03-15-2010, 07:23 PM	#17
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by pingflood ps: palmor, hasn't that thread been educational? We've learned not only that in-lens IS is clearly superior, but also that in-body IS makes your pictures noisier. Makes you wonder if the K-x would shoot clean ISO 25600 if that horrible, ineffective, noisy sensor stabilization crap was removed. I'll try shooting some ISO 25600 shots with the IS set to OFF with mine tomorrow. I'll let you know if there's a difference. You never know, could be a breakthrough moment. This thread you mention sounds entertaining. PotN, I presume? Any chance you could post or PM a link?

03-15-2010, 07:28 PM	#18
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by pingflood ps: palmor, hasn't that thread been educational? We've learned not only that in-lens IS is clearly superior, but also that in-body IS makes your pictures noisier. Makes you wonder if the K-x would shoot clean ISO 25600 if that horrible, ineffective, noisy sensor stabilization crap was removed. LOL When he started to say that the in body was going to add noise I basically discarded everything he said after that. I get the sense he is still in school or recently was and still has his head in the theory of it all instead of real life experiences.