01-10-2012, 08:00 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1326195376' post='14658']
So ? The Nikkor 16-35/4 VR has also an image stabilizer. So nothing unique (but seldom).
[/quote]
Not to say it's bad. I loved the IBIS of my old KM camera that worked with every lens (UWA included).
I have a very different opinion. As I said I loved IBIS and I love my 70-200/2.8 IS. I think that a telephoto without IS has much more limited usability (at least for me) and it's nice to have on any lens.
Gah... why do we have to have 3 APS-C mirrorless systems instead of one. Put them all together and the lenses add up into a decent system nicely. If only Fuji had joined the E mount... I could've bought both NEX-7 and X-Pro 1 and a bunch of randomly interchangeable lenses... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> There is some nicely specced glass in both systems (as well as Samsung NX).
So ? The Nikkor 16-35/4 VR has also an image stabilizer. So nothing unique (but seldom).
[/quote]
Not to say it's bad. I loved the IBIS of my old KM camera that worked with every lens (UWA included).
Quote:Personally I would prefer non-IS lenses across the board (and no in-bodys IS) but that's me.
I have a very different opinion. As I said I loved IBIS and I love my 70-200/2.8 IS. I think that a telephoto without IS has much more limited usability (at least for me) and it's nice to have on any lens.
Gah... why do we have to have 3 APS-C mirrorless systems instead of one. Put them all together and the lenses add up into a decent system nicely. If only Fuji had joined the E mount... I could've bought both NEX-7 and X-Pro 1 and a bunch of randomly interchangeable lenses... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> There is some nicely specced glass in both systems (as well as Samsung NX).