They are removing OS for Pentax & Sony , but the price is the same as Canon & Nikon lenses.
Simple question: Could these lenses without OS be optically better than Canon&Nikon version? If not, what's the point?
Posts: 154
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
I can see a couple of benefits for the lens manufacturer:
- Lower manufacturing costs. No reason for them to invest in producing a more expensive lens when it has no significant impact on how competitive the lens is with the camera manufacturer equivalent offering (Sony and Pentax don't make stabilized lenses for their DSLR's)
- Less RMA's from users who have both body- and lens- stabilizers turned on and don't understand why their pictures are blurry.
And also one advantage for the user - longevity. A lens with permanently "parked" elements is less likely to develop centering issues over time. There are no potential issues with the stabilization mechanism becoming faulty or getting out of alignment.
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1322904392' post='13443']
I can see a couple of benefits for the lens manufacturer:
- Lower manufacturing costs. No reason for them to invest in producing a more expensive lens when it has no significant impact on how competitive the lens is with the camera manufacturer equivalent offering (Sony and Pentax don't make stabilized lenses for their DSLR's)
- Less RMA's from users who have both body- and lens- stabilizers turned on and don't understand why their pictures are blurry.
And also one advantage for the user - longevity. A lens with permanently "parked" elements is less likely to develop centering issues over time. There are no potential issues with the stabilization mechanism becoming faulty or getting out of alignment.
[/quote]
Yep, at these focal lengths I would always favor the non-IS variant.
Posts: 1,340
Threads: 55
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1322908459' post='13445']
Yep, at these focal lengths I would always favor the non-IS variant.
[/quote]
Which focal lengths?
I haven't compared the lens construction diagrams, but I assume the IS elements are simply fixed in place as opposed to a re-design. So I don't think the manufacturing saving is really that significant.
Coming from Sony via Oly now with Canon, I do miss body stabilisation for fast primes... but at longer focal lengths I think I have got used to having viewfinder IS now I wouldn't want to go without again.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Posts: 3,125
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
The big negative for me is that in Sony mount, the lenses become useless once adapted to the NEX which had no IBIS - thus there's no stabilization at all (for example in Tamron 70-300).
I like that the Sony users can still have OS in their Sigma 70-200 - so it's both NEX-proof (if an unlikely match for a NEX) and more versatile.
Posts: 8,004
Threads: 1,851
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
49
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1322913318' post='13446']
Which focal lengths?
[/quote]
Ultra-wide to 100mm (equiv.).
I just wish that Tamron would make the 70-300 USD available in Pentax AF, I'd pre-order one.
John
