Are IS lenses doomed ?

On Jan 11, 7:48 am, "Skip" wrote:
"VC" wrote in message

... The release of Sony Alpha with the image stabilization in camera (
although this is not new) highlighted the fundamental problem with Canon.
Canon have had IS lenses long ago as it would be very difficult to do
in-camera stabilization in film cameras. The digital cameras had to
support older lenses including the ones with IS. If Canon developed a
camera with in-body stabilization it would hurt Canon sales and
reputation.
So I guess Canon will continue with its nonstabilized bodies and when Sony
or someone else will achieve the same image sensor quality Canon will find
itself in a very difficult situation.
There is a very small advantage in having IS in the lens but it is not
significant enough to grant double and triple cost of the same quality
lenses.
What do you guys think ?

The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed, photography
as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.

--
Skip Middletonwww.shadowcatcherimagery.comwww.pbase.com/skipm

Good one, Skip
--
Gator Bait

In article ,
"David J Taylor"
wrote:

wrote:
[]
Look, at least get it right if you're going to criticise people (or
strawmen). What is important in handholding is magnification (at the
print), not focal length. You really do need higher shutter speed on a
smaller sensor. If you disagree, consider using a tiny-sensored camera
on which a 50mm focal length corresponds to 400mm on 35mm film. Do you
really think you can handhold it at 1/50s? (if yes, try it).


No problem at all with IS lenses, probably OK with in-camera IS as well.
Have you tried that?


I tried this with my Coolpix this morning at natural light, then flashed:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/gallery/0001wzp3 (last two
photos). So, okay, without flash or a very fast lens, handholding in
natural indoor light is iffy with long lenses. For macro, diffused
flash is all you need as long as the bug's eyes are in focus.

I need to rig a diffuser for even my pop-up flash or buy one. I've got
umbrellas and diffusers for the strobe heads I use with the Norman power
pack. Hum. Maybe later today. See what the Leica bits look like with
200 w/s diffused over 2 feet.

(One of the things I've learned as a teacher is that not everyone learns
the same way I do and if the person is getting frustrated, I need to
figure out a different way to explain things).

My concern about IS/VR in the lens or in the camera is that it seems
like it would make the lens or camera less stable over time. If it's in
the camera, then with digital, many people will buy a new camera in the
next five years anyway. If it's in the lens and it goes, the lens will
be useful only if the IS or VR completely dies or is kept off.

On the other hand, the objections to moving the sensor rather than an
element out on the lens seem reasonable, too.

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...


The D50's 18 mm end of the 18-70 lens is getting me more interested in
wider angle lenses. The equivalent on 35 mm would be a 28, [ . . . ]

Or close anyway. Actually about 27mm (equiv.) on your Nikon, about 29mm
(equiv.) on most Canons.

I have liked wide and ultrawide lenses for a long time. The only DX lens I
have that's shorter than 18mm is the 10.5mm fisheye, which is great and
converts very nicely to rectilinear also in Nikon Capture 4 or NX. But I
need something to fill that gap. Nikon's 12-24 is very appealing but a bit
on the pricey side. I'll probably get the Tokina 12-24 which from all
accounts is practically the Nikon lens's equal, and at about half the price.

Neil

"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

I just meant
that the implication that the VR isn't much use closer than 1:30 isn't
very
impressive, since that's what I'd assumed the VR was for -- steadying
those
really close shots.

Er, no. It's good to 1:3. It begins to be less good after 9 feet, but
it's useful certainly to 1/3 (the url I cited said to 2 feet).

I believe you. I'm just commenting on the Nikon literature, which does imply
VR's not much use closer than 1:30.

Neil

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 3, 5:07 am, "Neil Harrington" wrote:

I don't yet own a macro lens in Nikon mount, though I have a couple for
Minolta. I'll get one sooner or later, but am thinking of the 60mm. Maybe
a
105, but not the VR model.



Take a look at the Tamron 90mm also, it's an excellent macro lens and
very nice for general mid-tele use (but it has no in-lens motor so may
be a bit slow if you mind that). And cheaper; I couldn't justify the
extra money for the Nikons myself.

I will look at that and some other third-party lenses. I have Sigma 50mm
macro for Minolta and it's great. Makes a slightly odd noise when focusing
but optically it is really superb. Tokina makes an interesting 100mm macro
also, and in my experience their optical and build quality is top notch.



All in all, a great.. erm... prime lens (cough).



Grrrrr. :-)

Neil

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

.. . .

I don't yet own a macro lens in Nikon mount, though I have a couple
for Minolta. I'll get one sooner or later, but am thinking of the
60mm. Maybe a 105, but not the VR model.

The 60mm Nikkor's working distance at 1:1 is too close for my shooting
style. The 105mm AF-D is a sweet lens. If you are considering this one
you
should look at picking up a used one at a decent price.

I'm thinking of it. I do scan eBay from time to time for these sorts of
things.

Neil

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:00:42 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:

He doesn't say it shouldn't be used...but he does comment that it is
misleading...and it is. Many folks believe they are really getting the
equivalent to a tele-extender with a smaller sensor, which of course they
are not.


Actually, that is *exactly* what they are getting. ;-)

Not so. A tele extender giving the same focal length effect would cost you
more than a full stop. This does not change the f-stop at all.

Neil

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
On 2 Feb 2007 15:10:37 -0800, wrote:

But anyway, I was trying to suggest (in an oblique way) that you could
perhaps try to put things in a less antagonistic way ("ya'll not all
bad" and similar comments). Well, assuming you care, of course (but if
everybody decides that they don't care, there will not be much point
in posting here except to flame).

Rebecca is a troll. She is deliberately picking fights.

Yet another terminological inexactitude. I will recommend anyone who wants
to learn the wrong uses for words to come to this NG, where they are
guaranteed to find a wealth of misusage.

A troll is not someone who's "deliberately picking fights."

Neil

Neil Harrington wrote:

ANYTHING but "crop factor."

All righty, then, Neil: We clearly get you don't like it, and you've
explained and complained 39 times why.

--
lsmft

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
On 2 Feb 2007 15:10:37 -0800, wrote:

But anyway, I was trying to suggest (in an oblique way) that you could
perhaps try to put things in a less antagonistic way ("ya'll not all
bad" and similar comments). Well, assuming you care, of course (but if
everybody decides that they don't care, there will not be much point
in posting here except to flame).
Rebecca is a troll. She is deliberately picking fights.

Yet another terminological inexactitude. I will recommend anyone who wants
to learn the wrong uses for words to come to this NG, where they are
guaranteed to find a wealth of misusage.

A troll is not someone who's "deliberately picking fights."

Really. Then, what, exactly, is the proper definition of a troll, as
well as the upper case version of same, that we poorly educated regulars
here should be made aware of?

--
lsmft