A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are IS lenses doomed ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 12th 07, 05:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Skip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,144
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:
"VC" wrote in message
...
snip a bunch of words
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 ?

I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but
nowhere do I see it in actual practice. It is about a $400-500
increase in price over the non IS version, if such does exist in the
lineup. The only times this has occurred is with the old 75-300, a
cheap lens with a gimmick, as far as I am concerned


I think it was more than a gimmick. I used that lens in Alaska in 1997,
and it allowed decent shots that would have been total garbage without it.
Was it a great optic, in strict optical terms? No. Did it render FAAAAR
better captures than its non-IS sibling would have? Absolutely. --I was
hanging out the window of engine-running shuttle-buses in Denali. -No
tripod or monopod was possible. In situations like these, the lens was
definitely worth having. I gave it to my dad, and he's happily shooting
with it on his 10D...


Maybe "gimmick" was too harsh of a word. It just seemed to me, at the time,
that it was a cheap lens with IS added to justify getting a premium price.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


  #22  
Old January 12th 07, 06:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,185
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

Skip wrote:
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:
"VC" wrote in message
...
snip a bunch of words
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 ?

I keep seeing this bandied about as the premium for IS/VR, but
nowhere do I see it in actual practice. It is about a $400-500
increase in price over the non IS version, if such does exist in the
lineup. The only times this has occurred is with the old 75-300, a
cheap lens with a gimmick, as far as I am concerned


I think it was more than a gimmick. I used that lens in Alaska in
1997, and it allowed decent shots that would have been total garbage
without it. Was it a great optic, in strict optical terms? No. Did
it render FAAAAR better captures than its non-IS sibling would have?
Absolutely. --I was hanging out the window of engine-running
shuttle-buses in Denali. -No tripod or monopod was possible. In
situations like these, the lens was definitely worth having. I
gave it to my dad, and he's happily shooting with it on his 10D...


Maybe "gimmick" was too harsh of a word. It just seemed to me, at
the time, that it was a cheap lens with IS added to justify getting a
premium price.


Partially, maybe. OK. But the price wasn't outlandish considering the tech
it presented for the first time. What was the alternative for hand-held
tele photography? The only alternatives at that point were very high
dollar, large aperture lenses...or non-IS equiv. lenses that were nearly
useless without eithe a tripod, or grainy film. This was a truly unique
lens for its day. For its range, it allowed use of a slower lens without
being tethered to a tripod.

Beyond that, this was the lens that confirmed the whole concept of IS's
usefulness. I think much like a prototype. Prototypes are never
perfection, but they are the test and display of what is possible with new
tech. As a prototype, it was very successful as it ushered in what has
become serious a point of Canon influence over the industry. Everyone has
had to adjust. Nikon with VR, Sigma is even trying...and now we've got
every type of camera trying to sell based on some for of "IS." IS has
changed the entire ballgame, and this lens started that.

By the time I went mostly digital, I'd already replaced that lens with the
100-400 IS, so I don't have easily posted pictures taken with it... One of
the few is this goofy monkey pic:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original
Nothing specatacular, but certainly not tirrible.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


  #23  
Old January 12th 07, 03:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

the few is this goofy monkey pic:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original


It's a good thing we're not on the planet of the apes. Calling an
Orangutan a Monkey is grounds for a severe beating.

:-)

  #24  
Old January 12th 07, 06:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,001
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?


"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

One slightly ironic point is that so far all the sensor-stabilised cameras
have been 1.5X APS factor. [ . . . ]


Off topic for the thread, but this is the first time I've seen that term,
"APS factor," used. I think it's a very good one, much better than the
common "crop factor" (and variants) which I have always objected to on the
grounds that nothing is actually being cropped, and even if it were, nothing
is being *multiplied* by the so-called crop and the 1.5x or other number
given is obviously a multiplier.

"APS factor" is very good.

Neil


  #25  
Old January 12th 07, 06:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,001
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?


"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]

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


Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.

Neil


  #26  
Old January 12th 07, 06:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 250
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

In article , Bill
writes
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

the few is this goofy monkey pic:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306239/original


It's a good thing we're not on the planet of the apes. Calling an
Orangutan a Monkey is grounds for a severe beating.

Or at the Unseen University on Discworld.

David
--
David Littlewood
  #27  
Old January 12th 07, 06:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
King Sardon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:06:25 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

One slightly ironic point is that so far all the sensor-stabilised cameras
have been 1.5X APS factor. [ . . . ]


Off topic for the thread, but this is the first time I've seen that term,
"APS factor," used. I think it's a very good one, much better than the
common "crop factor" (and variants) which I have always objected to on the
grounds that nothing is actually being cropped, and even if it were, nothing
is being *multiplied* by the so-called crop and the 1.5x or other number
given is obviously a multiplier.

"APS factor" is very good.


I agree with your disagreements, but some complain bitterly about
using APS to describe these sensor sizes, because the sizes don't
exactly agree. See http://tinyurl.com/somes

KS


  #28  
Old January 12th 07, 06:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Littlewood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 250
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

In article , Neil
Harrington writes

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
[ . . . ]

One slightly ironic point is that so far all the sensor-stabilised cameras
have been 1.5X APS factor. [ . . . ]


Off topic for the thread, but this is the first time I've seen that term,
"APS factor," used. I think it's a very good one, much better than the
common "crop factor" (and variants) which I have always objected to on the
grounds that nothing is actually being cropped, and even if it were, nothing
is being *multiplied* by the so-called crop and the 1.5x or other number
given is obviously a multiplier.

"APS factor" is very good.

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

The reference to APS indicates that the sensor is the same size as APS
film (more specifically, IIRC, APS-C). This is decidedly specific; there
are many other sensor sizes in use in digital cameras, so the term would
not do for a general case.

Would be a lot more rigorous if the exact sensor size in mm were to be
quoted.

David
--
David Littlewood
  #29  
Old January 12th 07, 07:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Scott in Florida
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]

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


Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.

Neil


I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105....

;-)

--

Scott in Florida

  #30  
Old January 12th 07, 08:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Are IS lenses doomed ?

Scott in Florida wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:12:41 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"Skip" wrote in message
news
[ . . . ]
The lenses are doomed, the companies that make them are doomed,
photography as we know it is doomed, we are all doomed.

Now that's what I like to see. None of this namby-pamby "glass is half
empty" rubbish.


I'm on the way to the trash to throw away my 5D and the 24-105....

;-)


Don't bother. As Skip pointed out, we're all doomed. Doomed, I tell ya,
doomed! So it's no use.

--
john mcwilliams
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses measekite Digital Photography 15 September 13th 06 04:36 PM
FA: Minolta SRT-101 with 3 MC Rokker lenses, hoods, manuals macro lenses, MORE Rowdy 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 August 28th 06 10:42 PM
Main OEMs - Worst lenses compilations - lenses to run away from Alan Browne 35mm Photo Equipment 9 December 12th 04 02:36 AM
Some basic questions about process lenses vs. "regular" lenses Marco Milazzo Large Format Photography Equipment 20 November 23rd 04 05:42 PM
FS: Many Photo Items (Nikon Bodies/Lenses, Bessa Body/lenses, CoolScan, Tilt/shift Bellows, etc.) David Ruether General Equipment For Sale 0 December 16th 03 08:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.