PDA

View Full Version : in body IS and IS lens at the same time



cypher6x
10-12-2007, 04:33 AM
Has anyone tried to use a body with build in IS with an IS lens? For example using the Pentax k10d with stabilization on and using a stabilized lens (not sure if one exists for the Pentax but I'm sure Sigma or Tamron will do one soon).

Surely this would be the best of both worlds?

griptape
10-12-2007, 07:12 AM
Not only do I not see a third party doing an IS lens for a body that has IS, but I also don't see it as "the best of both worlds". You would end up with the same problems you run into when you put an IS lens on a tripod (which is why there's an option to turn IS off on lenses, the gyroscope runs into a static loop trying to compensate for movement that isn't there, and actually creates movement).

swpars
10-12-2007, 07:14 AM
Not entirely on topic, but according to Popular Photography, image stabilized lenses provide more stops of improvement than in-body anti-shake - generally.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake-lab-report-page2.html

The exception is the Sony a100, which equals most of the Nikon & Canon lenses. Only the Canon 70-200 f4 L and the Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 image stabilized lenses beat it out in this test.

TheWengler
10-12-2007, 09:31 AM
Why would Sigma/Tamron bother making an IS lens in a Pentax mount if all of the current Pentax bodies already have IS? Unless they just want to decorate the shelves with something, I don't see it happening.

droopy1592
10-12-2007, 10:38 AM
Not entirely on topic, but according to Popular Photography, image stabilized lenses provide more stops of improvement than in-body anti-shake - generally.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake-lab-report-page2.html

The exception is the Sony a100, which equals most of the Nikon & Canon lenses. Only the Canon 70-200 f4 L and the Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 image stabilized lenses beat it out in this test.
I wonder what Don has to say about this

DonSchap
10-12-2007, 10:59 AM
Well, it is not like this topic is anything new.

Most people with experience concur that having both IS variations functioning at the same time would lead to harmonic distortion of the image, as each method of IS would fight for dominance over the image-stability control.

The best idea I had ever heard was to have the body "sense" that an IS-equipped lens (supposedly the more dynamic stability method of the two) has been mounted and would simply shut off the in-the-body-IS. Once the IS-equipped lens was removed or its IS-capability optionally turned off, the in-the-body-IS would resume normal operation, unless the photographer opted to shut the in-the-body-IS off, also ... for tripod shoots or some such imaging.

TAMRON has made their first "anti-shake" lens in the form of the AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR VC Di LD Aspherical (IF) (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_vc.asp) (<- click here) lens. (say that three times fast :rolleyes: ) It only has mounts for Canon EOS or Nikon D, not SONY or Pentax (Samsung). Since Canon and Nikon still do not have IS in the body ... the question becomes moot.

BTW: I have used and shot through the new TAMRON VC (Vibration Control) lens and it shoots a heck of a lot smoother than the Canon IS-equipped lens. The Canon lenses tend to shimmy their way to stability, where the TAMRON appears to follow and lock the image, when the shutter is tripped. It really is rather different.

Perhaps, one day ... Canon and Nikon will see the light on this. I quit holding my breath, though. :p

smartguy26
10-19-2007, 07:38 PM
check this out

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io

very interesting

towards the end he turns both IS systems on

DonSchap
10-19-2007, 08:37 PM
That definitely is right in line with the thinkling done here, on the DCRP. That presentation is quite effective at demonstrating the benefit of both. I'm certain that "Coldrain" would perhaps appreciate this demostration more than most ... and may even learn something. LOL Well, we can hope.

I know it confirmed my thinking on the subject.

Thanks