Image stabilization - is it worth it?

[pgriz]

I prefer lenses with Image destabilization; challenge accepted.

That feature comes in liquid form, portable to any lens/camera combination.

 

[BobaPhil]

I like to think I've got a steady hand, I've been shooting with cameras since I was a wee nipper. But at the same time, I can see what you're all saying. I'm still thinking about it though.

 

[BobaPhil]

I'm looking at a new lens, the standard I have isn't working at the moment, the auto focus is screwy (but I'm getting it looked at) and I've been lent a 75-300.

I'm after an all-rounder, something I can use for a day out, but also something with a better zoom, I'd like to try and catch some if the local wildlife. I think I want the Sigma 18-250.

It's got OS, a good zoom (for what is want), the f number is ok (again, for my use) and it's in my budget, about £200-250 odd. Anyone used one? Any thoughts? Maybe suggestions for an alternate?

It's for my Canon 450d.

 

[vimwiz]

Ive got the non-IS canon 75-300 and its OK. If I was getting another I would get the IS though, as shake at low speeds (due to it needing quite a bit of light). Mine was like £50 used.

 

[Braineack]

Ive got the non-IS canon 75-300 and its OK. If I was getting another I would get the IS though, as shake at low speeds (due to it needing quite a bit of light). Mine was like £50 used.

It makes a huge difference for me, and allows shutter speeds just not possible without.

for example:

That's the difference between stabilization On and Off.

 

[Derrel]

Ive got the non-IS canon 75-300 and its OK. If I was getting another I would get the IS though, as shake at low speeds (due to it needing quite a bit of light). Mine was like £50 used.

It makes a huge difference for me, and allows shutter speeds just not possible without.

for example:

That's the difference between stabilization On and Off.

One image that's a kill-file shot, the other that's usable...

 

[BobaPhil]

In my post, I said OS, which is IS (my bad), but that is a massive difference! I think I'll have too get it, since I want an all-around lens.

 

[Braineack]

In my post, I said OS, which is IS (my bad), but that is a massive difference! I think I'll have too get it, since I want an all-around lens.

I chose my all-around lens specifically for it--the Tamron 24-70 VC--where the Nikon's version doesn't offer it and costs MUCH more.

 

[robbins.photo]

In my post, I said OS, which is IS (my bad), but that is a massive difference! I think I'll have too get it, since I want an all-around lens.

Lol.. well IS is what Canon calls it - Image Stablization. On a Sigma lens it's OS - Optical Stablization. On a Tamron lens it's VC -Vibration Compensation, and on a Nikkor lens it's VR - Vibration Reduction.

 

[Gavjenks]

Brain, why'd you take like 20 photos of that switch? =P

 

[Braineack]

Brain, why'd you take like 20 photos of that switch? =P

All at different shutter speeds; I was seeing what my limits were. I believe I started at 1/300, at 200mm, and went all the way down to 1/20sec, 1/3 stop at a time.

The lowest shutter speed without VC I able to do to match the shot I took at 1/20 with VC on was 1/125 IIRC.

 

[BobaPhil]

I wondered why too, so thanks for the effort.

I'm thinking the Sigma is the lens I want (and can afford), I'm site you'll be hearing back when I do.

 

[BobaPhil]

Just ordered THIS : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Macro-Canon/dp/B008B48AAE/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

For £220, I'm pleased with the price and it should be a good all round lens...it'll be here tomorrow! I'm a little bit excited!

 

[vimwiz]

Wow. Good deal. 18mm is a nice wide range, Canon EF-S 55-250 IS at £180 covers the top end, but cant go at all wide like that. Nice!