View Single Post
Old Aug 23, 2011, 1:49 PM   #9
TCav
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamvk View Post
So the 60D doesn't have image stabilization? I guess I've just been use to the luxury of Sony Alpha where all of the bodies have it built in. How bad would the stabilized version be? And why would it be bad?
No. Canon and Nikon use optical image stabilization in some of their lenses. Sony and Pentax put it in the body, so all lenses, including 20+ year old lenses on the used market, are stabilized.

The stabilized version of the Tamron 17-50/2.8 has 19 elements in 14 groups, while the unstabilized one has 16 elements in 13 groups. It has a lot more vignetting, and it isn't nearly as sharp, even stopped down. The stabilized Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS is better than the stabilized Tamron VC, but not as good as the unstabilized Tamron, and it's a lot more expensive. But, as I said, if you'll be using flash, the stabilization won't mean as much.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote