Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 7, 2008, 8:24 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

Thank you very much as always, the canon is way over budget, but the sigma is approachable soon. It just so hapens now I have to sit in the stands for photographs on the field. That will take me further away from the action. What are the limitations of not having VR or IS from the camera (EX. Pentax). Can the sigma at max zoom be a problem with slight motion?

I can exchange the xti for for the K100 super and get stabalization from the body of the camera and not spend it on the lense? I do not think the megapixels are that important to me?


Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2008, 9:08 PM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Stablization will not help with blur from subject movement. Those Tamron lenses you're looking at are not bright enough for night sports, period.

You'd have *both* blur from subject movement and blur from camera shake trying to use one on a Canon model without a tripod or monopod for night games With a Pentax model with stablization built in, you'd still have blur from subject movement. They're too dim for night sports.

IOW, if you try to use a lens like that Tamron 18-250mm in less than optimum lighting, you're going to have blurry photos, stablization or not.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2008, 9:44 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

Jim,

My apology if I did not phrase my question properly. I now understand the tamron is not designed for what I like to do.

What I mean is, will the Pentax improve small camera shake w/o unipod using the 70-200 f2.8? The sigma does not have VR so maybe I gain it on the body? My photography needs have taken a turn for clutter and expensive!
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2008, 10:19 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'm a big fan of stablization. But, if your shutter speeds are fast enough for sports, then they're going to be fast enough so that stablization is not needed anyway.

Stablization is more useful in conditions where your shutter speeds would normally be slower than you'd want for sports.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 PM.