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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 17, 2011, 8:26 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5
Default What Kind of Stabilized Lenses Can I Get?

I started looking at Sony cameras for a good DSLR, but then I thought about Canon or Nikon cameras, mostly after playing around with them in stores. Even though the stabilization is not in the camera itself, I do not think I need a lot of lenses, and if I could get all of those lenses stabilized, then that would be just as good. So I was wondering if Canon (or third party making canon mount lenses) offers stabilized lenses in a number of ranges:

1. 18mm-270mm. Tamron is the maker of this lense, that I think sounds like a really good all in one range, and I think it is already stabilized right?

2. A fast? (2.8) lense covering ranges from about 18 or 28 up to the 70-75 area IE a 18-70 lense.

3. 28-300mm. another all in one range that I like, I saw a canon lense on the canon site but it was far to expensive to even think about.

4. 50mm portrait lense, something in the f1.8 area or so.

5. 70-300mm range.

Thank you for help. since I am also now considering a Nikon camera I will post this same question in that lens forum as well.
ComCom is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 18, 2011, 12:13 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Yes the 18-270 form Tammy is stabilized any tammy lens with VC tells you that. This is one of the better megazoom lenses on the market. With sigma lenses, OS will indicated that it has stabilization.

You will not find a 18-70 f2.8 lens. There is none for any brands out there. The closes is the ef 24-70L. It is a very good lens but do not have IS. They are rumored to be coming out with a IS version. But like all L series they are expensive.

Canon does have a 28-300mm that is a stabilized zoom but it is a L lenses. So it is big dollars. Tamron has consumer grade one with stabilized the 28-300 VC.

None of the prime lenses like the 50 1.8 are stablized.

70-300 canon has 3 options, with IS. The 70-300L IS USM, 70-300 DO IS USM, and the 70-300 IS USM. Also tamron has the new 70-300 VC USD and it is pretty good for a consumer grade lens like the 70-300 IS USM from canon.

Here is the thing about the mega zoom range lenses like the 28-300, 18-270 or the sigma 18-250. They do not give you as good image quality as a 2 lens solution. You get connivence but need to give up some IQ. I would go with like a 15-85 and 70-300 over a megazoom most of the time, but there are times I wish I had a all megazoom lens.

On lenses with FL less then 85mm stabilization is not as important as most people make it out to be. Stabilization is not as effective. As all the prime lenses have very big so aperture 1.8 or 1.4. With the short FL and big aperture. It is very easy to keep the old rule of thumb 1/fl and you will avoid camera shake. So like lenses with 50mm if the shutter speed is 1/50 or faster, no camera shake. Some are more steady. And can shoot at a low shutter speed of 1/16 of a sec with a 50mm that is not stabilized. IS is nice to have but not always needed.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 12:15 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

PS

Other thing to note with lenses. If a lens from canon has USM, or sigma with HSM, or tammy with USD. That means they have fast AF focus motors in them. So they will focus quite a bit faster vs regular motor lenses. This is important if you shoot action.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 2:49 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComCom View Post
1. 18mm-270mm. Tamron is the maker of this lense, that I think sounds like a really good all in one range, and I think it is already stabilized right?
Tamron's 18-270 VC and Sigma's 18-250 OS are both stabilized, but they don't perform very well. The stabilized kit 18-55 lens plus a telephoto zoom will perform much better, and may even cost less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComCom View Post
2. A fast? (2.8) lense covering ranges from about 18 or 28 up to the 70-75 area IE a 18-70 lense.
Nikon doesn't have any stabilized, large apertre, standard zooms, and Canon's is $1,100. Sigma and Tamron have some, but they're not as good as their unstabilized counterparts (that would be stabilized on a Pentax or Sony body.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComCom View Post
3. 28-300mm. another all in one range that I like, I saw a canon lense on the canon site but it was far to expensive to even think about.
These have the same problems as the stabilized 18-2X0 lenses. They're not very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComCom View Post
4. 50mm portrait lense, something in the f1.8 area or so.
Nope. The larger the aperture, the harder it is to stabilize. (This is another situation where sensor shift image stabilization in the camera body works out better.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComCom View Post
5. 70-300mm range.
There are some good stabilized telephoto zooms available, from both OEMs and third parties.
__________________
  • 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
Old Feb 18, 2011, 9:36 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Just to add a few of points.,

None of the lenses classed as ultra zoom (like the 28-300, 18-270) perform very well, from any manfacturer.
There is just too much compromise needed to be made in their design to achieve that range.

The shorter the lens the less use/need for stabilization becomes.

Just from my observations of lenses the stabilization is about 1/3 the cost of a non pro lens, so if you knock that off you can get an idea of what kind of optics you are getting for your money.

Fast f/2.8 zoom lenses with a constant aperture are usually only found among the pro class lenses and are quite expensive.

With practice you can get reasonabley good even with a longer heavy unstabilized lens!
Though most don't wnat to do that!

I suspect many won't agree with my points, so have at them.

Sorry to include an image in this post, want to give an example.
This was taken handheld out the livingroom window with a fairly heavy Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lens to test a Canon EOS XTi we won on eBay.
So it is possible to get the hang of handholding unstabilized lenses if you have too!



Image tech detail settings
Exposure ....... 1/320
Aperture ......... f/3.2
Focal Length . 300 mm
ISO Speed ..... 400
posing fee ...... cup of bird seed.
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.

Last edited by PeterP; Feb 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM. Reason: Trying to figure out how to post an actual image link from flickr
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 11:11 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterP View Post
...I suspect many won't agree with my points, so have at them. ...
I don't have a problem with them.

Sorry.
__________________
  • 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
Old Feb 18, 2011, 11:49 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Actually, I agree with Peter as well on all points. Especially with the notion that anti-shake's benefits are overstated at short focal lengths.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 1:23 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

actually I have not been able to say anything right since I recently forgot valentines day and went out shooting for the day with a friend.

Guess what I was trying go get across with that image was if a heavy 300 f/2.8 could be handheld without IS, the shorter focal lengths get much easier to do .
__________________
A smartphone is all the "camera" you really need.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2011, 2:14 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Actually, I agree with Peter as well on all points. Especially with the notion that anti-shake's benefits are overstated at short focal lengths.
I don't think anyone's been overstating them, but I agree that some people object to them being mentioned at all.
__________________
  • 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
Old Feb 18, 2011, 5:20 PM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
I don't think anyone's been overstating them, but I agree that some people object to them being mentioned at all.
I don't necessarily think anyone in this thread is, but in general people that don't know what they're talking about tend to latch on to features and overstate the criticality - number of megapixels, high ISO performance, focus tracking, in-body image stabilization. There are instances where all of the above are beneficial but it's inaccurate to suggest everyone needs all of the above.

Again, in my own experience - my walk-around lens is stabilized but in thousands of shots I've probably had less than 10 where the IS came into play. I also do a lot of shooting with an 85mm 1.8 and i've never remembered missing a shot because of lack of IS. Now, other shooters may be different, but I think many people whose only interest is in directing people to their brand will tend to overstate the benefits of one of the above without taking into account a given shooter's specific needs.
JohnG 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 8:54 PM.