Sigma lens - image stablization???

[jSQL]

I just recently purchased a Nkion D300 and I've been playing around with it a lot (thnak goodness pictures don't cost anyting). The camera cam ewith a default 18 - 135mm Nikon AF lens. It doesn't have image stablization. I see Nikon offers similiar lens with IS. Does Sigma offer any lens with IS that are compatible with the D300? I haven't found anything but I'm not sure where I should be looking.



Thanks in advance,

[Bob Nichol]

Sigma calls it Optical Stabilization or OS.

At a glance in http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp I see:

APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM
APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM
18-125mm F3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM
18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM
80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG OS

[Mark1616]

I've just moved this to the Nikon lens section so hopefully you will get some info from guys using Sigma lenses on a Nikon body.

One question always to be asked is why you want IS/OS/VR or whatever the company is going to call it?

I have a mix of 7 lenses and 2 of them are image stabilised and even with them I don't always have it turned on. It is the same as everything in photography, it is a tool to be used at the right time. If used incorrectly it can reduce how much is learnt about camera settings a photo technique. Don't forget for many years we all survived without IS even more surprisingly we managed to use film LOL.

You have a great body with lots of strengths so think about what you really want out of a lens as they are pretty big investments. I would honestly say get to know your camera, get to know your lens, get creative, find where it is letting you down and then fill the gap.

[bigdawg]

Even with good technique, using a long lens in situations where a tripod is not feasible, Image Stabilization can be a big help. True good tenique is always the best but with 300mm+ lenses and sometimes even a teleconvertor to get that photo you need the extra of stabilization. Just gives you a sharper photo. I chose the Pentax system because with it, all lenses are Image Stabilized. Even my old 1960's screw mount Super Takumars are image stabilized because the Image Stabilization is done at the sensor instead of the lens itself. It is the coming thing and most folks as they age and become less stabile themselves can benifit from image stabilization. Takes some of the operator shakes out of the photos. I know as I've seen the difference first hand. Just my two pence worth.

Dawg

[Karmin]

Hello to you of this thread, I think one good reason for going stabilized are...your hands: I do not have steady hands at all and a consumer lens like the Nikon 55-200 VR makes marvels for me. Next in line that will make marvels for me: Micro 105 VR. I've tested it and it does help a lot. Not solve all the shaking problems and surely not solving the moving subject thing. But it's also true, I do not always set the VR on. On bright sunny days, would I shoot at 200mm, VR is relatively irrelevant. But 200mm on hazy or at sundown, it's a blessing you can now shoot at 1/60 without the help of a tripod. So no one should reject VR or IS or OS just because it's a tool and stick only to old proven methods. A wise usage of these methods and image stabilization makes an improvement. Yours. Germain.

[NHL]

Mark1616 wrote:

I have a mix of 7 lenses and 2 of them are image stabilised and even with them I don't always have it turned on. It is the same as everything in photography, it is a tool to be used at the right time. If used incorrectly it can reduce how much is learnt about camera settings a photo technique. Don't forget for many years we all survived without IS even more surprisingly we managed to use film LOL.

I agree with Mark1616 100%
... and I do shoot @ 300mm+ most if not all the time !!!
(Just check my postings as I do have both the 100-400L and 500L f/4 IS)

IS/OS/VR or whatever they call it makes people accustom to poor photographic technique and it's not just about camera shake but the lighting: Usually when one needs IS/OS/VR it's because the subject is poorly lit and the resulting image will be dull anyway even though the subject may remain sharp. Try to add more light with a flash fill sometime: the contrast and saturation go right up and render IS/OS/VR irrelevant
-> No need for a tripod either and you'll be also ready when the subject(s) move as when a flash is flipped off most cameras automatically revert back to the faster shutter speed... and be ready for the action

BTW probably the worst idea ever is a macro lens with IS!!! :-):lol::G
One could probably get a sharp picture it, but a very poor macro image not even worth hanging...

[JohnG]

Make it another vote for IS/VR/OS being overrated - especially at the focal lengths the OP is interested in. 300mm is NOT what the OP was asking about. For 135mm or less, anti-shake is really not that big of a deal. As NHL eluded to - it's MUCH more important to use the right tool for the job - often a flash, or a tripod or a fast lens. Like NHL and Mark I have a mixture of lenses - some with IS and some without. And while I agree with other posters here that at long focal lengths anti-shake is very beneficial, at the focal lengths in question I would suggest it's a very minor thing.

I would be much more concerned with the optical quality of the lens than with whether or not it has anti-shake. Anti-shake may save 1-2% of your shots at that focal length but if the lens quality is mediocre 100% of your shots will be affected. So, IMO, you're much better off putting your $$$ towards optical quality than towards a lens with anti-shake. Sometimes they go hand-in-hand (i.e. sometimes the high quality glass has anti-shake). But I'd rather have a high optical quality third-party lens w/o anti-shakethan a mediocre OEM lens with anti-shake.

[Karmin]

Sorry but for those with shaky hands like me - I repeat- antishake is not a minor issue. As for the quality of the lens, it depends so much on your budget rather than on your capabilities as a photographer. I do have the "cheapo-low low budget-horrible miserable optics quality-for the very very non-professionals- NIkkor 55-200 VR and I prefer to have it than waiting three months to gather the money for the 105 VR I'm after. And since I get the max out of this poor man's lens wiht VR, I get very decent results. I see so many butchered nice shots taken with high end gear...Yours. Germain.
P.S. NHL member. As for the worst idea that is putting VR in a macro lens like the 105. Have you tried it? Have you shot with the 105 VR? Are you a photograph with a lot of experience with macrophotogaphy? Please read the 105 VR reviews. The addition of VR to a macro lens is well documented.Your comment made me jump. It implies that 105 owners are almost stupid people.

[JohnG]

Karmin wrote:

As for the quality of the lens, it depends so much on your budget rather than on your capabilities as a photographer.

I don't disagree. We all have budgets we have to stay within. My point was that if a Nikon VR lens and Sigma non-OS lens are roughly the same price and the sigma lens is better optically, for most people that would be the better buy.

And, yes, if you have unsteady hands, VR can be beneficial. Good point!

[rjseeney]

Karmin wrote:

P.S. NHL member. As for the worst idea that is putting VR in a macro lens like the 105. Have you tried it? Have you shot with the 105 VR? Are you a photograph with a lot of experience with macrophotogaphy? Please read the 105 VR reviews. The addition of VR to a macro lens is well documented.Your comment made me jump. It implies that 105 owners are almost stupid people.

Actually, NHL is dead on. Nikon itself even says so...this passage is taken directly out of the manual for the 105 vr.. "As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x , the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease." That is the closer you get, the less vr helps, to the point where you're at 1:1, vr provides very little help. Coupled with the fact that truly real macro photography requires a tripod, and that VR should be turned off when using a tripod (also directly from Nikon), it should be pretty clear that VR is only useful when using this lens as a moderate telephoto at normal focusing distances.

Vr can be a big help, especially if you're a bit unsteady...but it is certainly not the end all feature. If you have bad technique, vr isn't going to help you all that much. If you shoot alot of moving subjects Vr won't help all that much.