Quote:
Originally Posted by 1KW
Nikon and canon do not have image stabilization on there pro 24-70 (equivalent on ff sensor) as it decrease sharpness. Image stabilization is neeeded for telephoto lens to prevent visible movement at the longer length's not below 55 mm . It is totally unnecessary at shorter focal length's unless you are shooting at slow shutter speeds. At a shutter speed of 60 or above you do not need image stabilization at 16-55. As for 55-82.5, this is the ideal portrait length. On the 18-55 at 55mm you will be at F4 and will not have much bokeh. The 18-55 mm is a nice lens and is very small and light weight. Try the 16-55 it is as sharp as a prime and fixed 2.8 is terrific, the focus speed is wonderful .
|
I guess I just don't understand what you have just said . . .
So, why then does Fuji put OIS on even their 10-24 mm zoom . . . could it be to help with slow shutter speeds perhaps? . . . and why is the 16-55 the only Fuji zoom that does not have OIS? - maybe the shooters of that lens are young and do not have shaky hands or perhaps they only shoot outside at shutter speeds higher than 1/60th. but, also remember that the equivalent of 55 mm is 82.5mm, and the generally accepted rule is that at 82.5 mm, the minimum shutter speed recommended, for even folks with steady hands, would be 1/82.5th of a second or above.
And, isn't it nice that lenses with OIS have switch to turn that feature on and off - so those with steady hands may turn it off and get a little bit more sharpness from their lenses.
As for me, I do have shaky hands and would love to have OIS, or its equivalent, on every lens I use - and I even wish it was available on more prime lenses.
At 82.5 mm, "the ideal portrait length" my lens shakes so much, my pictures appear out of focus unless I have the OIS turned on. And I do wish the 16-55 zoom lens had OIS so I could use it. The lack of OIS on that excellent lens is the only reason that I do not own one.