Is image stabalising worth it on 18-50 lens?

AndyWest

AndyWest

Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Looking at 18-50mm lens and can't decide if paying over £100 for IS is worth it on a 18-50mm walk about lens.

Any advice welcome.
 
Personally I don't think it is, but some people swear by it. Have a look at your shutter speeds that you're getting with your current lens, if it's not very low, I wouldn't bother.

Chris
 
I have recently purchased the non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50. I deliberated for ages over whether to get the VC version or not, and haven't regretted my decision yet. At these focal lengths I think the consensus is that IS isn't really worth it.
 
chris321 said:
Personally I don't think it is, but some people swear by it. Have a look at your shutter speeds that you're getting with your current lens, if it's not very low, I wouldn't bother.

Chris
Click to expand...

:plusone: I'd put the extra to a nice prime -- in Nikon land that'd be a 35/1.8 or similar.
 
100% yes. I managed to hand hold 280mm @ 1/15 which would be impossible without VR/IS.

On an 18-50 lens I would say probably not.
 
If you're operating below the "standard" lowest speed for your given focal length (ie. 1/focal length) then IS/VR is a must unless you want blurring (or have an extraordinary hold/tripod).
eg for a cropped sensor a speed less than 1/80 @ 50mm
 
If you have it then you can choose not to use it if you don't need it.
If you don't have it then you have no choice...

As said above think of a situation that you find yourself in frequently enough to justify the extra cost. If you will use it in plenty of low light situations then go for it, if not is the extra flexibility it offers worth the extra cost?

Recently bought the Sigma 17-70 with IS as my ultimate, flexible kit lens replacement.
IS is there if I need it .
 
If the OS version of my Sigma 17-70mm had been available when I got mine I would have spent the extra. It may not be essential but if you can afford it and the IQ is the same then it's a nice luxury!
 
Sinbecks said:
If you have it then you can choose not to use it if you don't need it.
If you don't have it then you have no choice...

As said above think of a situation that you find yourself in frequently enough to justify the extra cost. If you will use it in plenty of low light situations then go for it, if not is the extra flexibility it offers worth the extra cost?

Recently bought the Sigma 17-70 with IS as my ultimate, flexible kit lens replacement.
IS is there if I need it .
Click to expand...

How are you finding the 17-70 with IS?

My dad has one and he says it's exactly the same as the old one (which is for sale) but better IQ especially when zoomed in, i.e you can see where the IS has taken affect.
 
AndyWest said:
How are you finding the 17-70 with IS?

My dad has one and he says it's exactly the same as the old one (which is for sale) but better IQ especially when zoomed in, i.e you can see where the IS has taken affect.
Click to expand...

To be honest it is too early to tell yet. I've had it about a month and have had a light play with it but the real test will come in about two weeks time in Scotland. Really liked the 17-70 non OS and the OS on this lens is very quiet when compared to the OS on the Sigma 150-500 that I have!

Time will tell when I need to catch that photo in low light and that moment hasn't presented itself yet.
 
Well i got fed up looking and looking and looking and comparing etc loads of lenses and in the end bought a Sigma 17-70mm OS HSM for £310 from Bristol Cameras new. The others on the list were the Tamron 17-50 VC and Canon 17-85mm IS.

Tamron- great lens but has it's problems with build quality and did have the non VC version which i wasn't all that impressed with. Also Range is limmited.

Canon 17-85 - Seen some superb results from this lens and it is cheap but aperture range isn't great and i don't feel it will cover all eventualities (low light etc) Good focal range though. From what i have read you need to work at this lens to get the best out of it which sounds like the 28-135 IS i used to own, great lens but had to concentrate on what you are doing to get the best shots.

Sigma - I had the orig 17-70 and i really liked it. When i look back on old images from that camera i'm always impressed with the detail in the images plus you can get really close to the subject for great macro. The OS should be usefull at times so i'll leave it off unless i need it. focal range is what i want also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top