Missing inbuilt Image Stabilisation and non VR lenses now

[p1tse]

previous camera was Sony A300 which had inbuilt IS, which was great as could use a load of lenses.

But I moved back to my prefered Nikon on feel, function, menu and how it works.

OK I have primes at 35mm and 50mm, recently 35mm is living on the D90 to get more use out of it taking toddler photos.

As I've got to move about with the toddler, I feel I'm missing the inbuilt IS or VR lens. Sometimes I do prefer the VR lens I have 18-200 even though image quality might not match with the primes.

Anyone else missing inbuilt IS/VR etc.?

maybe a tamron 18-50 f2.8 VR equivalent might be on the list (but have no funds for it and like what I have in setup), what's Tamron VR?

 

[JohnMcL7]

I went from Olympus 4/3 to Panasonic micro 4/3 and Nikon F-mount, initially I did really miss the onboard IS of the E-3 as I'd just become so used to the lower shutter speeds the IS allowed me to use. On both systems though their other advantages outweigh the lack of onboard IS, it's just a matter of balance.

I'm not sure what you mean by moving around with the toddler as IS won't help with subject motion.

John

 

[Rajkay]

I had the A300 like you before switching to Canon. At first it was really nice to see the image stabilize in the VF, as you know all we had was those bars to tell us the IS working on the A300, but thinking about the extra I spent on the 70-200 F4 IS vs the non-IS make's me shudder, when if it had been on a Sony.....oh well!

ps avoid the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC, its not as good as the non VC (IS/VR etc), look at better options!

 

[Blind Pugh]

I went from Pentax (K20D) to Nikon (D300s) earlier this year and slightly miss in body stabilisation with my UW (10-24 v 12-24) and also my 35 f1.8 prime, but as I have gained much more than I've lost, I can get over it!

After all I've been shooting without built-in lens or body stabilisation for all but 3 of my 65 years!

Back to a monopod or a strap pod!