I have the Tamron AF28-300 F/3.5,5-6 3XR Di VC LD and I am very disappointed with its "VC".
Please comment briefly on your experience with image stabilized lenses.
- Log in or register to post comments
I have used many and my opinion is that when you are at the professional or semi-professional level that IS is not a top priority and only a benefit ad on. A skilled photographer with proper training and experience know how to make a photo without IS. I think it is great for novices and for family vacation pictures, but when you are in the serious mode, you know what and how to make a good shot. I have lenses with IS and I find mostly I leave this turned off. On the 70-200mm f/2.8 it does help some if you are hand holding but in general, when I break out a serious lens, and have a table tripod to mount it on with me. It all comes down to being prepared and having the correct equipment with you. I believe the average soccer mom on Saturday morning has a greater need for IS than most portrait and landscape photographers. Give me the absolute best quality lens and make it affordable and I can do without the 300-500 dollars increase for IS.
While image stabilized (IS) lenses weigh more than a comparable lens without IS, the weight gain is nothing like the gain a photographer would experience if she were to shoot with a lens that were 3 or 4 stops faster. Lens weight influences how stable a photographer can hold a lens, particularily a telephoto. A stable lens will yield a sharper photograph.
The Nikon DSL image stabilized lenses that I have work very well and I can count on the IS to do its stuff. On the other hand, I have a Canon with built-in IS and although I use it all of the time, the IS is iffy because I find myself trying to shoot at lower than practical shutter speeds. I'll go with the Nikon when it really matters.