View Single Post
      10-09-2007, 08:50 PM   #4
TurboFan
Ski bum
 
TurboFan's Avatar
 
Drives: sideways
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Knee deep in the pow

Posts: 6,207
iTrader: (8)

No experience with that lens, but lots of experience with IS / VR.

I'm not too sure I'd spend the money for IS at those focal lengths. I'd spend the money on faster aperatures. All things being equal (and they never are, but humor me for a minute), the faster lens (aka, larger aperature, or smaller f/ stop) will yield a sharper image than the camera using IS. I think IS / VR is a great tool for long tele's, where a faster f/ stop quadruples the price of the lens. Take my 80-400 - at 400 handheld, the VR is very nice, even with the f/5.6 being the fastest aperature. The 400mm f/4 is more than twice the price of the 80-400 VR.

What is the cost of the above zoom in a constant f/2.8? If it's within 20% of the IS lens, I'd go with the f/2.8.
__________________

1999 e46 328i Ti Silver / Black[retired]
2007 e90 335xi Jet Black / Black[retired]
2011 e70 X5 35d Vermillion Red / Cinnamon
2011 e92 M3 LeMans / Fox Red extended
TurboFan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote