optical stabilization vs. large aperture

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | Forum & miscellaneous | Join Image Upload
end

vijay venkat
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · optical stabilization vs. large aperture

For poorly lit handheld indoor shots which is better - having only a larger aperture or having only optical stabilization. I am considering the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 vs. the Sigma 80-400 OS F/4-5.6. Price and zoom range are not considerations.

Edited on Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43 PM

Dec 17, 2007 at 01:49 PM

paulhodson
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #2 · optical stabilization vs. large aperture

IS should give you more than the one stop differences in aperture so from a camera shake point of view the IS is better.

But

focussing would be better with the 2.8 and a higher shitter speed stops action bettrer

horses for courses!

However if price is not a consideration - go for the Canon 70-200 IS - or even the 70-200 f/4.0 IS

Edited on Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43 PM

Dec 17, 2007 at 04:10 PM

claudermilk
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · optical stabilization vs. large aperture

paulhodson wrote:
focussing would be better with the 2.8 and a higher shitter speed stops action bettrer

well...I don't know about that, but wider aperture gives a faster SHUTTER speed, which stops action.

Personally, I prefer aperture over IS, but YMMV. Best is getting both (f2.8 + IS).

Edited on Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43 PM

Dec 17, 2007 at 07:04 PM

paulhodson
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · optical stabilization vs. large aperture

Damn - I thought you were querying better focussing with a larger aperture lens and wrote a 4 page thesis in reply - then noticed my original typo

Edited on Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43 PM

Dec 17, 2007 at 07:10 PM

vijay venkat
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · optical stabilization vs. large aperture

claudermilk wrote:
paulhodson wrote:
focussing would be better with the 2.8 and a higher shitter speed stops action bettrer

Personally, I prefer aperture over IS, but YMMV. Best is getting both (f2.8 + IS).

If only everything were so simple. Sigh. One funky option seems to be using the f2.8 and external gyro. But I can't find any compact widely used gyro. Alternatively a pentax/olympus camera with in-body stabilization and the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 should probably help.

Edited on Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43 PM

Dec 18, 2007 at 02:03 PM

Forrest Egan
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · optical stabilization vs. large aperture

External stabilization can get pretty expensive..
http://www.ken-lab.com/html/pricing.html

Still want to go that route?

Edited on Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43 PM

Dec 18, 2007 at 02:21 PM

claudermilk
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · optical stabilization vs. large aperture

vijay venkat wrote:
claudermilk wrote:
paulhodson wrote:
focussing would be better with the 2.8 and a higher shitter speed stops action bettrer

Personally, I prefer aperture over IS, but YMMV. Best is getting both (f2.8 + IS).

If only everything were so simple. Sigh. One funky option seems to be using the f2.8 and external gyro. But I can't find any compact widely used gyro. Alternatively a pentax/olympus camera with in-body stabilization and the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 should probably help.

IMHO in this case it ought to be that simple. For stopping action in low light, f2.8 > f5.6+IS. Remember, photographers did just fine for years before Canon & Nikon introduced stabilization technology (ok, Sony started it with their camcorders).

Dec 18, 2007 at 05:43 PM


FM Forums \| Forum & miscellaneous \| Join Image Upload end