12-03-2011, 10:34 AM
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1322904392' post='13443']
I can see a couple of benefits for the lens manufacturer:
- Lower manufacturing costs. No reason for them to invest in producing a more expensive lens when it has no significant impact on how competitive the lens is with the camera manufacturer equivalent offering (Sony and Pentax don't make stabilized lenses for their DSLR's)
- Less RMA's from users who have both body- and lens- stabilizers turned on and don't understand why their pictures are blurry.
And also one advantage for the user - longevity. A lens with permanently "parked" elements is less likely to develop centering issues over time. There are no potential issues with the stabilization mechanism becoming faulty or getting out of alignment.
[/quote]
Yep, at these focal lengths I would always favor the non-IS variant.
I can see a couple of benefits for the lens manufacturer:
- Lower manufacturing costs. No reason for them to invest in producing a more expensive lens when it has no significant impact on how competitive the lens is with the camera manufacturer equivalent offering (Sony and Pentax don't make stabilized lenses for their DSLR's)
- Less RMA's from users who have both body- and lens- stabilizers turned on and don't understand why their pictures are blurry.
And also one advantage for the user - longevity. A lens with permanently "parked" elements is less likely to develop centering issues over time. There are no potential issues with the stabilization mechanism becoming faulty or getting out of alignment.
[/quote]
Yep, at these focal lengths I would always favor the non-IS variant.