Re: Macro lens without image stabilization: foolish purchase?


"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j6m6vj$ehf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IS/VR can dramatically improve the image quality with even the lesser
lenses these days.

Only for camera shake. Doesn't help lack of resolution, chromatic
aberation, pin cushion or barrel distortions, flare, bokeh etc. Won't
increase focussing speed or accuracy, and is mainly necessary because of
slower maximum apertures to begin with, but won't provide those nice out
of focus backgrounds.

Where did I claim it would? I'm comparing the same optics, with and
without VR/IS. My own experience says that in-lens IS can be well worth
having, even just for stabilising the viewfinder image, let alone for the
camera shake reduction.

Where did I suggest YOU can't do whatever YOU prefer?
What I suggested was cheap lenses with IS are not necessarily better overall
than higher quality lenses without it, or even when used with in-camera IS.



Photos in the shop windows are typically 6 x 4 inch. You don't need 24
Mpix for that, nor for Web sites.

Where did I suggest you do, having a reading comprehension problem, or just
too fixated on pixels to the exclusion of all else?


I don't ever recall seeing an estate's agent's image on a billboard here,
and if it's to attract attention when someone is driving past it's highly
unlikely that 24 Mpix would be required - the eye glance when in motion
couldn't take that in.


Well they are used here, and obviously someone interested in the house
actually stops and looks at the billboard. But once again you are fixated on
pixels to the exclusion of all else.

Trevor.


.

Relevant Pages