Image stabilization -- problem?

[mr flannery]

I'm coming from a Minolta 5D, with the obvious in-body image stabilization.

 

If I jump to Canon, what are my options in terms of IS lenses? I shoot 99.9%

without sticks, so I can't have a system without some sort of IS.

 

Should I consider an Alpha 100? I can't stand Sony -- but, if stability is an

issue, I have to add it to the list.

[leopoldstotch]

After a rough count, Canon has around 15 current lenses with IS, which actually give a stop or two more than Minolta's Anti-shake. Depending on which model, Canon's lenses give between 2 & 4 extra stops of handholding ability, compared to a the 2 stops max of your old camera. The only "problem" with Canon's IS system is that you pay a premium per lens. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-Reviews.aspx">This site</a> has a list and reviews of all current Canon lenses, the ones with the "IS" moniker are image stabilized.

[bobatkins]

You could look at the Pentax K10D. It also has in-body stabilization. If you hate Sony it's the only other alternative.

 

In lens IS is better, gives a better shooting experience (you can actually SEE the stabilization) but in the end costs you quite a bit more and there are no wide or normal IS primes (nor are there likely to be).

[mr flannery]

I know about the Pentax, but I refuse to buy anything from a company whose longevity is in question.

 

Canon and Nikon will be around in 20 years.

[jcolwell]

The <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/canonFAQ.htm">PhotoZone Canon EOS Lens FAQ</a> is a great place to find out more about Canon lenses.

[robin_sibson1]

Canon's IS range now covers angles of view from 24mm on FF to 600mm (or even more if you use Extenders) on 1.6-factor, and it is easier to identify the gaps! The 70~200/4L IS filled one gap quite recently, and the two that are most often mentioned are a FF equivalent of the EF-S 17~55/2.8IS (or put IS onto the 24~70/2.8), and the 400/5.6. There are probably a few other opportunities where Canon currently does not even have a non-IS lens. Also, there is now some interest in IS on long macro lenses. As Bob says, don't expect IS on primes in the wide to standard range - and that probably goes for fast primes out to medium telephoto too - maybe the 200/2.8 will get IS, but probably not the 135/2 (there would be a "hands off the 135/2" outcry!) or anything shorter. Apart from that, you should find what you need in the current IS range, often with a choice of different options. If you want more advice, you'll have to tell the forum what photographic requirements you have, and with which format you are entering the Canon system.

[ott_luuk]

"so I can't have a system without some sort of IS"

 

you could use f/1.4 or 1.2 primes on a body with a good high ISO performance (think EOS 5D). For moving subjects, no form of IS can substitute larger max aperture.

 

Seriously, the only weak link in the IS lens range seems to be the lack of a stabilized f/2.8 normal zoom for full frame.

 

What lenses did you use with the Minolta? Specifying the focal lengths you are interested in and what you like to shoot would help us make some more practical suggestions.

[digitmstr]

>>what are my options in terms of IS lenses? <<

 

from 24-105 zoom to a 600 prime.

[andrew robertson]

Why are you going to switch systems? What do you plan to get out of such a move?

 

I'd always consider switching systems (AKA starting over from square one) to be the last

resort.

[douglas_ferling]

If you have lenses already, you are gonna be surprised at the cost of buying every single lens with IS again. I have a feeling that if you're looking at cameras under $1000, you're aren't thinking about spending many thousands more on a array of lenses. Add to that the fact that you can't get any primes stabilized, and I think staying with your lenses is a wise choice. There is NO conclusive evidence that you get more stops with lens IS rather than body IS. If you can afford a Canon 5D and all IS lenses, then I would go for it, but, while still being on a budget, I think sticking with Minolta glass and the A100 is the way to go (I assume you don't want Nikon, since sony makes their sensors ;)