Is a lens without some sort of image stabilization worth going for?

Started Apr 12, 2016 | Questions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Baron Flame
Baron Flame Junior Member • Posts: 32
Is a lens without some sort of image stabilization worth going for?

A similar thread must have possibly been started before but I thought I might as well start one of my own. After 3 years, I finally got my hands on a D7100. I've been shooting with the D80 and the stock lens for a while but I got a fairly good deal for a D7100(5k shutter count for CAD650) I couldn't say no. Nyhoo, I got myself a Nikon 50mm 1.8D and now I am looking to add some quality glass to my collection.

I was perusing the local camera shops used section when I found a used Sigma 70-200 F2.8 APO EX for CAD700. My question is, is it worth getting a lens without some sort of VR/OS/IS. Does it really make a difference?

I plead ignorance because my initial photography experience has been mostly with film cameras(Minolta SLRs) and Digital Cameras with no image stabilization . lol

 Baron Flame's gear list:Baron Flame's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Nikon D7100 Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow