OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

cookedraw wrote:

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

Is normal, 16-50 is light wide to light tele , that's the difference. Image stabilisation seem to like a narrow angle of view.

50° angle of view difference compared to 20° is optically better by design.

That's why the 50-150 and 50-200 are so good. Both optically at all focal lengths and for image stabilisation.

Rules of physics.

There is nothing about physics that restricts image stabilization in 16-50. Apparently my signma art 24-120 doesn't know rules of physics.

Rules of physics can be mastered. Maybe your sigma art is very good (and expensive).

Its much simpler to stabilise short focal lenghts than long focal lenghts. you should not write in one post "seem to like'' and " "rules of physics" because it suggest you dont know the rules.  My sigma aer is way cheaper than samsung s.

Maybe it's that image stabilisation works better at some shutter speeds and it's kind of related to angle of view also.

Stabilization on my 16-50 is worse than on 18-55 and worse than on 16-50 3.5-5.6.

And no, 50-200 is not a "so good". I have 3 of them, and each is very good at 50mm and not good at 200mm.

We have different experience then. My 50-200 is very good

That's opposite to every other opinion I read on this forum.

My 18-55 is also very good but I don't like the out of focus blur as much.

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci