Another lens crossroads

Ambulater wrote:

Jerry-astro wrote:

Ambulater wrote:

Consider this for moment, the 90mm f/2 (which I owned) has no OIS, but is universally praised here (as it should be, it's an awesome lens). The 16-55mm f/2.8 is almost universally critiqued for not having OIS. In fact, many say the lack of OIS on the 16-55mm is a "deal breaker". Why is lack of OIS a deal breaker on the 16-55mm, but it's a non-issue on the much longer 90mm lens? Does that make sense?

My point being, if you can make great photos with a non-OIS 90mm lens (and you can), then it's even easier to do with a 16-55mm lens. With the 90mm lens you normally will be shooting at least at 1/180s to get the sharpest shots. With the 16-55mm you can shoot at anywhere between 1/30s - 1/125s. How many times will your subject be so static that you would want to shoot with much lower shutter speeds than that?

I very seldom use a tripod with this lens and don't think it's very often necessary at this focal length. I personally think the non-OIS issue is mostly a non-issue at this particular focal length. It's more of an issue for the 90mm in my humble opinion.

Chris, concerning the 16-55, try using that lens handheld in a cathedral or other dark environment and then tell me that OIS doesn't matter. If you're lucky enough to find some sort of bracing, it's possibly to shoot in that environment at very low (say 1/4s or so) shutter speeds, but more often than not, this is not an option. Use this as a placeholder for other very low light situations where stabilization is the difference between getting the shot and missing it. Many shots of places (notably interiors) are not dependent on subjects being static, hence OIS can be critical in very low light situations.

This sort of thing may not be an issue for many forms of photography, and therefore makes the 16-55 a terrific option for a lot of photographers. However, for travel, both the size, weight, and -- most importantly -- OIS make the 18-55 (or for some, the 18-135) a better option IMHO. Obviously YMMV.

Yeah, I totally get that and don't disagree. I'm not saying that OIS would never under any circumstances have any value at short focal lengths. I have the 18-135mm with OIS and know that there are certain specific situations when it can come in handy.

I guess I'm trying to bring a bit of balance to the nearly universal (on this forum) recommendations to avoid this lens because of it's lack of OIS. I am saying that I think in *most* cases it's not that big a deal and should not be considered an absolute deal breaker for most. It certainly doesn't make any sense given the praise for all the non-OIS primes that Fuji makes.

But yeah, if you have specific uses, like Cathedrals where you need a stabilized lens at wider angles, then definitely, get the right tool for the job. No argument here.

some people can handhold longer FL lenses quite easily so that the shorter FLs are even easier and low Shutter Speeds...

on the other hand. I'm not one of them..

I tend to breather too much and even holding my breathe seems to make little difference!.. I have a low mass body for my height too. So, for me if I need OIS (for static subjects of course) I definitely would need it for a 90mm. I have an adapted 135mm manual focus lens. that really shows me up..I am not going to keep it despite it producing very good image quality.. I'm generally not getting very good results at twice the reciprocal of the FL.

-- hide signature --

Chris Lee