An un-stabilized brick?

michaeladawson wrote:

Robmas4229 wrote:

I'm sure there are some of you out there. What are your thoughts and experiences with shooting the non-OIS, XF 16-55, on an X body that has no IBIS? Do you find you frequently need to use a tripod or monopod to steady the beast? Are you having to constantly worry about keeping your SS at a high enough speed? I'm considering this to pair up with my XT3 and am not interested in either of the X bodies that offer IBIS.

Thank you in advance for your input.

-Rob

Having shot with advanced digital camera systems since the early 2000s I can say that there is no need to have image stabilization in a lens of this focal length.

That is not to say that having stabilization wouldn't be a nice option to have available. But in the interest of transparency, I don't take a lot of low light, ambient light photos. If I'm taking indoor photos I'm using a flash.

I'm glad you qualified your statement in your last paragraph. I would strongly disagree with your [bolded] opening statement as something which might apply beyond your own personal needs. There is every need for stabilization with a lens like this if you happen to have a propensity (as I do) for shooting in low light situations... particularly those where a tripod might not be a viable option. The stabilization can be provided by the camera, but I can guarantee you that indoor shots in low light environments can be difficult or impossible without some assistance, and tripods are not always feasible. I think the real answer here depends completely on what you photograph and the environment/available light.