tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7501571921958212024.post8000701980149497986..comments2023-10-07T03:55:25.748-05:00Comments on Bakubo Photos: In-body vs. in-lens image stabilizationHenry Richardsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03483070622001140224noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7501571921958212024.post-10714911665918590562009-03-01T21:03:00.000-06:002009-03-01T21:03:00.000-06:00I didn't mention it because depending on which...I didn't mention it because depending on which lens you cherry pick you can get a different answer. For example, the Canon 18-200mm IS lens is $600 and the Sony 18-250mm is $550 (B&H prices). The Sony is 50mm longer. The fov of the Canon is 29-320mm and the fov of the Sony is 27-375mm. The Sony also is probably a bit better since it and the Tamron equivalent get such good reviews and yet it is cheaper than the Canon.<BR/><BR/>Another example. If you take the Canon 50mm f1.4 for $325 and the Sony 50mm f1.4 for $350 it would seem the Sony is slightly more, but then when you add the cost of a gyroscope camera stabilizer for the Canon (since it isn't an IS lens) the price goes up by a few thousand dollars. Also, the gyroscope camera stabilizer is big and bulky.Henry Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03483070622001140224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7501571921958212024.post-33366880696687368812009-03-01T20:09:00.000-06:002009-03-01T20:09:00.000-06:00good points, but you leave out price. Why is the S...good points, but you leave out price. Why is the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 _more_ than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS? In fact, for the most part, canon lens with USM and IS seem to be cheaper than their Sony equivalents. <BR/><BR/>That said, I shoot an A700 with a SOny 18-250. For my other lens I mostly have Sigmas (10-20 and a 70-200 2.8).<BR/><BR/>-Allan MarcusUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08003863125460623883noreply@blogger.com