Bokeh or image stabilization?
A few years ago, image stabilization was unique, something you only found in expensive telephoto lenses. Today, we can't do without it.
Any kit lens you get for 100 euro/buy when you buy a new camera, has built-in image stabilization. With telephoto lenses and telephotot zooms, although at an additional cost, it's generally included. With standard zooms and wide-angle zooms you can choose. Canon offers EF zoom lenses (24-70 mm and 16-35 mm) in a bright f/2.8 version without image stabilization and in a less expensive f/4 version with built-in image stabilization.
Would you choose a brighter Canon EF-S 10-22 mm without IS, or the less expensive Canon EF-S 10-18 mm with IS? Curious about your opinion, we held a readers' survey.
Almost unanimous for image stabilization
The results of the survey were clear so quickly that after just a few hundred responses, we shut it down to start a new poll. Only 1% wanted no image stabilization, and 11% indicated that their views varied by lens. Thirty percent think that IS belongs in the camera body. Would we have that many readers with an Olympus camera? Or are there so many readers who would like to see their camera changed into an Olympus?
Bokeh,or image stabilization?
|It was surprising for me, that you all have a preference for a bright lens, above a less bright version with image stabilization. Rather a bright lens with a greater chance of a blurry shot, than a less expensive version with built-in image stabilization. Rather bokeh than image stabilization. |
Would Canon sell more 24-70 mm f/2.8 MK2 zooms without image stabilization than 24-70 mm f/4 zooms? I doubt it. More AF-S 10-22 mm than EF-S 10-18 mm? I don't think so. The price difference probably has a greater impact on our choice than a substantive preference.