[Leica] OT 25/1.4 lens for 4/3 system to be expected

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

>Absolutely...I think three stops may be a bit of an exaggggeration...but
>definitely 1.5 to 2. And that makes a 2.8 lens a 1.4
>
>
>On 6/21/06 2:07 PM, "SonC@aol.com" <SonC@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>>  In a message dated 6/21/2006 12:59:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>  bdcolen@comcast.net writes:
>>
>>  But  maybe you really,
>>  really need IS - in which case it's worth it.  ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>  I don't know if I need it or not, but I understand that it can give  you 
>> up
>>  to three extra stops worth of shutterspeed for hand held stuff. 
>>That  might be
>>  nice.
>  >
>  >

I use Canon stuff, and the 3 stops is not really an exaggeration. 
Various lenses have different 'generations' of IS mechanisms, and 
I've used all. There isn't a huge amount of difference, but by the 
same token there is sample variation. I had a 100-400 with IS that 
gave me easily a stop extra over the present 100-400 I have. The 
first lens got whacked :-(.

A while ago I posted a picture I took (on film) with the 100-400 and 
1.4 converter of a small bird in a tree, with me standing in the 
middle of a field and shooting at a focal length of 640mm and 1/8 
sec. I took 8 frames of which 7 where sharp. Even the 8th (naturally, 
the best shot) was useable. This is a shot which I would have real 
trouble with at 1/125sec without IS. My 'acceptable' rate would be at 
best 2 out of 8.

I've also taken night shots with the 24-105 lens on the 5D at 1 sec 
near the wide end that are perfectly sharp. These were shots of a 
resort taken from a floating dock, so options were limited.

IS has made all kinds of shots possible that were just not there 
before. As I often take shots of things that stand still, or stay 
still long enough for a shot, I find IS invaluable, and wouldn't get 
a lens/camera without it if it were available. I have 5 IS lenses 
right now, and if a certain lens or type of lens is available with 
IS, I would immediately prefer it over another without. The lens 
without IS would have to have at least 2 more stops and no serious 
downsides like huge weight or multi-thousand dollar price. In the 
case of the Olympus vs. Leica 14-50 or 54 lenses, I would immediately 
go for the IS lens, whether it was labelled Leica or Olympus. The IS 
_will_ get me more useable pictures, no matter whether it has the 
better or worse optical qualities.

If I were looking at an inexpensive, high performance camera right 
now, I would head first to Pentax to look at their K100D (back to 
manageable naming). Small, good viewfinder, great lens compatibility, 
a decent chip and IS.

-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com