Canon x3 lens no image stabilizer
 

So the x3 has no stabilizer, gives that more instable pictures than the x20 in
`wide` mode ?
I would just buy this lense, but when I read it has no stabilizer I`m not so
sure how stable the pictures are.

Harry,

Image stabilization is a relatively new development in the history of lenses. I shoot with the manual 16x lens, and simply work carefully, or mount the camera on a tripod.

Wide angle shots are more forgiving of 'shaky hands' in general, because the frame covers such a wider field of view, the relative motion is not as distracting as it would be with say, a telephoto... where the tinies movement is greatly exagerated.

Why not rent one, or go to a store which might let you mount one on your camera in the shop for a 'test drive'?

I never have had an issue... remember you are very very wide and that will squelch most subtle motion.



ash =o)

Yup, agree totally with Ash. The 3x is wide enough that you just don't need IS, so Canon saved us the extra cost of putting it in the lens. ;-)

If you have a good hand (shoulder, whatever) the 3X is fine. the IS would just cost like $2000 more. Wide angle lenses are normally stable anyhoo.

Thanks for the reply`s, the image from the x20 is realy stable and I almost never use a tripod.
I do mostly indoor (bigparty s) reporting and the x20 is realy to less wide.
So we go to try the x3.

What nobody mentioned is that it's a great lens, but it's a wide lens, the 3x is a very limiting factor. IMHO, it would be a perfect lens if it was still as wide as it is but with say an 8x zoom, just enough zoom to get you where you want to be while maintaining the wide aspect it's made for.

ml

This would be a perfect lense to use.

The Fujinon 12x 3.8 - 45.6mm 27 - 328mm has also a nice range but
it isn`t compateble (yet?) for Canon XLx.

Is the x3 lense better in low light than the x20 ? (x3 has less glass I think)

The 3x is not noticably better in low light. It should be about the same as the 20x except when the 20x zooms to the telephoto end of the lens. Then it loses a couple stops as do most zoom lenses.

Because of the very limited zoom of the 3x this issue doesn't show up.

3X is a little better in low light just by the nature of being wider. The zoom lenses you guys are describing would be great but would cost $10K+!!!! The 3X is one of my standard set-ups, I generally do some takes with the 16X manual or 20X OIS as well...


ash =o)