- Jul 31, 2013
- Real Name
That reminds me of my experience with Pany Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4 with 1.4x TC and the IBIS of E-M1 Mark III. On its own, the IBIS seems to reach its performance at 200mm native, once I added the TC it would struggle to keep it stable. I found that the OIS of the lens would do a better job with the TC on (and no I did not try to have both on at the same time, they don't talk well with each other). But what I had the suspicion (I can't confirm because I don't have good enough knowledge to test it properly) is that the lens OIS does not talk very well with the AF-C commands of the camera because I found significantly more blurry images of moving subjects with the OIS on then with IBIS on (not panning but normal movement and behavior).My experience is that whilst it’s capable of delivering great results, they are harder to achieve and the keeper rate is lower.
In my opinion, the IBIS struggles with this level of magnification. I think my MC-20 performs better on my Oly 100-400, which has lens stabilisation. AF is also slower with the MC-20, and that applies to both the 40-150 and 100-400.
So, in low light and still subject lens, OIS did better and with moving subject (panning and normal movement) with AF-C the IBIS does better. It's one of the main reasons I sold my Pany Leica 50-200mm f 2.8-4 AND the Pany 1.4x TC even though I loved the size and weight of that lens all the way to the moon and back.