Hi, There has been quite some discussion on image stabilisation in the previous digests, but I am confused. The first time I read about image stabilisation was a few years ago when it was introduced in binoculars (by Minolta I think??). Its use was obvious to me. I think we all have the experience that when you are handholding really strong binoculars to see something small, the object is flashing in and out of the viewfinder with the speed of light. I can clearly see the purpose of image stabilisation here: it keeps the object sitting in the middle of your viewfinder and that enables you to study it. Great technology! Now it is introduced in lenses. Again, for long telephotos I can clearly see the purpose: it enables you to precisely position the object in the viewfinder, study it, and actually take a picture. In that form, it is a great aid for accurate composition, spot metering and maybe even autofocus. Where I loose track of the discussion is where it is stated that it "wins you two stops" and thus a 4.0 with IS compares to a 2.8. First, the advantages mentioned above are not present in a 2.8, be it bright or low light. Second, as a disadvantage: we are all extremely critical about sharpness (focus) and vignetting. Manufacturers introduce all kinds of complex aspherical elements to achieve optimal performance and it is proving to be a tough job. Yet, with IS we have an element that is constantly changing shape to counteract our movements: what does that do to overall image sharpness? Not to mention that IS does not provide you with a brighter viewfinder (as a 2.8 does). I realise that reducing user induced shake allows for longer shuttertimes (even two stops), but isn't the remark of "winning two stops" leading to comparing apples and oranges, or am I missing the point here? Rick PS Sorry or the long and confused post. (Not even Nikon related come to think of it)
