Image Stabilisation In: Cameras Posted April 15, 2013 Thanks for suggesting Tamron. I tried the short 17 - 50 2.8. Interesting range ... but it it not very sharp, and that is what I expect in a wide angle lens: a lot of detail, as wide shots usually have a lot of detail. The Tamron also 24 - 70 2.8 seemed a good option. There is no comparable lens by Nikon. Nikons 24 - 70 2.8 does not have an image stabiliser. But, sorry - I am sending back the Tamron tomorrow. It is not a 2.8, rather a 2.8 1/2. It has a yellow tone to it. It has by way less contrast than the nikon lenses. It has a lot of distortion a the lower end of the range. And again, it does not give enough detail for a wide angle. The image stabilizer works quite well, though, and I also like the manual focusing on this one. It works better than the modern Nikon lenses. So after a lot of testing I ended up with a Nikon 24 - 120 4.0. VR . The image stabilization is excellent for filming. It has a lot of detail - even more than my Nikon 24mm 2.8.. Manual focussing is a problem though - the image "jumps" when you change the direction of the focus ring. A group of lenses is moving sideways. It has a lot of distortion at 24 to about 35 mm. But what is really giving me a headache - it is only a 4.0. By still, i did not find a better solution, so I will stick with that lens for now. By the way - in the very nice Nikon 16 - 35 4.0 VR the image stabilization does not work nearly as effective as in this one. And the 16 - 35 is almost impossible to focus manually, the distances are so close together on the focus ring. Otherwise this would have been my choice. It gives good contrast, distortion is not so bad, and it gives a lot of detail, as you would expect in a wide angle.