Why no IS for primes?

[slydog]

I was just wondering why Canon doesn't have IS on any of it's primes below 100mm? (Actually until last month I think it was none with IS below 200mm)

I understand that it is of more benefit to the longer focal lengths, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be incredibly useful for the mid-range or even wide primes.

When indoors using available light, even when shooting at 24mm or 35mm wide open the shutter speed often needs to be 1/10 or 1/4 sec - and that's with ISO at 400 or 800. That's usually way to slow to hand hold. Ok you might get a few
keepers, but it's not great.

I mean we have a 17-55 IS, and everyone raves about the IS and how useful it is on that lens. Yet the corresponding prime focal lengths have no IS.

Do you think it's just a matter of time before we see one?

Would anyone else love to see a 35L IS? (or even 24L IS, or 85/1.8 IS)

 

[onetwothree123]

Probably because 1. they want to minimize the number of elements, 2. the low f-step already gives the glass a lot of speed and 3. most shooters in the target segment would be using them on a tripod. Plus, I'm not sure that a IS would help much in low light with a wide-open lens - too many variables in play. Also goes without saying that it keeps the costs down and profits up.

 

[tkbslc]

Too much work and expense for not enough benefit and demand, IMO. Very few subject hold still for less than 1/FL when you are talking shorter primes. I think the 135L could definitely use it. They just added it to the 100mm macro, but shorter than that and you are going to have subject motion issues anyway.

You might look at pentax or Sony, though, with the in-body IS. Pentax has a pretty good prime selection and Sony is getting there.

 

[Stan LS]

In body IS would be nice.

 

[Bill MacBeth]

I was just wondering why Canon doesn't have IS on any of it's primes below 100mm?

Very interesting question.

Primes tend to be faster, which would imply a lesser need for IS, but --- pushing the depth of field requirement combined with operation in low light produces a need for IS.

Maybe the answer is as simple as a low market demand for short primes compared to short zooms. The addition of IS would certainly increase the cost. Would you rather have that development money invested in in-body IS? Or a better focus system? Or ...?

Regards, Bill

 

[tkbslc]

I was just wondering why Canon doesn't have IS on any of it's primes below 100mm?

Very interesting question.

Primes tend to be faster, which would imply a lesser need for IS, but --- pushing the depth of field requirement combined with operation in low light produces a need for IS.

But if you want slower lenses for more DOF, then there are CHEAP zooms with IS. So why would you wast your money on a prime? ONce you get past about f4, there is little reason to even use a prime. I mean the 18-55 IS and 55-260 IS are just as sharp as most of the lower end Canon primes at f5.6-8

 

[slydog]

3. most shooters in the target segment would be using them on a tripod.

Why do you say that? I agree with the first 2 points but not that. Almost all my short prime shots are hand-held indoors. I would think there are loads of people who shoot the same. I'm not talking wide angle architechture/landscape shots - just standard 24-50mm shots indoors.

Plus, I'm not sure that a IS would help much in low light with a wide-open lens - too many variables in play.

What about the example I mentioned? 24mm or 35mm, wide open, indoors in available light, ISO 400 or 800. I sometimes still need a shutter speed as slow as 1/10 sec or less. And that's not an unusual example. It comes up all the time and is a real problem - usually resulting in using the flash. Yuk.

Also goes without saying that it keeps the costs down and profits up.

True, but again, why do they give us IS for almost every EF-S zoom ever produced, plus most of the recent EF zooms. The same thing could be said for them, but it doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

[slydog]

Once you get past about f4, there is little reason to even use a prime.

As I mentioned in a reply above, that's not true for me. I shoot a lot indoors in available light, and there are LOTS of occasions where I really wished I had IS.

Shooting at 24 or 35mm I can open the lens up completely and bump the ISO up to 400 or 800 and the shutter speed still needs to be way slower than the 1/30sec needed for a handheld shot. Sometimes as slow as 1/4 sec. That just doesn't cut it and I have to use the flash.

The cheapo 18-55 kit lens has IS, and that lens is still quite sharp and costs about $100, so cost doesn't seem to be a problem.

I admit the times when it is needed are less than for longer lenses, but if they're throwing it into EVERY EF-S zoom that comes out for almost no cost, then I was just wondering why not a prime too. Not every prime, but just one or 2 even.

 

[Steve Patterson]

I think it is an excellent question. In low light and slow shutter speeds, IS makes a big difference. And I agree about many short lenses being handheld much of the time. I find the IS on the 24-105 to be a big plus, even at shorter focal lengths. I have used this photo before to illustrate the point.

This was taken at 1/15s @ 35mm. I used f/5.6 and couldn't really have used much less dof. I used iso1250...pushing the limit on the 40D. I don't think this photo would have worked without the IS...my hands just aren't that steady. By the time I grabbed a tripod the dog would have moved. A 35mm with IS, or 50mm, or 85mm with IS would all be welcomed by me. I think IS is great in the right situation.....



--
steve
Please visit my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/spatterson

 

[jitteringjr]

I agree here. IS would be nice. Canon/Nikon claim that their in lens IS systems work better than the Sony/Pentax in body systems. Well not if they don't make the lenses with IS. I have no regrets going with Canon, but a 50/1.4 USM(ring) IS would be nice wouldn't it?

 

[Frank Dernie]

If you look at the lens diagram of lenses shorter than 100mm there are not any gaps big enough between elements to fit in the IS module. It could also be an accuracy issue, the relative positions of the elements in wide angle lenses need to be more closely controlled than telephotos to achieve good optical performance. Even with multi element telephoto and zoom IS lenses there seems to be considerable sample variation, maybe with WA lenses in body IS is the only solution.

OTOH having tried both I really miss the stabilised view one gets in the viewfinder with an IS lens which, of course, is not available when the IS is in the body.

 

[mattclark04]

Adding IS to a wide/short tele prime would make it bigger, or just be really hard, does anyone make such a thing?

But there are countless times I've wanted a stabilised prime, to the extent I'll be getting an Oly E-P1 (or P2, timing dependent) + Panasonic 20/1.7 just for that reason.

The best compromise surely would be for Canon to add in-body stabilisation, and just turn it off for lenses that either have built-in IS or are too long for in-body IS to be practical (the physical distances involved in shifting the sensor to stabilise a 400mm lens are just too large).

Both kinds of IS have their place, why can't we have both in one system?

 

[Ben_Egbert]

Well there is probably less market demand for IS on wider primes. Fast wide primes are probably used more by pros or advanced ameatures (cost factor) and slow wide primes like the new TSE lenses will never have IS, or even AF for that matter.

Canon had a major problem below 35mm with corner sharpness. This made it difficult to get maximum benifit from 21mpixel cameras, they have now solved this with the release of the 14 mk2, 24f1.4mk2 and the 17 and 24TSE mk2's.

Now that these issues are solved, they could probably concentrate on less immediate issues like IS in the range.

I suspect that IS will make it's way into most non specialty lenses over time, just like air conditioning for automobiles. I can remember when radios and heaters were optional equipment.

--
http://ben-egbert.smugmug.com/

Ben

 

[poldie]

Too much work and expense for not enough benefit and demand, IMO. Very few subject hold still for less than 1/FL when you are talking shorter primes. I think the 135L could definitely use it. They just added it to the 100mm macro, but shorter than that and you are going to have subject motion issues anyway.

You might look at pentax or Sony, though, with the in-body IS. Pentax has a pretty good prime selection and Sony is getting there.

Also, in the same way that IS is not recommended for tripod shots, you might find that IS on really wide apertures does more harm than good. And Canon is fond of charging a very steep premium for IS - the Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM is £880 on amazon(uk) vs £492.00 for the non-IS one.

 

[Thomas Kachadurian]

Here's my theory. Canon hasn't made a Non-L prime in ages. I think every one of them is at least 10 years old, maybe more. The last L prime was the 50mm f1.2 and I'm guessing that IS would make that WAY too complicated and over $2,000.

If, and it's a big if, they update the 135f2 I'll bet is gets IS. But look at even the 50mm f1.4, which is a lens with serious problems getting it's but kicked by the Sigma version of the same. They could update it to ring USM, tweak the formula and add IS and even at about $700 it would sell like hotcakes, maybe even hurt the 50L. Even a 50mm f1.8 USM IS would be a sales killer.

How about a 35mm f2 USM IS. I'm drooling just thinking about it.

Canon seems to be out of the non-L prime business, and I think their shorter L primes are the super fast lenses where IS would be hardest to implement.

I think we'll see IS primes under 200mm when someone else does it first and they have to, look at the 100mm Macro L, Canon could have done that years ago but didn't until Nikon had the Micro VR and then they had to.

I hope I'm wrong because I'd love a whole line of IS primes and would buy every one of them.

Tom

http://www.kachadurian.com

 

[jitteringjr]

"The last L prime was the 50mm f1.2"

The 24/1.4 II was more recent.

 

[Thomas Kachadurian]

"The last L prime was the 50mm f1.2"

The 24/1.4 II was more recent.

Good point, but the same thing applies. I think we'll see IS on the super fast lenses last.

Do you happen to know when the last non-L prime was created or updated. Last thing I remember was about 10 years ago when they downgraded the 50mm f1.8 from a metal mount to the plastic one.

Tom

http://www.kachadurian.com

 

[jitteringjr]

Do you happen to know when the last non-L prime was created or updated. Last thing I remember was about 10 years ago when they downgraded the 50mm f1.8 from a metal mount to the plastic one.

EF28/1.8 September 1995

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/wide/ef_28_18_usm.html

The EF50/1.8 II is 19 years old not 10 years (see other links to page above)

I think the next prime we will see is the EF35/1.4 L II based on the age of the other L primes. 135L is due too.

 

[maiaibing]

I was just wondering why Canon doesn't have IS on any of it's primes below 100mm? (Actually until last month I think it was none with IS below 200mm)

Sad fact of life. Their great prime line-up just needs in-body IS to fly.

I understand that it is of more benefit to the longer focal lengths

, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be incredibly useful for the mid-range or even wide primes.
Yes, yes, yes.

Do you think it's just a matter of time before we see one?

I would be amazed if the intro of video did not force Canon to comply with the needs of their customers. Who in their right mind would even consier a video cam without IS??? However, there is always SONY, Olympus etc. to consider...

This week I went with my wife to the mountains. I'd say about 20% of her pictures with the 5Dii would have been saved by IS.

 

[Montana500]

Not much charm in that when most lenses don't have "it".