Canon's new Hybrid IS

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp

It says "The system, which the company claims is a world's first for SLR lenses, will be incorporated into a lens that will be released before the end of 2009. It is designed to offer improved stabilization performance at closer subject distances, and particularly for macro shooting."

I bet this will be very interesting; I wouldn't be surprised, if Canon would include this technology in their revised 24-70/2.8L ...

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

Unless the new HIS system is significantly smaller than the current IS system, incorporation of such system in a 24-70 would make its size unmanageable for such focal length? It may be possible in a new 70-200IS2.8?

Photo_AK said:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp

It says "The system, which the company claims is a world's first for SLR lenses, will be incorporated into a lens that will be released before the end of 2009. It is designed to offer improved stabilization performance at closer subject distances, and particularly for macro shooting."

I bet this will be very interesting; I wouldn't be surprised, if Canon would include this technology in their revised 24-70/2.8L ...

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Or maybe a macro lens.
--
Troy

http://www.pbase.com/Troye413

I think I know why you posted it, but could you be more specific why Nikon users would be interested?

Even though I think I know what you are getting at, maybe you have another thought that I am not following.

Guy Moscoso

Why wouldn't Nikon Photographers be interested in other manufacturers new technology?....I certainly am interested and I'm sure there are others.
Boris
--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

Boris said:

Why wouldn't Nikon Photographers be interested in other manufacturers new technology?....I certainly am interested and I'm sure there are others.
Boris
--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

Click to expand...

Agreed.

True the 70-200 L IS f2.8 is in small quantities and may being replaced although this lens is good and the ancient 100-400 is the one of an urgent update like the 80-400 to improve AF speed, Optics and IS/VR.

Hope Nikon brings something innovative like this development.
--



My Pictures & Web Site: http://www.dltp.co.uk

Agreed very interested as Nikon may bring in similar innovative design in the future...
--



My Pictures & Web Site: http://www.dltp.co.uk

Isn't this what Pentax has been doing via sensor-shift? (correcting for rotational blur?)

perhaphs this is why the 70-200 f/2.8 still hasn't been replaced? As for the question above about why Nikon users might be interested, didn't Canon come up with some of the standard invovations in lenses of the last 15 to 20 years before Nikon?
--
JBerk

go in-body VR, timing is perfect

I agree, but the problem is always that the technology won't arrive to us until we have bought the lens we need or even two lenses later. Isn't that the way it always happens? Like, I don't think that anyone can actually use this information on future lens purchases. Nobody can wait until Nikon gets it. Drooling over Canon technology will only make you feel bad unless you maybe can actually start shooting both systems.

Personally I hope it helps Nikon but I can't imagine it coming for maybe 2 years, right? During that time, hopefully Nikon will have been introducing stuff with whatever they have had on the drawing boards for the last year or so.

The reason I ask is because it seems often a lot of people spend a lot of time wishing for Canon type constant f4 zooms or IS on 24-105 lenses that Nikon doesn't have. This seems to be only one more sore point for people wishing for something they can't have for a good while so I'm not sure how it helps anyone except someone who will move over to Canon, right?

My guess is that the first thing to actually come over to Nikon that Canon already has is VR on lenses like the 24-70. Constant f4 zooms and the new tech talked about here might not even come any time soon.

So other than just knowing what Canon has, why is it important to Nikon shooters? I'm not being snotty- I just want to know if I'm overlooking something and missing how this stuff might come over to us more quickly.

Have lens production techniques improved recently? Has Nikon showed any interest in licensing this technology from Canon?

Guy Moscoso

thomas2279 said:

Agreed very interested as Nikon may bring in similar innovative design in the future...
--

Click to expand...

dbuller said:

Isn't this what Pentax has been doing via sensor-shift? (correcting for rotational blur?)

Click to expand...

Rotational blur (yaw, pitch) is what all systems have been correcting for (and Pentax now also roll).

What's new here is correction for shift blur, which matters at high magnifications, like hand-held macro.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden

No go.

That would undermine the lenses that have VR now, especially the recently released super-expensive, super-zoom professional lenses 400mm and up.

That would be bad mismanagement and bad business sense in general.

Elliot H said:

go in-body VR, timing is perfect

Click to expand...

Going with only Inbody VR and eliminating future "VR" to lenses, IMO, is a dumb idea. I like steady viewfinders when using telephoto lenses. I've been spoiled with this and I'm not giving it up.

On the other hand, including some sort of defeatable (for tripod work) Inbody-VR that activates when a non-VR lens is mounted to the body would be a great addition; while still adding to and/or improving Nikon's current VR lenses.

--
NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

Lens VR won't disappear on those super specialized lenses anytime soon, as its efficiency simply can't be matched by any in-body VR system.

OTOH the fast short primes and wideangle f/2.8 zooms can only be stabilized with an in-body VR. Nikon should admit that and should include in-body VR in future camera's.

HeyItsJoel said:

No go.

That would undermine the lenses that have VR now, especially the recently released super-expensive, super-zoom professional lenses 400mm and up.

That would be bad mismanagement and bad business sense in general.

Click to expand...

--
Frank

Besides, Nikon already has VR 1 and VR II. Why wouldn't they do VR 3? Heck, the 80-400 still sells for a nice amount and its overall system is quite dated.

The reason why this wouldn't be a bad business decision for Nikon is because EVERYONE KNOWS that Nikon is slower than mud to implement anything in FX let alone come out with new lenses that replace their current bests. (Too busy making a zillion 18-XX/X's).

So noone is going to assume that there is ever going to be an 85/1.4 VR3 any time soon. There isn't even an 85/1.4G, let alone a VR 1!

The 17-35 is still selling at a price that would make you think it was cutting edge and its been out forever. I mean who the heck would believe that new technology would ever make Nikon want to actually use it?

More realistically Nikon will implement in a few lenses that seem trendy or are critically ready for replacement or that can be some kind of gimmick in a kit and then it will completely ignore the technology for any lens you actually would want to see it used in for another 5-10 years.

Nikon will probably be selling VR 2 lenses still being sold at nearly current prices when VR 5 is out.

The Nikon Micro 200/4 doesn't even have VR at all and it still sells at full new tech price! Did lack of VR kill stop people from buying the Micro 200/4?

No. Why?

Because if there one thing you can count on -- its Nikon being slower than hell while charging you early adopter prices for 3-20 year old technology. So why would any right-minded Nikonian wait to see what comes out in a year, when they know its going to be nothing for another 5, at least. Most people wont even wait 3 months for what they want right now.

Does Nikon care that its 80-400 doesn't have very good AF? Nah.
Does Nikon care that its 200/m doesn't have VR? Pff.

Does Nikon care that half its line of cameras couldn't even focus an 85/1.4? Nope!

Does Nikon even care that 99% of its FX users might want a new 35mm at the same time as the DX users? Ha! You're dreaming.

Would Nikon care if anybody wanted a VR 3 on their 105/VR, which still feels newish in the lineup despite being years old? Or would Nikon care if anyone wanted a VR 3 on the 24-702.8, which doesn't even have any VR at all?

Don't count on it.

But you can pretty much bet money that there will be an 18-xxx or 55-xxx DX kit lens that will have it sooner than anything else.
--

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA

gmosc said:

I think I know why you posted it, but could you be more specific why Nikon users would be interested?

Even though I think I know what you are getting at, maybe you have another thought that I am not following.

Click to expand...

Hey, come down a bit, it's just a discussion ...

It seems interesting to me, that obviously Canon is working on an IS technology, which will particularly work on lenses with shorter focal lengths and those for macro work ("It is designed to offer improved stabilization performance at closer subject distances, and particularly for macro shooting.").

Because it was written and said for numerous times, that IS/VR doesn't do much on those kind of lenses - when Nikon introduced the new 105/2.8 VR Micro, everybody was asking "who needs VR on a macro lens?" and when Nikon introduced 24-70/2.8 Nikkor, everybody was debating whether this lens should sport a VR function. Many replied it just doesn't need it, because VR doesn't do much with "short" lenses.

Well, Canon obviously listened to their users - I often read Canon-oriented forums and canonites do expect their new 24-70/2.8L to have IS implemeted.

To me it's just interesting, nothing else. There are no hidden intentions, no real expectations, I just wanted to share something that seemed interesting.

Why are some of you so sensitive about these kind of debates? It's about photography, not manufacturers, right?

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

Sabenza said:

Unless the new HIS system is significantly smaller than the current IS system, incorporation of such system in a 24-70 would make its size unmanageable for such focal length?

Click to expand...

Not really. Well, at least HIS doesn't need to be "smaller" than the current IS - Canon's 17-55/2.8 USM IS lens is about 2.5% smaller and 15% lighter than Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 17-55/2.8 without VR ... And Nikon also implemented VR in some consumer relatively small zoom lenses, such as 18-55/3.5-5.6 VR, 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR, 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR ...

So obviously implementing IS/VR in such lenses is not a matter of possibility, but of will, or wanting to.

I really do not understand why Nikon didn't implement VR in the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor; though I do understand, that some don't need or even want it, but hey, some don't need it in 70-200/2.8 VR, too, so this is not, or at least it shouldn't be a reason. In the end this lens does sell for around $1.800, so ... would it be a lesser lens if it'd also sport a VR function? I think not - as a matter of fact I'm sure many would know how to appreciate it.

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

I was just asking. Don't put any more emotion in my words than I wrote.

Read my other post too.

If I read THIS post I seem to notice that you are interested in pointing out that Canon listened to it's users and Nikon didn't. So blame me for reading something into your words. You are sort of twisting the knife in the back of all the people who have argued that VR isn't necessary for macros. Ok so you win. You and Canon are/were right. Now what do you win with that?

Sorry for me analyzing your reason for posting this info. And sorry for highlighting your "Canon listened" snippet more than you probably intended.

Of course I would like VR in every lens and VR in the body too, so I don't see any difference in our expectations. I'm a realist and just don't see how this will help us in the near future.

Later.

Guy Moscoso

Photo_AK said:

gmosc said:

I think I know why you posted it, but could you be more specific why Nikon users would be interested?

Even though I think I know what you are getting at, maybe you have another thought that I am not following.

Click to expand...

Hey, come down a bit, it's just a discussion ...

It seems interesting to me, that obviously Canon is working on an IS technology, which will particularly work on lenses with shorter focal lengths and those for macro work ("It is designed to offer improved stabilization performance at closer subject distances, and particularly for macro shooting.").

Because it was written and said for numerous times, that IS/VR doesn't do much on those kind of lenses - when Nikon introduced the new 105/2.8 VR Micro, everybody was asking "who needs VR on a macro lens?" and when Nikon introduced 24-70/2.8 Nikkor, everybody was debating whether this lens should sport a VR function. Many replied it just doesn't need it, because VR doesn't do much with "short" lenses.

Well, Canon obviously listened to their users - I often read Canon-oriented forums and canonites do expect their new 24-70/2.8L to have IS implemeted.

To me it's just interesting, nothing else. There are no hidden intentions, no real expectations, I just wanted to share something that seemed interesting.

Why are some of you so sensitive about these kind of debates? It's about photography, not manufacturers, right?

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...