Look at Canon:
70-200/f4 vs 70-200/f4 IS
70-200/f2.8 vs 70-200/f2.8 IS
The price for VR/IS is significant!!!
Yes, I know this example is often brought up. But it is actually a rather moot point. Canon has four models since they know that having many similar models mean larger numbers sold in total (a well establised fact in retail), and if you choose to have both stabilized and unstablized versions you need to diffirentiate them according to price. This is a marketing decision, and has very little to do with cost of manufacturing.
i agree and disagree with this.
canon is, again, in a different position than nikon. canon's line of telephotos differes from nikons slightly, but that slight difference makes a huge impact in how they sell their lenses.
i disagree that it's simply a marketing decision to differentiate the two lenses. although i agree that it's probably not an increased manufacturing cost. however, it is an increased cost of DESIGN. the 70-200 f/4L came out in, what, 1995? that lens has been on the market for more than 10 years. it has paid for itself and then some. it's still a wonderful lens, it's still a demanded lens, and it still sells.
the 70-200 f/4L IS, however, was only released a few years ago (i forget the exact dates). most likely, canon is still paying for all the R&D costs associated with designing and devloping this new lens. it's a simple fact that the IS version is a brand new lens and the standard version is an old design.
this is another reason why canon simply canno afford to put IS systems in its bodies. they are trying to make a profit. if they suddenly came out with a rebel camera body with in-body IS, what happens to the sales of all of their 70-200 f/4L ISs? they plummet, because everyone buys the '95 70-200 f/4L model for half the price.
a lot of people say things like "canon (or nikon, whomever) just wants profits, there's no way they would do that", and YES, our camera manufacturers are businesses, but you have to realize that if canon doesn't make profits, canon doesn't make ANY new lenses. if nikon doesn't turn a profit, nikon sells their camera division. that type of thing.
so you can't have it both ways. if canon came out with in-body IS they are basically shooting themselves in the foot. their profits and stocks will fall, they'll have to raise prices just to stay afloat. it's not a win-win situation.
FINALLY i have a serious question to ask --- if in-body IS is really that much superior, then how come canon and nikon remain the two most dominant camera manufacturers? now there can be several arguments made --- pros already invested in the canon system, better name recognition, other features, blah blah blah. these are all good points, BUT, i think that if in-body IS were really that special that it would have made a bigger splash.
and i'm not saying that sony, olympus, pentax, etc. make bad cameras. but they certainly don't sell as much as nikon and canon do.
i wonder if we are going to be asking the same thing in a few years about 3D TV? "why doesn't every TV have 3D? you can just turn it off if you don't want it" because i have a feeling (well, a hope) that 3D TV is not going to catch on.
