R8-no ibis vs. R6 MKll - Ibis

koenkooi wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

koenkooi wrote:

Looking at your gear list, you have EF-mount IS lenses. Those don't really benefit from IBIS on R-mount cameras. So with your current lenses, IBIS wouldn't add much, if anything.

For non-telephoto non-IS lenses and RF-mount IS lenses, IBIS does add a lot. Your 180mm won't benefit, the EVF will be a bit more stable, that's it.

I wasn't too sure but I think you are saying that EF lenses (any) don't really benefit from IBIS on R lenses. If I have misunderstood I apologise.

We have some EF lenses on R5s, not all owned now but it has covered 24mm to 200mm (and have extenders). Also a 100mm macro.

I'd say it's provided a good improvement over an R generally.

EF lenses with IS in the lens don’t really benefit from IBIS, nor do telephoto lenses without IS.

So, through use and some back to back small experiments we found the R5 provided benifits over the R. More in focus keepers and abile to use slower image capture rates.

So I would have to disagree I would say there shows significant improvements.

The lenses that benefit from IBIS are EF lenses up to 80-ish mm, without IS in the lens. All RF lenses benefit from IBIS, regardless of having IS in the lens or not.

I am not sure I can disprove your second statement but I think there is confusion above

My EF28mm benefits a lot, my EF85 a bit and my EF180 only benefits from less shake in the EVF. The EF100L I had actually performed worse at macro distances, which is why I replaced that one with the RF100.

We use the 2.8 EF macro a lot. The IBIS benefits have been almost lifesaving. I can also use an extender on the EF variant.

I don’t have the steadiest hands in the world, so you might get better results