Reading mode: Light Dark

Why not IS primes?

Go to last post
Petteri Sulonen said:
However, there's a lot more to a shot than sharpness. Sometimes a
picture is much the stronger if it suggests rather than reveals.
Click to expand...
You could always turn off the IS!
Petteri Sulonen said:
The camera stays in one-shot mode for about a second, more in low
light. Work on your timing, and you should be able to get the shots
just fine.
Click to expand...
I don't have that luxury -- I focus, half-press, recompose and wait for "the look". Often I do this several times per minute, but one second is usually not even close to long enough.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Narrow DOF is something you have to deal with in available-light
photography. There is no silver bullet -- AF is hit-and-miss, and
you won't get it on the nose every time even with a really good
manual-focusing screen and lens either.
Click to expand...
I would sacrifice IS for perfect AF for sure (as if I have the choice!). In other words, if Canon came out with a 300D successor with a way improved AF over the competition, but the competition had IS, I'd probably stay with Canon. Regardless, I think there are a lot of people like me out there who would really benefit from IS. What I can't comment on is who would pay the premium for it. I would like to think enough to make it a profitable gamble for Canon.

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )
 
Ulysses said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
My one niggle with the 1.4 is that the focusing mechanism is a bit
sloppy -- wide-open shooting is somewhat hit-and-miss. Maybe I'm
just imagining that ring USM would automatically make it better,
but, well, sump'n ought to be done about it.
Click to expand...
Petteri, in the bizarro world that I live in, I keep hoping that
Canon comes out with an EF 50mm f/1.2L with ring USM, and that they
make exactly TWO of them, one for me and one for you. Heheh... :-)

Hit and miss. But when it hits, it's OH so beautiful. :-)
Click to expand...
Sure, as long as it's not as big or as expensive as the 1.0L "Yuppie Paperweight." Beyond 1.4, T-stop becomes a problem: the 1.0L actually has a T-stop of around 1.2 (while the 1.4 is still very close to 1.4). IOW, the gain in brightness is about half what it is on paper, and if it costs thousands of dollars and hundreds of grams to get it, I'm not interested.

IOW, I'd settle for 1.4, no L, just a little bit more precise focus and tighter build. Not that I'm really complaining as it is.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
 
The time will come for 1.8 IS.

There will be a market for these lenes.

It would solve most low light problems youd encounter.

I plan my trips around archeology, thus do 50 percent outddor and 50 percent museum shooting.

I goddamn hate badly lit museums. Most of the tiime they do it on purpose so they can sell more of their kitschy gloss catalogues.
 
It sounds good, but I believe that the IS only compensates for slight shake and the small amount of movement that can happen during faster shutter speeds. If you have an IS lens, try taking a slower shutter speed shot and you will see.
--
http://www.pbase.com/dpdata
 
joe mama said:
I don't run Canon, which is a shame (!), so I don't really know how
profitable IS primes would be. Maybe primes as they are are
already a low-profit item.
Click to expand...
Hey man, if you ran Canon, I KNOW I'd buy a lot more from you. Heheh...

Believe me, there are a number of us here who really prefer the Prime Path. It's just not the extremely marketable way to sell lenses, though, in this world of doom and zoom. :-)
joe mama said:
So, I guess I should have titled the thread, "I wish someone made
IS primes for me"! : )
Click to expand...
And for me!!

--

Ulysses
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Ah, I see. However, in that case, what possible advantage would the
hypothetical 50/1.4 IS give you? Sure, the lens is optically a tiny
bit better, but if you're shooting hand-held in low light, the lens
will not be the limiting factor, IS or not.
Click to expand...
1) Low light auto-focus (ok, so the 50/1.4 isn't great in that respect, but the 1.4 ness "should" help the AF).

2) A bright view finder so you can see what you are doing or MF better (also MF snaps in and out of focus more obviously).

3) Stopped down, an f1.4 "should" blow away an f4/5.6, in sharpness and contrast. There is currently no f2.8 IS in the mid-range... I do wish for a 24-70L with IS though!

As to adding the IS to it, shooting on a moving platform such as a boat in low light - a monopod won't cut it at all, only IS will do there. Also, a paper bag might be useful if you haven't got sea legs! :)

Excal
 
castlenut said:
Half-second handheld exposures... mmmmm...
Click to expand...
In my experience, that area is a no go due to mirror slap.
castlenut said:
;-) I guess Canon will never make anything crazy like that, they're
too busy adding more MEGA(@#ucking)PIXELS for those maniacs who...
like to stare at their pixels so much, they can't get enough of
them, 6 million certainly isn't enough.
Click to expand...
They've done a lot more than just add pixels. Besides, the 10D has the best centre density of all of the Canon SLR line-up, so it's excellent for telephoto wildlife etc. But, the 1.6x crop is a pain. Now, to keep the density of pixels AND make it full frame, means you get those pixels and the best of both worlds.

Although, I would kind of like two cameras - a 10D for best telephoto and a full frame with 6-8mp so that I can crank the ISO up more because the pixels would be huge! Actually, scratch that, just give me a 10D density in full frame with a super clean sensor signal:noise ratio! :)

Excal
 
I would be able to shoot at 1/10s as if it were 1/40s, and that makes a big difference. That's what I would pay for.

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )
 
... if you think you need a 50/1.4 with IS, perhaps it would help to re-evaluate your photographic technique first. i don't deny there might be some odd situation where such a lens might come in handy, but in the majority of circumstances the benefit would be so minimal as to be not worthwhile, as others have pointed out. i mean, are you really taking that many handheld shots at ISO1600 f/1.4 1/10s? that is so little light i don't think you'd even be able to see clearly, much less focus on anything. if you are really looking to take the highest quality shots a tripod or at least a monopod is a must anyway.

again, don't mean to troll or offend... i just have not heard this sort of complaint or request from any other photographers. such a lens would seem esoteric at best.
 
tasty donuts said:
... if you think you need a 50/1.4 with IS, perhaps it would help
to re-evaluate your photographic technique first. i don't deny
there might be some odd situation where such a lens might come in
handy, but in the majority of circumstances the benefit would be so
minimal as to be not worthwhile, as others have pointed out. i
mean, are you really taking that many handheld shots at ISO1600
f/1.4 1/10s? that is so little light i don't think you'd even be
able to see clearly, much less focus on anything. if you are really
looking to take the highest quality shots a tripod or at least a
monopod is a must anyway.

again, don't mean to troll or offend... i just have not heard this
sort of complaint or request from any other photographers. such a
lens would seem esoteric at best.
Click to expand...
 
tasty donuts said:
... if you think you need a 50/1.4 with IS, perhaps it would help
to re-evaluate your photographic technique first.
Click to expand...
Without trying to sound arrogant, I really don't think so.
tasty donuts said:
i don't deny
there might be some odd situation where such a lens might come in
handy, but in the majority of circumstances the benefit would be so
minimal as to be not worthwhile, as others have pointed out.
Click to expand...
My circumstances need it. What are my circumstances? Taking tons of snapshots of my daughter and her friends in room lighting -- not so very different than many 300D owners.
tasty donuts said:
I mean, are you really taking that many handheld shots at ISO1600
f/1.4 1/10s? that is so little light i don't think you'd even be
able to see clearly, much less focus on anything.
Click to expand...
This is a big point. IS will allow me to either lower the ISO (substantially) or stop down to allow a greater DOF. You wanted to know if I've taken many "portraits" at f 1.4 at ISO 1600? I've taken a thousand or so at or below f 2 since I got the 300D. Guess how much of an image, if any, is in focus at f 1.4 -- not a lot.

And ISO 1600, whatever anyone else thinks, sucks. It might be better on the 300D than on any other camera in the world, but it sill sucks. ISO 400 is as high as I "like" to go (and even then I can tell it's ISO 400!), but, yes, I do use ISO 1600 because I often have no other choice -- but I don't like it.

A hard choice for me is choosing ISO 400 f 1.4 or ISO 1600 f/2.2. But, with IS it now becomes ISO 400 at f 2.2 -- that's a no-brainer!

Of course, IS doesn't stop action. So what? I'm not asking for a miracle, just for IS which already exists. I have plenty of use for it since I take lots of shots of things and people who are not moving, if even for a moment.

However, Peterri brought up a good point -- AF accuracy. I have assumed that many of my OOF shots were due to the f 1.4. He suggested it was the lack of ring USM. So be it. Then I want both ring USM and IS. If I could choose one over the other, I'd have to try the ring USM to see how good it is. I know how good IS is (from my 28-135 IS) and it's good!
tasty donuts said:
if you are really
looking to take the highest quality shots a tripod or at least a
monopod is a must anyway.
Click to expand...
No can do. Even if I could, I'd rather not -- it's worth a few hundred $$$ not to use one. Here's a sample of some of my pics -- I think you'll agree that a tripod is not going to work (no, not even the sunset -- my wife bitches every time I pull over to take a picture -- "Again? [sigh]")

http://www.saimport.com/images
tasty donuts said:
again, don't mean to troll or offend... i just have not heard this
sort of complaint or request from any other photographers. such a
lens would seem esoteric at best.
Click to expand...
I completely understand your take on the "need" for IS. The reason you've not heard this request before is that the 300D had brought a new class of photographers to DSLR -- snapshooters. Many would prefer that "we" stay with compact digicams, but similar has been said about many classes of people throughout history. I prefer a more pragmatic approach -- Canon broke ground with the 300D by putting DSLRs into the hands of "common snapshooters". This made them bank. They can make more bank by catering to the needs of this new "class". : )

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )
 
even with IS there is a limit to the quality of images you will get with such low lighting of course. contrast and color will tend to suffer, particularly if you are in incandescent lighting. are you that opposed to using a flash? as much as i hate the "look" of flash, if properly done it yields far better photos than dim natural lighting. you could use for a gentle fill effect at the very least, bouncing off a reflector, and get much better pictures in many respects. if you haven't tried a decent flash unit like the 550EX i'd highly recommend one... you might be surprised how "un-flash like" it can look with a little experimentation.

you raise a point about these new generation digital cameras opening up new possibilities and creating a new class of photographers. that's mostly good, but there's also some negatives. please don't take this as a criticism of you personally - i am just speaking in general terms - but i'm going to be honest: even as a relative novice, i've found the work of many of the "new class" of digital photographers on the 'net (here, photo.net, fredmiranda, etc.) to pale in comparison to that of an experienced film person, even at a relatively low amateur level. i'm constantly amazed at how wonderful the very first photos of a new 300D owner can be with just a kit lens and some years of shooting w/a film camera under the belt; and at the same time how mediocre many of the results can be from someone who's owned every digicam under the sun and has myriad L lenses at their disposal.

obviously it's the photographer with a sound understanding of technique - lighting, exposure, composure, etc., regardless of medium - as well as a creative eye who takes the better pictures, and at the risk of being lynched here i'd venture to say that the old-school film boys still have a considerable edge here. it's just experience really, so it's unfair to compare a 1-year digital novice with a 20-year film veteran, but at the same time these film "dinosaurs" have been able to take wonderful pictures for years without ISO800, without IS, without the ability to check their results til days after in the darkroom. i'm all for experimentation and new frontiers but the limitations of the established should still be explored. and this is where i see the random requests of many people here (again, not speaking about you specifically) to be a bit odd. while i think equipment should be tailored to the needs of the user, sometimes people want new gear to fit exactly what they want to do before even probing the full potential of what they already have. perhaps i am just old fashioned, but do we really need this stuff just yet?

i guess i am just a bit paranoid about the "gadget generation," of which i readily admit to being a card-carrying member, spoiling the craft as it becomes more and more accessible to the masses. it's great that digital has given so many people like myself easier access to the joys of the hobby - i would have never found it as easy to get into the hobby with film - but at the same time are we losing something here? was there something to be said for the restrictiveness of film enforcing discipline upon us? is the ease of digital actually reducing our standards of photography? questions that have been bothering me a bit of late...

but i digress from the original argument, apologies. i don't see canon putting IS on a prime lens below 200mm anytime soon. not an idea without merit, but i don't see a large target audience for it.

incidentally, why not just ask for a, oh i don't know, 35-135 f/4 or thereabouts zoom lens with IS that's as good optically as the 50 prime? ;)
 
joe mama said:
My circumstances need it. What are my circumstances? Taking
tons of snapshots of my daughter and her friends in room lighting
-- not so very different than many 300D owners.
Click to expand...
Joe, do you have any samples of what you're talking about here. Tasty is right on this one. Your light levels would have to be so low that your room must be lit by a 40 watt bulb or maybe by the televisioin. :-)

Just how bad is your lighting in there? And you'd really pay a premium for a 50/1.4 with IS for this kind of shot???
joe mama said:
Guess how much of an image, if any, is in focus at f 1.4 -- not a lot.
Click to expand...
I think the recurring question that some of bring up on this one is this: At f/1.4, the 50 really doesn't focus that consistently to begin with. But that's not a camera shake issue at all, and IS wouldn't solve that.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's open the 50 all the way up to f/1.4. Let's turn the ISO up to 800. We'll go with a shutter speed of 1/30 on the assumption that this is our handheld limit on a bad day with no coffee. You ought to be able to shoot in the following situations: Candle lit close-ups, subjects under bright street lamps. Certainly the average night home interiors with average light ought to work.

Put a little Noise Ninja onto that image, and you'd have a great image!
joe mama said:
However, Peterri brought up a good point -- AF accuracy. I have
assumed that many of my OOF shots were due to the f 1.4. He
suggested it was the lack of ring USM. So be it. Then I want both
ring USM and IS. If I could choose one over the other, I'd have to
try the ring USM to see how good it is. I know how good IS is
(from my 28-135 IS) and it's good!
Click to expand...
Heheheh... We want it ALL! So do I, buddy. :-)

But I would explore the 50/1.4 focus issue a bit more. It really can be a hassle in low light.

Another question. Are you really hateful of external bounced flash? That's another nice alternative.
joe mama said:
They can make more bank by catering to the needs of
this new "class". : )
Click to expand...
All I can tell you is that you've had some of the greatest input on this one from guys who have some of the most experience. Not that this at all invalidates your request. But when you've gotten some of the most consistent input on any one topic that I've seen in a long time, I'd tend to evaluate it a bit more thoroughly. :-)

All the best to you, Joe. And I hope we get that lens you describe!

--

Ulysses
 
Hey there, t.d. :-)
tasty donuts said:
even with IS there is a limit to the quality of images you will get
with such low lighting of course. contrast and color will tend to
suffer, particularly if you are in incandescent lighting.
Click to expand...
I suppose this is why I asked the question: In these types of conditions, are these particular types of shots really warranting the added expense? Maybe they do if you feel you're capturing special moments. But my counter to this branch of thought is that what is important is capturing that moment, with another technique if necessary. Not trying to force the moment into the technique that I want.

Hence my agreement with your next question.
tasty donuts said:
that opposed to using a flash? as much as i hate the "look" of
flash, if properly done it yields far better photos than dim
natural lighting.
Click to expand...
Indeed! I've seen it done well. And I've used the technique myself. They can be quite pleasant and certainly yield a higher quality final result. Necessary even, if the conditions are really THAT dim.

I once tried shooting some guests that we had. We were all watching television, the only thing lighting the room. I'd set the camera on a shelf and just let the shutter go for about 1/4 second. The results were interesting, but even with everyone sitting still and enjoying the show, there was so much blur in the shots due to subject motion, the pics were hardly what I'd call truly usable.
tasty donuts said:
please don't take this as a criticism of you personally - i am just
speaking in general terms - but i'm going to be honest:
Click to expand...
Uh-oh... heheheh... Joe is one of the better ones. Most folks, though, don't handle "honest" too well. Heheh... I hope you come out of this one with all your limbs intact. ;-)
tasty donuts said:
i'm all for experimentation
and new frontiers but the limitations of the established should
still be explored. and this is where i see the random requests of
many people here (again, not speaking about you specifically) to be
a bit odd.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree. While I have loads of experience with digicams and general photography, I acknowledge that I'm still relatively new to this new tool of the SLR. And so it only makes sense that I look to the experience of folks like yourself and many others who I won't even name (too many of them) who have contributed to my own knowledge. People thank me often or tell me that they enjoy my pictures. But the truth is that I've benefited from the technique and write-ups of others more experienced than myself. It's like a real school here.

I also find that you can't rely upon just the Internet for your info on technique. You've got to go and do some reading at a library or bookstore or explore some museums.
tasty donuts said:
perhaps i am just old fashioned, but do we really
need this stuff just yet?
Click to expand...
Well, "old fashioned" has worked reliably and with fantastic results for hundreds of years where art is concerned.
tasty donuts said:
was there something to be said for the
restrictiveness of film enforcing discipline upon us? is the ease
of digital actually reducing our standards of photography?
questions that have been bothering me a bit of late...
Click to expand...
Tasty, this was the reason that over a year before actually moving over to the dSLR, I opted to try my hand at a FILM SLR first. My camera of choice? The 1980's Canon AE-1 Program. Built like a tank. I'd shoot and kept trying to "review" my image. Didn't know what I had until I got it developed. I wanted to experience the weight, the feel, the character of the camera. The windowpane-like viewfinder. The sounds. It was fantastic, and probably contributed to the greatest degree to my desire to get a dSLR.

--

Ulysses
 
and obviously you have a flash, so scratch that one out. :)

i like the flashless low light shots; i can see why you might want such a lens as 50/1.4IS, but i think it can still be accomplished with more "conventional" means. tough, but doable. some gentler flash technique could also be worked into some of them.
 
One of my lenses is the 75-300mm IS USM. Shooting at 1/10 does not produce a good image. I believe that the gyros in the IS system are able to compensate for small movements. If you have an IS lense, you will notice that as you move it is able to lock for a brief period of time before moving with the lense. 1/10 shutter speed allows a lot of movement.

Even if this were to work it would only be effective for stationary objects. 1/10 shutter allows for a lot of subject movement (unless that is what you are going for). Since stationary objects would only work, a tripod would be the choice for capturing a great exposure. The ISO could be decreased and proper aperature and shutter speeds could be used. Additionally there was mention of using this for museums, the depth of field at the low aperature settings would be so shallow that you would not be able to take acceptable exposures of 3d objects (sculptures and statues) unless you were trying to highight only a certain part of the piece. In fact, at lower aperature settings, you would not even be able to capture a painting. Flash would be the next alternative.

I understand the idea I have the 50 1.8 and love it, I just don't think that the IS idea works and that is probably why you don't see that type of lense. Also, I think that the reason that you turn the IS off when you are shooting with a tripod is that the IS system is not designed for the longer exposures you shoot with a tripod.

Anyway, great idea, it is just my opinion that it would not be an effective phographic tool.
joe mama said:
I would be able to shoot at 1/10s as if it were 1/40s, and that
makes a big difference. That's what I would pay for.

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS
-- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses
at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dpdata
 
DioDLL said:
One of my lenses is the 75-300mm IS USM. Shooting at 1/10 does not
produce a good image.
Click to expand...
That's the old IS. Shoot the 70-200f/2.8IS at 1/10th and you'll get wonderful results. Yes, you're right there is some float there at longer shutter speeds, but it's very useful at 1/10th.

That being said, there are a lot of other good reasons why a 50f/1.4 will not have IS any time soon.

Jason
 
I've been following this post and thought I'd ask a related question. I've used other film-based SLR systems in the past but I'm fairly new to Canon technology, IS in particular.

Many people on this forum recommend the use of tripods at all times to get the sharpest images. I understand this to mean tripod shooting even in the brightest daylight. Following the same line of thinking, couldn't IS help reduce or eliminate camera shake even at high shutter speeds and short focal lenghts to produce sharper images?

For those of you that have IS lenses, do you leave the IS on at all times? Is there a disadvantage to doing this?

I believe I've seen this mentioned in a thread quite a while ago, but you don't exactly get great results by searching on the string "IS". :-)

I own a 24-70L and I wish it had IS. Even though that's not a long lens, I'd feel more comfortable shooting 70mm @ 2.8 1/60 with IS than without (yes, I know my handholding technique could probably use some improvement too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top