Why no prime lens with Image Stabilization

[jesseclee]

Just curious - why aren't there any prime lenses with IS? I'm thinking of supplementing my competent but boring 18-55mm with a faster 35mm or 50mm lens, but I don't think I can live without IS.

 

[Cailean Gallimore]

The logic has been that image stabilisation isn't really needed at short focal lengths, as camera shake becomes more and more obvious as focal length increases. I've never missed image stabilisation with short fast primes as camera shake hasn't been apparent in the work I do - which includes natural/low light indoors. YMMV.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Just curious - why aren't there any prime lenses with IS? I'm thinking of supplementing my competent but boring 18-55mm with a faster 35mm or 50mm lens, but I don't think I can live without IS.

There are but they're long ones like the 200mm f/2 Nikkor. Short primes are pretty full of glass and there apparently is no place you can put a stabilizing group such that you don't lose sharpness as it moves to correct for shaking.

You need to go to a camera with in-body stabilization if you really really need IS on a 50mm.
--
Leonard Migliore

 

[Deleted1929]

I don't think I can live without IS

The rule to avoid shake is a shutter speed of 1/

At short focal lengths this is a very slow shutter speed, far less than you would need to avoid motion blur. So typically you don't need IS with short focal lengths because you'll need a high enough shutter speed anyway to avoid motion blur..

--
StephenG

 

[jesseclee]

sgjt:

What is that rule for avoiding shaking again? It seems like your sentence got cut off there.

 

[mikeval]

The rule is 1/focal length. So if you are using a 200mm lens, your minimum shutter speed should be 1/200 sec.

Like all "rules" it should be taken as a guide - some people may need a faster speed, others may manage to take sharp pics at half that speed.

 

[sherwoodpete]

The rule is 1/focal length. So if you are using a 200mm lens, your minimum shutter speed should be 1/200 sec.

That's 1/ (35mm equivalent focal length)

i.e. the crop factor needs to be taken into account. Typically with a 1.5x crop factor, that means 1/300 sec with a 200mm lens.

Like all "rules" it should be taken as a guide - some people may need a faster speed, others may manage to take sharp pics at half that speed.

Agreed.

 

[Chris R-UK]

Canon has about 9 primes with IS, but the shortest is 100mm and that is a macro lens.
--
Chris R

 

[rek101]

I see canon has introduced a 35mm 2.0 that has it. It costs over 800 dollars vs. the optically similar non IS lens which costs about $250 refurbished or 300 new.

Frustratingly, I think most people simply won't buy it because it's so much more money, yet the results are unquestionably better. If you want to see for yourself, check out some video footage with the Canon 35mm IS 2.0. Or put a 1.4 50mm lens on a Pentax or Sony stabilized body and see the difference for yourself.

Someone will release a 50mm 1.4 stabilized lens and charge over 800 and people will buy it. I just wonder how many more people would buy it if they charged $400. I think Canon and Nikon are used to charging double for their stabilized lenses, but they make an exception for kit lenses which cost around $160. I wish each platform would produce a 1.8 50mm optically awesome stabilized lens for around $250. The pros could pay more for a 1.4 or 1.2, but the amateurs could get a full frame sensor camera and a fast stabilized prime for right around 2K. That is how to showcase these high quality sensors and grow the market imho.

 

[dsjtecserv]

jesseclee wrote:

Just curious - why aren't there any prime lenses with IS? I'm thinking of supplementing my competent but boring 18-55mm with a faster 35mm or 50mm lens, but I don't think I can live without IS.

Canon has an EF 24 mm IS, EF 28 mm IS, EF 35 mm IS, and numerous primes of 100 mm and over that are IS. (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup) You can go on living.

Dave

 

[Atgard]

I do find the in-body image stabilization (Sony) very helpful, even on my 50mm prime. I get some sharp shots at 1/8th or even as slow as 1/4th sometimes, which I know I couldn't do without IBIS. It was a big selling point for me in choosing Sony. I think I would miss it in other brands with lenses that lacked IS/VR.

I'm not sure why they don't add them to primes, maybe it would add too much bulk or cost and they think people don't want it enough? But if they put IS on an 18-55mm lens, I'm not sure why they think it wouldn't be just as useful on a 50mm prime.

 

[Skipper494]

The Samsung 60 macro is a prime lens with OIS

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Atgard wrote:

I do find the in-body image stabilization (Sony) very helpful, even on my 50mm prime. I get some sharp shots at 1/8th or even as slow as 1/4th sometimes, which I know I couldn't do without IBIS. It was a big selling point for me in choosing Sony. I think I would miss it in other brands with lenses that lacked IS/VR.

I'm not sure why they don't add them to primes, maybe it would add too much bulk or cost and they think people don't want it enough? But if they put IS on an 18-55mm lens, I'm not sure why they think it wouldn't be just as useful on a 50mm prime.

In the years since this thread was started, Canon has come out with some short-focal length stabilized primes. They're big and expensive, so your conjectures are correct. It's a lot harder to stabilize a fast lens than a slow lens, which is why you can get a cheap stabilized 18-55 f/3.5-f/5.6.

 

[Atgard]

Ah, interesting info, thanks. I didn't know it was more difficult to stabilize large aperture lenses. (And I didn't notice it was such an old thread!)

 

[AlbertTheLazy]

Something many people fail to understand is that stabilisation is only useful for static subjects. If you want to photograph the Sistine Chapel roof hand-held then IS will give you a few stops advantage.

If you are shooting people, or any other moving subject at a low shutter speed then,at best (!), IS will give you a sharp background with a blurred subject.

But then I use a 450mm FF equivalent lens without IS...

 

[RMGoodLight]

Image stabilization is more than just a nice gizmo.

• stabilized primes: Most primes are are very bright compared to zoom lenses. Take a inexpensive 50mm F1.8 prime vs. a expensive and bulky stabilized F2.8 standard zoom. The zoom lets you take pictures down to 1/20s the prime provides sharp unshaken images from 1/60s. Believe it or not but you can use the zoom in darker situations as the prime. The zoom has an advantage of 1/3 stop over the prime here. If the prime was stabilized the prime would gain an advantage of a full stop over the zoom but only with stabilization. So you can use a bright stabilized prime in dimmer light than unstabilized ones.
• stabilized short primes: Even short primes (for example a 24mm) gain from stabilization. Even the 1/focal length rule produces shaken images. Image stabilization takes care of it. You only have to worry for motion blur. For portrait (people photography) I use 1/80s. In very dim light I might go down to 1/30s - 1/20s. You can get motion blur free candid images at those low shutter speed. Most people are willing to hold still a second for taking a photo. But to use this times without camera shake I need image stabilization even with a short prime.
• stabilized EVF: This feature is loved by a lot Olympus camera users. When looking at the EVF or LCD screen the preview image is stabilized too. This is very helpful for long lenses because your handshake makes it hard to compose the image with long lenses.

 

[Jon Tr]

I see canon has introduced a 35mm 2.0 that has it. It costs over 800 dollars vs. the optically similar non IS lens which costs about $250 refurbished or 300 new.

Frustratingly, I think most people simply won't buy it because it's so much more money, yet the results are unquestionably better. If you want to see for yourself, check out some video footage with the Canon 35mm IS 2.0. Or put a 1.4 50mm lens on a Pentax or Sony stabilized body and see the difference for yourself.

Someone will release a 50mm 1.4 stabilized lens and charge over 800 and people will buy it. I just wonder how many more people would buy it if they charged $400. I think Canon and Nikon are used to charging double for their stabilized lenses, but they make an exception for kit lenses which cost around $160. I wish each platform would produce a 1.8 50mm optically awesome stabilized lens for around $250. The pros could pay more for a 1.4 or 1.2, but the amateurs could get a full frame sensor camera and a fast stabilized prime for right around 2K. That is how to showcase these high quality sensors and grow the market imho.

I have both the old and new canon 35mm F2.0 lenses.

They are not optically similar, the new lens is much better in all regards including build quality.

 

[golfhov]

2011 dude

 

[Mark B.]

2011 dude

Actually it was RMgoodlight that resurrected it. I still say old threads should be automatically archived. It's very rare that resurrecting an old thread is helpful; far more often it's just a nuisance.

 

[chuxter]

2011 dude

Actually it was RMgoodlight that resurrected it. I still say old threads should be automatically archived. It's very rare that resurrecting an old thread is helpful; far more often it's just a nuisance.

I think we should make RM take this thread and wear it around his neck for 2 years? ;-)