Why not IS primes?

[joe mama]

I love my 50mm f 1.4, but I'd love it a lot more if it had IS. I mean, the 28-135 IS is only considered a truly useful lens because of the IS, no? Optically, while good, it's nothing great, but the IS turns good into great.

If you're taking lots of handheld low light shots, there is no substitute for IS -- not even opening wider since that will often make the DOF too shallow.

I don't see how image quality would be degraded, either. You could turn off the IS to "lock" then glass for a sharper image, but I saw no difference with my 28-135 on or off IS (so I just use IS all the time now). Regardless, I imagine prime lenses to be much simpler than zooms, so the IS implementation should be simpler.

Of course, an IS camera is a "better" solution (although it's interesting to wonder if an IS lens on an IS camera would be even more effective -- not that the amount of tolerated shake would improve, but the effectiveness at combatting the same amount of shake).

So, what are the arguments against it?

--
--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 !

: )

 

[DavidP #28649]

300/4 IS
300/2.8 IS
400/2.8 IS
400/4 DO IS
500/4 IS
600/4 IS

--
http://www.outboundmusic.com
Your link to independent music!

 

[Stan]

If you use a "normal" lens on a Rebel/10D, that would be about 50 mm effective so the 35 F2 might be considered pretty close. Really close since the true focal length for the same perspective as we see is around 55-58 mm (35 effective).

At that focal length it's easy to get good sharp shots wide open with around a 1/50th shutter speed. Often you can go quite a bit slower if you are careful.

So in a sense the faster shutter speeds allowed by the wider aperture primes is your IS.

Stan

 

[fred vachss]

The main argument against IS is that you have to add lens elements to provide this enhanced capability. Adding elements makes for a heavier lens with potentially reduced contrast and greater flare susceptibility. Compare the number of elements in the 300 f4 and the IS version. This is one reason why some folks still prefer the older non-IS lens.

That said, a 24mm f1.4 IS would have pretty impressive low-light hand-holdability.

Fred Vachss

 

[Tessarboy]

I'd buy the 50mm f1.4 IS.
Allright, an 80 f2.0 IS would even be more convenient.
I'd certainly buy that one. I love low light photography.
I agree that applications for those lenses are limited.
But right now i could use one for opera and theater shots.
Tessar-boy

I love my 50mm f 1.4, but I'd love it a lot more if it had IS. I
mean, the 28-135 IS is only considered a truly useful lens because
of the IS, no? Optically, while good, it's nothing great, but the
IS turns good into great.

If you're taking lots of handheld low light shots, there is no
substitute for IS -- not even opening wider since that will often
make the DOF too shallow.

I don't see how image quality would be degraded, either. You could
turn off the IS to "lock" then glass for a sharper image, but I saw
no difference with my 28-135 on or off IS (so I just use IS all the
time now). Regardless, I imagine prime lenses to be much simpler
than zooms, so the IS implementation should be simpler.

Of course, an IS camera is a "better" solution (although it's
interesting to wonder if an IS lens on an IS camera would be even
more effective -- not that the amount of tolerated shake would
improve, but the effectiveness at combatting the same amount of
shake).

So, what are the arguments against it?

--
--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 !

: )

--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

 

[PicOne]

Would love to see IS in the 85/f1.8 or 135mm f2... Talk about fast...

Problem with lower FL and IS is that you maybe able to handhold a 50mm at 1/8 sec but you'd really have to have a static subject to avoid their motion blur.

The main argument against IS is that you have to add lens elements
to provide this enhanced capability. Adding elements makes for a
heavier lens with potentially reduced contrast and greater flare
susceptibility. Compare the number of elements in the 300 f4 and
the IS version. This is one reason why some folks still prefer the
older non-IS lens.

That said, a 24mm f1.4 IS would have pretty impressive low-light
hand-holdability.

Fred Vachss

 

[Stan]

...supposedly. Because several DSLRs are being designed with the IS built into the camera body. So then it would help ANY lense. This is not a strategy that Canon is embracing.

Stan

 

[Ulysses]

I love my 50mm f 1.4, but I'd love it a lot more if it had IS.

Generally speaking, you don't see IS in lenses that do not stretch into the at least the low telephoto range. The reason partly is because as you increase your telephoto range, it becomes increasingly difficult to hand-hold the lens even at relatively decent shutter speeds. You're just magnifying the hand shake imparted from hand to lens.

mean, the 28-135 IS is only considered a truly useful lens because
of the IS, no? Optically, while good, it's nothing great, but the
IS turns good into great.

Pretty much true.

I don't see how image quality would be degraded, either. You could
turn off the IS to "lock" then glass for a sharper image, but I saw
no difference with my 28-135 on or off IS (so I just use IS all the
time now). Regardless, I imagine prime lenses to be much simpler
than zooms, so the IS implementation should be simpler.

Heheh... you would think. Still, Canon saves it for their more far-reaching and their better lenses.

So, what are the arguments against it?

Probably just cost.

--

Ulysses

 

[Tessarboy]

I dont see a general problem here.

With the opera and theater shooting I mentioned, motion blurr can be avoided by carefully choosing the moment. It may even give a pleasing effect. But all this only on the condition that the surrounding scene is not blurred, for which IS would be of great help in this low light environment.
rgds, Tessarboy

Problem with lower FL and IS is that you maybe able to handhold a
50mm at 1/8 sec but you'd really have to have a static subject to
avoid their motion blur.

The main argument against IS is that you have to add lens elements
to provide this enhanced capability. Adding elements makes for a
heavier lens with potentially reduced contrast and greater flare
susceptibility. Compare the number of elements in the 300 f4 and
the IS version. This is one reason why some folks still prefer the
older non-IS lens.

That said, a 24mm f1.4 IS would have pretty impressive low-light
hand-holdability.

Fred Vachss

--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

 

[joe mama]

--
--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 !

: )

 

[joe mama]

At that focal length it's easy to get good sharp shots wide open
with around a 1/50th shutter speed. Often you can go quite a bit
slower if you are careful.

as low as even 1/2 s (I've gotten a few sharp shots with my 28-135 IS even at that speed -- handheld) but certainly at 1/10 s.

So in a sense the faster shutter speeds allowed by the wider
aperture primes is your IS.

Except it makes the DOF too shallow. But, even then, with IS, you could open up and have IS (although, I think IS hits a practical limit at around 1/2 s regardless).

Of course, I realize that IS won't help for moving subjects, but as another person said in this thread, even moving subjects pause -- and then you get your shot. I do it all the time!

--
--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 !

: )

 

[Paul Boothroyd]

...supposedly. Because several DSLRs are being designed with the
IS built into the camera body. So then it would help ANY lense.
This is not a strategy that Canon is embracing.

Stan

--
Yet, that we know of.

Paul

 

[joe mama]

So, what are the arguments against it?

Probably just cost.

Doesn't seem like a lot of cost, though. I'm thinking $100 for a prime -- is that reasonable? I mean a 50mm f 1.4 IS for $400?! I'm there! And, in all honesty, I'd pay even more -- it would be far more valuable to me than the 17-40L (which I don't have) and that costs $700.

--
--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 !

: )

 

[Stan]

...was my impression that Canon felt that it's better to do IS in the lens itself.

Stan

 

[joe mama]

This is not a strategy that Canon is embracing.

...it would be hard to think other manufacturers would go that route and not Canon. That would cost them a lot. They'd have to have something really spectacular to make people give up built-in IS. I bet most of the 300D owners do not have a substantial investment, if any, in lenses to keep them from switching platforms -- that's more a dilemma for the pros.

To some extent, I feel the 300D was more an experiement than anything else -- would "regular" people buy a $1000 DSLR? As overwhelming as the response has been, I would expect that they would cater to the needs of us non-professionals since we are a big market.

You know the saying -- "I Coke won't do it, there's always Pepsi!"

--
--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 !

: )

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

Here are a bunch of reasons you will not see that:

1) You will not see an IS 50f/1.4 because the simple symmetric gaussian design could not be accomplished. Instead, you'd have a lens like the 35f/1.4, which costs 4x the price. So, if you want a $1100 50f/1.4IS then they could do it. If you wanted a $400 50mm lens it'd be a 50f/2.8 IS.

2) IS is inherently less useful at shorter focal lengths due to subject motion. The shutter speed needed with a 400mm lens and IS is 1/100th. This still stops the subject pretty well. The shutter speed needed for a 50mm lens is 1/13th. This would have a lot greater change of subject motion. So, it's just less useful. It's not useless by any means, but less useful. Less useful means less value for the consumer and less reason to drastically run up the cost.

3) Primes are not a major focus of Canon (or Nikon) right now. Zooms are the big sellers. The BWLs are an exception IMO. I'm a fan of primes, but they just aren't as flashy and don't seem to get the R&D $.

Jason

I love my 50mm f 1.4, but I'd love it a lot more if it had IS. I
mean, the 28-135 IS is only considered a truly useful lens because
of the IS, no? Optically, while good, it's nothing great, but the
IS turns good into great.

If you're taking lots of handheld low light shots, there is no
substitute for IS -- not even opening wider since that will often
make the DOF too shallow.

I don't see how image quality would be degraded, either. You could
turn off the IS to "lock" then glass for a sharper image, but I saw
no difference with my 28-135 on or off IS (so I just use IS all the
time now). Regardless, I imagine prime lenses to be much simpler
than zooms, so the IS implementation should be simpler.

Of course, an IS camera is a "better" solution (although it's
interesting to wonder if an IS lens on an IS camera would be even
more effective -- not that the amount of tolerated shake would
improve, but the effectiveness at combatting the same amount of
shake).

So, what are the arguments against it?

--
--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 !

: )

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

I love my 50mm f 1.4, but I'd love it a lot more if it had IS. I
mean, the 28-135 IS is only considered a truly useful lens because
of the IS, no? Optically, while good, it's nothing great, but the
IS turns good into great.

Would you be willing to throw in an extra $250 and an extra 150 grams for it? I wouldn't.

If you're taking lots of handheld low light shots, there is no
substitute for IS -- not even opening wider since that will often
make the DOF too shallow.

Sure, there's a substitute -- called a monopod.

[snip]

So, what are the arguments against it?

Cost. Weight. Usefulness.

With a 50/1.4 and ISO800, I can shoot hand-held down to candlelight (or close to it, anyway). I can hand-hold ree-e-e-asonably well down to 1/20 with a bit of luck and something to lean against. IS would drop this to maybe 1/10 or 1/6. At this speed, subject motion would be the limiting factor. IOW, I think the gain would be very minor, and the cost (price, weight, maintenance) would be high.

OTOH, if they upgraded the 50/1.4 with ring USM, I would be interested.

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

 

[Ulysses]

Doesn't seem like a lot of cost, though. I'm thinking $100 for a
prime -- is that reasonable? I mean a 50mm f 1.4 IS for $400?!
I'm there! And, in all honesty, I'd pay even more -- it would be
far more valuable to me than the 17-40L (which I don't have) and
that costs $700.

May not sound like a lot, but multiply that over the thousands of units they'd need to produce, plus the risk of not selling as many units due to the cost increase....

I don't know. Some would pay for it, but I doubt that most would justify the cost.

--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

2) IS is inherently less useful at shorter focal lengths due to
subject motion.

This is pretty much what I was thinking. You generally wouldn't see the effective benefits of IS in the normal or wider lenses.

3) Primes are not a major focus of Canon (or Nikon) right now.
Zooms are the big sellers. The BWLs are an exception IMO. I'm a
fan of primes, but they just aren't as flashy and don't seem to get
the R&D $.

Yes, it didn't take much time before I became a fan, too.

But help me out here: BWLs? Is that "Big Wide Lenses"? ;-)

--

Ulysses

 

[Povl H. Pedersen]

Of course, an IS camera is a "better" solution (although it's
interesting to wonder if an IS lens on an IS camera would be even
more effective -- not that the amount of tolerated shake would
improve, but the effectiveness at combatting the same amount of
shake).

So, what are the arguments against it?

IS in the camera can be done like with video. Large sensor, use only middle, image processing to do the IS. This would suck though, as that would mean many single frames would have to be combines.

The gyro thingie would not really work, since it does not know how far out the lens is sticking. Not sure if it is enough to use focal length infor for this, or if physical length must be taken into account.

Basicly, we have yet only seen it in fixed lens cameras, including video (which does use the image processing tech).