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?
