IS vs. VR

[isaac sibson]

I am a Canon user, and I own a 300mm F4L IS. I have used a 100-400 L IS also. Thus, I am very familiar with IS, and also it's limitations, etc.

 

<p>

 

What I want to know, is how does VR stack up to IS. I am looking for genuine input, not a flame war. Someone who is familiar with VR could answer my questions:

 

<p>

 

1. Canon's IS works on any Canon EOS body. Nikon's VR ONLY works on the 5 point AF bodies (F5, F100, F80, D1X, etc). Why is this?

 

<p>

 

2. Canon's IS works on gyros in the lens, detecting the lens movement. How have Nikon done it, if it requires something of the AF system? If it requires something of the AF system, how does it work with the shutter open? Or is it just that only those more recent bodies can operate the lens?

 

<p>

 

3. Some combinations of Canon IS lenses and teleconverters and bodies do not work, and IS is disabled. However, with newer bodies, IS is not lost with TCs, regardless of aperture, even if AF is inoperative (I think. If I'm wrong, please correct me, and point me to the information). Nikon VR is lost with TCs, with the few bodies that can use it anyway (ie Nikon's most recent ones). Why is VR sensitive to aperture in this way (ie similar to AF, going back to question 2)?

 

<p>

 

4. Why was AF-S not integrated into the lens also? Is there some problem with the mechanics or battery drain of having both systems in the lens? Or is it purely to do with the fact that AF-S is very expensive, and so is VR, so to have put both features into a lens that is too slow (at the short end at least) for the pro market, would have priced it out of the amateur market?

 

<p>

 

5. Why was VR not incorporated into the second series of AF-S super-tele lenses? As to why the original AF-S super-teles were replaced so fast is another question altogether. When canon went through the first ever (except in the case of the 400 F2.8, where it was the second) revision of the EF Great White Lenses, they took the opportunity to both include IS, and lighten the lens. Is Nikon still not convinced that VR is a worthwhile thing, because these are pretty well "money no object" lenses, so the extra cost of VR would not have deterred the market? If they're not convinced, why was the test-bed lens such an expensive one with entirely new optics? Canon's testbed was the consumer-grade 75-300, which was followed by the second generation IS lenses (Characterised by the second IS mode (300 F4L IS, 100-400L IS)), then the third (Characterised by improved IS gain (three stops as opposed to two) and the third IS mode (tripod mode, automatically switched) (300 F2.8L IS, 400 F2.8L IS, 500 F4L IS, 600 F4L IS, 70-200 F2.8L IS). If Nikon is not truly committed to VR, the choice of testbed lens is a strange one. If they are, the decision to omit it from the big glass would also seem strange.

 

<p>

 

Please give me some genuine input on this subject. My (Canon-biased) point of view is that yet again nikon have compromised a lot in order to shoe-horn this kind of technology into the F mount.

[hung_james_wasson]

With any marketing or technical decision, a trade-off occurs. Canon

has always been a market leader in innovation (as has Minolta), where

Nikon has always focused on an image of consistent high quality,

compatability & ruggedness. They kept the F-mount to maintain at

least limited compatability with the huge range of Nikkor lenses that

were still out and being used by a LOT of pros (press photographers,

sports, nature, you get it). I imagine that the idea of having to buy

a slew of expensive new pro lenses to go with new pro bodies would

have caused heart-attacks at many photography related companies!

 

<p>

 

Canon, on the other hand, really ticked off a lot of loyal manual

focus users when they completely abandoned the old line in favor of

the EOS mount. I think they made the right decision, but I'm sure

that there are still a lot of people out there that disagree. Canon

then had to work really hard to regain marketshare with pros who then

had to decide whether to stick with Canon or Jump to Nikon for top

flight gear. Nikon users didn't have to decide anything -- they could

just buy new lenses to work with their older bodies, & then step up

to an AF body when they felt they needed it -- and still not lose

their considerable investment in glass.

 

<p>

 

You bring up some very good questions in this post, but keep in mind

that Nikon is having to play catch up (& living with their original

decision to stick with the F-mount), and they have just started where

Canon is on to the third generation! Perhaps your questions would be

better asked to a Nikon rep -- then you could post the resonse

here! :-)

 

<p>

 

By the way, have you actually seen a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS

USM? Or a comprehesive review? Canon only just officially announced

the lens last week (http://www.usa.canon.com/press/080101.html)! I've

been trying everywhere to find more information on it! All of the pro

store reps I talked to believed that Canon had no plans to upgrade

the lens (boy were they wrong)! And by the way, how does the tripod

ID mode know to automatically switch?

 

<p>

 

I used both Nikon & Canon gear, and love both for their respective

merits. I gave the nod to Canon when it came to buying into an AF

system, and haven't regreted it. Despite all these years, the USM

ring type motor is still king of focusing speed & precision. Silent

operation & full time manual override is a big plus! IS is just

amazing, and keeps getting better!

[hung_james_wasson]

Oops, on the last post, second to last paragraph, ID should read IS.

 

<p>

 

How does the camera automatically know to swith to tripod mode with

the latest series IS lenses?

[isaac sibson]

No, I have not seen the lens. I have read about all there is to read

on it on the web (Chasseur d'Images article, canon press release, and

something at a canon rumour site). I was in fact wrong in my original

post, in that the 70-200 F2.8L IS is actually 4th generation, being

the only 3-stop gain IS. 3rd is tripod mode, 2nd is mode 2, and first

is consumer version (as in 75-300 and 28-135).

 

<p>

 

I know that the tripod mode is autoswitching, so presumably it looks

for the smaller, higher-frequency vibrations that would be

encountered on a tripod, and does not overcompensate for these.

[umit_d]

My (regular) Nikon 80-200/2.8 lens suddenly stopped taking pictures

the day 70-200 IS was announced, my dealer said there is no fix, I

should switch to Canon or take stamp collecting as hobby. When I said

I probably don't need it cause I already shoot mostly with an IS

device called tripod; his reply was if image quality is my concern, I

should switch to larger format or take stamp collecting as hobby. I

listened him, took camera collecting as my hobby; now I buy gear,

sell for less, rarely take pictures, and I am happy.

 

<p>

 

PS: Does anybody know When the 400 DO IS will be out?

FS: 100-400 IS, like new.

[hung_james_wasson]

I've heard that the 400 DO IS is currently be field tested by a

number of pros & has been spotted at numerous sporting events, etc.

Of course, I'm just passing along a web rumor. :)

 

<p>

 

I've been keeping a pretty close eye on the Canon websites for more

information on new lenses, & haven't seen any official postings yet.

 

<p>

 

Off subject: I have some reservations about DO. I understand the

benefits to be smaller size, less weight, less expensive to

manufacture super-telephoto lenses. However, we're basically talking

about a set of stacked fresnel lenses (concentric circles) -- how can

Canon create such a technically precise lens that would match the

edge to edge image sharpness, contrast, etc. of their prime lenses?

What about flare patterns, halo's, fresnel rainbow effects, etc.?

[mark_d1]

Alright, first off let's talk about speed of USM & AFS. With the

newest bodies you can get an increase of 15% focusing speed with

AFS/USM over regular motors. 15% and that's it! Those that say Oh

my god what a speed increase with USM/AFS must get really excited

over such a small increase. Most results are less than 15% speed

increase. Also those that say "Oh thank god I can manually focus and

autofocus". I've never, not once needed to do that in my years of

photography. I did it once, when I got my USM/AFS lens to test it

out and afterward have never used that feature. Honestly, how ofen

do you use that feature since you have a USM lens?

 

<p>

 

Secondly, according to tests they're right on the money with their

quoted stats on IS & VR. Canon IS in a recent test has been proven

yet again to hold a lens steady 2 stops faster. The Nikon repeatedly

was 3 stops faster producing sharper results over Canon. I can't

imagine VR working any other way besides gyro's. They're the only

device that will detect movement across its axis, no matter what

orientation and even in no gravity.

 

<p>

 

Panning goes to Nikon also. With the IS lenses, you need to switch

to Mode 2 and out of the tests there wasn't a single sharp panned

picture with the IS lens in Mode 1. VR & IS in mode 2 produced a

tie, however the Nikons automatic pan detection gave it the lead. As

stated, "You can take a picture of the batter swinging, take a

picture panning as he runs to first, then take another picture of him

sliding to base". Very difficult with the Canon.

 

<p>

 

Like you stated, Nikon hasn't gotten the teleconverters & VR's

working like Canon has. I believe the statement that VR doesn't work

with teleconverters only holds true to Nikon teleconverters. There

are non-Nikon teleconverters that allow AF & VR to work. Can't prove

it, but that's what I've been told.

 

<p>

 

Canon released IS in 1993, Nikon released VR in 1994 in a point and

shoot. Nikons sales were horrible on VR, so they thought the market

for VR wasn't profitable. They've reintroduced the VR. Rumor is IS

is only Sony's optical steady-shot and VR is Sony's optical super-

steady-shot.

 

<p>

 

Why was AFS not incorporated into the VR lens? I don't know but I

heard VR uses the same connections as AFS. If that be the case, you

currently can only have one or the other. I also wouldn't pay 2X

more for a lens that can focus up to 15% faster! No way.

 

<p>

 

End result from tests, Nikon autopanning is far more convenient over

Canons modes. Canon is 2 stops faster, and Nikons 3 exactly as they

both advertise. Nikon produced sharper images hand-holding as a

result. Nikons lens is compact & light, Canons has faster focusing

and convenience of teleconverters & price. End result, they both

have their pluses and minuses. Both produce better results than hand

holding. If I took a picture and said "I took this with the Nikon VR

hand holding" when in fact I took it with the Canon IS no one would

know otherwise. No one is better than the other, they both have

equal advantages & disadvantages.

[isaac sibson]

Mark-

 

<p>

 

The latest Canon IS has the same 3 stop gain that VR does, and it

also has a faster settling time than VR and earlier IS. Also, IS has

the tripod mode which VR does not.

 

<p>

 

As for VR using the same contacts as AF-S...that would be

monunmentally foolish on Nikon's part, not to be able to use both

technologies at once. Perhaps someone else could confirm/deny this?

It is exactly this kind of thing I meant by saying that nikon are

compromising to fit all this into the F mount.

 

<p>

 

As for USM/AF-S vs normal focus motors...I owned a Sigma 70-300mm APO

macro, and the AF on that drove me to distraction. It wasn't

necessarily the speed, but the noise and the amount of hunting. I've

never had these problems with USM (even with cheaper micro-USM

lenses). Also, I don't like having the outside of the lens

extend/rotate during focusing, and with USM, it does not.

 

<p>

 

Furthermore, I believe the test on IS vs VR you're quoting is the

test in pop. photo magazine. I have that issue (I bought it to read

on the plane), and I'm not convinced. Yes, I am aware that mode 1 IS

does blur panned subjects (it's done it to me), but what you're

obviously not aware of is that mode 2 works perfectly well for

stationary subjects. Therefore, an IS lens can be left in mode 2 all

the time, and act like a VR lens in the panning autodetection

respect. Mode 1 offers a more stable viewfinder image for static

subjects. However, I don't believe in that test. That test claimed

that a shot at 100mm and 1/15th with the Canon was blurred, when a

shot at 400mm and 1/15th was sharp. I think the difference there was

in holding technique (maybe that particular photographer found they

could get a more stable stance/grip with the lens at 400mm). However,

that gives a 5(!) stop gain for canon at the long end. Basically, I'd

like to perform my own tests, but they'd never be fair, because I'm

familiar with Canon cameras and lenses, and not familiar with Nikon,

so there'd always be the "finding my way about" factor, which would

discriminate unfairly against the Nikons.

[hung_james_wasson]

Mark,

<p>

I�m curious if you could give me some reference to your sources of

information. Not that I doubt you � much of what you say has the

weight or tone of published reports, but I�m not familiar with most

of it.

<p>

<u>Specifically:</u>

<p>

>With the newest bodies you can get an increase of 15% focusing speed

with AFS/USM over regular motors. 15% and that's it!

<p>

By newest bodies, I assume you mean Canon EOS-3/1v on one side and

Nikon F5s on the other? The Canon realizes only a 15% gain in

focusing speed from a lens (<i>comparing an otherwise identical ring-

type USM vs non-USM lens? How is this possible? <u>Are</u> there any

such models available to test?) <b>AND</b> Nikon also shows an

<i>identical</i> gain in performance from their fastest autofocusing

lens that utilizes the motor in the body vs the AF-S motor in an

otherwise identical Nikkor? Striking coincidence!

<p>

Frankly, I�m astounded that the difference in auto-focus is so

slight. I <i>wonder</i> at the testing program. Subjectively, my

experience with internal focusing ring-type USM lenses versus other

EF lenses that incorporate AFD or micro-motors is like night and day.

Both in terms of speed of focus and less focus drift or �hunting.� It

certainly feels like more than a mere %15 gain, which should not be

very perceptible! Of course, I�ve not set up a scientific program for

testing the lenses myself.

<p>

In reference to FTM, I can certainly understand that for many types

of photography it would hold no advantage. However, it can be quite

useful (<i>especially with the focusing decoupled from the shutter

release</i>) in macro, portrait & nature work (branches & shrubbery

can play havoc with AF!). <b>More</b> importantly though, is that the

lenses that incorporate FTM are simply better ergonomically &

mechanically designed � even if you never use FTM, the lenses are

much more a <b>joy</b> to use in <u>manual focus</u>.

<p>

> VR & IS in mode 2 produced a tie, however the Nikons automatic pan

detection gave it the lead. As stated, "You can take a picture of the

batter swinging, take a picture panning as he runs to first, then

take another picture of him sliding to base". Very difficult with the

Canon.

<p>

I don�t understand this point. If VR & IS is tied (with IS in mode

2), how can the lead go to VR? As Isaac says, IS mode 2 is the same

as VR�s only setting. Why is taking a picture of a stationary subject

with an IS lens in mode 2 very difficult?

<p>

> Rumor is IS is only Sony's optical steady-shot and VR is Sony's

optical super- steady-shot.

<p>

I don�t understand�are you saying that <b>Sony</b> holds the patents

on the technologies that both Canon & Nikon are using? Where do you

come by this information?

<p>

> I also wouldn't pay 2X more for a lens that can focus up to 15%

faster! No way.

<p>

The USM technology incorporated into the more expensive lenses is

only <i>incidental</i> the cost of the package! These lenses also

incorporate more sophisticated design, better optics, and usually

faster apertures as well! You don�t �just� get USM for twice the

price as a micro-motor lens. The EF lenses that are marketed with

micro-motor & micro-USM versions only show a small increase in price.

<p>

> End result, they both have their pluses and minuses. Both produce

better results than hand holding�.No one is better than the other,

they both have equal advantages & disadvantages.

<p>

Ah! An opinion that I can <i>heartily</i> endorse! Canon & Nikon

(<i>& others</i>) are fine makers of photographic equipment, and

regardless of your choice you can be happy - if your reasons for

purchase were based on your own conclusions (backed up by all these

contradicting opinions, of course)! ;-)

[hung_james_wasson]

</i>I apologize for all the itallics (poor html coding) :-)

[john17]

VR actually is IS technology {just like the AF-S is a USM motor}

loaned from Canon to Nikon. However Nikon made a little change to the

workings of VR that really pissed off Canon and that is why you will

not see another VR lens for a very, very, very long time if ever. And

people think that Nikon is just pokey. So to answer your question VR

should be close to if not identical to IS. All that being said I was

a Nikon user for 10 years and have switched to Canon. No hard

feelings Canon just had more options.

[andrew2]

Mark wrote : "With the newest bodies you can get an increase of 15% focusing speed with AFS/USM over regular motors. 15% and that's it!"

 

<p>

 

This is absolute rubbish. Have you tried using a USM lens like the Canon 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8? The AF on these babies is almost instantaneous. Even a consumer grade lens like the Canon 28-105 USM is incredibly fast compared to older lenses like the 28-70/3.5-4.5. Have you ever compared the AF speed on a lens like the 100-300/5.6L against the 100-400 USM? There is no comparison. Where did you get the 15% figure from, and what were your testing methods? Your figures are wrong.

[carl]

If VR and AFS are both on loan from Nikon, is there anywhere I could

find more information on that?

[isaac sibson]

I assume you mean on loan from Canon.

 

<p>

 

I'm afraid john is not quite correct on these issues. Canon's

patents on USM expired, and hence nikon and Sigma have made copies

(AF-S and HSM respectively).

 

<p>

 

As for VR, it appears that Nikon are about to release a 70-200 F2.8

VR. Since Nikon released VR before Canon released IS, I don't think

that the technology was loaned from canon. (Nikon released a VR zoom

P&S in 1994. Uptake was very slow, and the model was dropped. A year

later, canon released the 75-300 IS SLR lens, and the rest, as they

say, is history).

[kyle_burt]

"Panning goes to Nikon also. With the IS lenses, you need to switch to Mode 2 and out of the tests there wasn't

a single sharp panned picture with the IS lens in Mode 1. VR & IS in mode 2 produced a tie, however the

Nikons automatic pan detection gave it the lead. As stated, "You can take a picture of the batter swinging, take

a picture panning as he runs to first, then take another picture of him sliding to base". Very difficult with the

Canon. "

 

 

I dug up some literature on the Canon CPS website which states that mode 2 IS acts like mode 1 until it senses "rough" movement in one direction. To me this sounds like it should behaves very similarly to the Nikon. Perhaps instead of thinking of mode 2 as a panning mode, mode 1 should be thought of as a lockdown or maximum stability mode. Anyway, here is the link to the page

 

 

http://cps.canon-europa.com/data/techdoc/LTR__0009.pdf

 

 

One last thing. I notice that all the tests I've seen use someone handholding the lenses. A proper test would be to test the lenses using a proper target from a vibrating platform. This shouldn't be to difficu;t at least for non panning shots. A cheap setup would be to set up tripod or rig on an old car (newer ones don't have as much virbration due to better balanced motors and carfeful attention to the resonant frequencies of the car's componants). I would run this test at several different rpms to see how they handle different magnatudes etc. Note: I doubt that the tripod would affect either lens (since IS isn't supposed to be used with a tripod) because the vibrating car should mimick a photographers shaky hand.

 

Kyle

[chuck]

"Please give me some genuine input on this subject. My (Canon-biased) point of view is that yet again nikon have compromised a lot in order to shoe-horn this kind of technology into the F mount. "<p>

That is simple minded Canon propaganda geared towards its gullible groupies. Nikon AF system's main limitation stems from Nikon's lack of foresight in configuring the electronic interface protocol of its electronic contacts, not from anything inherient in the F mount. Thus most first generation bodies had only 5 contacts, enough to establish a serial connection with the lens' ROM chip, but not enough to do anything else. 2nd generation added 2 more to power and issure instructions to drive the AF-S motor in the lens, but can't supply power separately to drive a VR system. It took until 1996 before Nikon finally rectified the shortcoming and offered a new 10 pin contact system that can supply power to drive auxiliary self contained services like VR, provide power and instruction for dependent services like AF-S, and provide serial connection to query the ROM chip and D rotoary position sensor. <p>

The fact that Canon keeps trying to convince people that Nikon's shortcomings stems from the F mount is nothing more than a cynical attempt to hide the fact that its abandonment of the FD mount is ultimately technically unjustifiable - all of Canon's current advantage is completely obtainable by inserting the EF electronic interface onto an FD mount. The very fact that Nikon can now do all three proves that there is nothing in the EF mount that can't be matched with an appropriately configured electronic interface on top of any other mount.

[samuel_mart_n_valent_n]

</i><p> Just to improve the presentation: No more italics ;-)

I have the Canon 28-135mm IS and it's amazing how well IS works, I don't know anything about Nikon VR but it's hard to believe that they have done better.</p>

[fri www.splitlife.com]

just to chuck one into the mix here, i've just tried out the nikon 24-120 VR lens (with an F80) and from initial impressions (only through the viewfinder) this seems way less stable than the Canon 28-135mm IS that a buddy let me try out. the canon seemed to 'stick' way easier, whereas the nikon was still noticieably wobbly at the 120 end. just my subjective opinions here. i'm a nikon user btw.