IS on every future L?

[roisin_murphy]

Do you think the next revisions of L lenses will all include IS? Even

the standard and wide zooms? would you rather have constant f/2.8 or a

lighter, smaller constant f/4 with IS? How much weight is this adding?

Wonder how havier would my 200mm f/2.8 prime be...

[peter_white2]

I hope not. IS doesn't help with moving subjects. It doesn't give you shallower depth of field. I doesn't reduce the cost of a lens or improve its optical performance.

[andy_van_eynde]

would like to see a 30mm f1.4 with IS!

And wished they had a 70-200 f4L IS for the same price as the current version!

 

Since IS only helps with non moving objects it depends on what you shoot.

 

About the extra weight : see the difference of weigth between the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L and the 70-200 f2.8L IS. Know this might not be the same for other types of IS (but it gives you an idea).

[andrew_c2]

I agree with the last post: IS on really fast, wide lenses would be great! I don't care if it doesn't freeze action; it gives you an extra couple in low-light.

 

But a 35/1.4L, for example, is already over $1000; how much would it cost with IS on it? Maybe even too much for pros. Does anyone know if IS adds to the bulk of a lens? That would be another factor to consider, if it did... Best

[mark_chappell]

<I>Since IS only helps with non moving objects it depends on what you shoot.</i><P>

 

Yes and no. Even with a moving subject IS can help by ameliorating blur due to camera

shake (leaving blur from subject motion unaffected, of course). The longer the lens, the

more a given amount of camera shake impacts image quality.<P>

 

I heartily agree that a 70-200/4 with IS would be wonderful -- such a mythical beast

probably would bulk up a little from the current non-IS version, but not a lot.

[jbq]

I hope not. I don't want to think of how much lenses like the 85/1.2 or 135/2 would suffer if IS was added to them. There's something to be said for sensor-level IS that allows to use any lens design.

[andy_van_eynde]

Might be....but then our wallet wouldn't! ;-)

[peter_phan]

It'll be just like it is today: IS on some L lenses, no IS on other L lenses.

[John Crowe]

Hope not! Just something else to go wrong, and they do detract from pure optical quality. Keep it as an option only.

[andrew robertson]

I hope so. You can always turn IS off, and they have IS units that are just 2 elements now.

The slight theoretical reduction in contrast would be worth the extra hand-holdability.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I can't see it; for instance, if/when Canon comes up with a replacement for the 16-35/2.8, I can't see them putting IS on it. Ditto on the 30/1.4, 50/1.2L, or 50/1.4 II for which many people have been begging.</p>

 

<p>On telephoto primes, it seems clear that Canon believes IS is the way to go; apart from macro lenses, it's been almost a decade since the last non-IS telephoto primes were introduced (the last few were released in 1996). On L telephoto zooms, perhaps, though if (for instance) they replace the 70-200/4 at some point, a non-IS version makes sense because this is targeted at a price point that an IS version couldn't hit (though it would be nice to see an IS version as an addition to the lineup). I doubt the 24-70/2.8 would be replaced by an IS version, though if they were to do as a lot of people suggested and release a 24-80/4, it would be in the same boat as the 70-200 (IS would be useful, but the point of the lens is to be inexpensive, which rules out an IS-only release).</p>

 

<p>It's hard to say how much weight IS adds, as the IS and non-IS versions of any given lens may have some other differences which affect weight. Adding IS to the 300/4 only added 25g (that's about 1 oz for those who use archaic measurements); it added 170g (about 6 oz) to the 75-300 and 160g (about 6 oz) to the 70-200/2.8, so I think it's fair to say the weight difference from IS is closer to the latter two pairs than the first. There are no other directly comparable IS/non-IS pairs of lenses (the IS superteles, for instance, are completely different designs than their predecessors, making such a comparison useless in determining the weight of IS). The price difference seems to be about USD500 for pro IS (based on the 70-200) and USD225 for consumer IS (based on the 75-300), neither of which is an insignificant amount of money.</p>

[thomas_t]

I sure hope not. While I think IS technology is great for those who need it, it is just one extra piece of technology that can break down. I'm happy with my non-IS lenses, for their lighter weight and sometimes sharper signature relative to IS cousins.