Why isn't IS built into all new L lenses?

[dan_south]

<ul>

<li>Cost</li>

<li>Weight</li>

<li>Not necessary for the "tripod only" folks</li>

<li>The IS design might restrict the maximum aperture of fast prime lenses</li>

</ul>

[pbizarro]

<p>I am all in favour of IS, the more lenses with it, the better. If I don't need it for a particular situation, how hard is it to turn it off? I prefer to have the option available, and then decide when to use it. For example, a few years ago, I think that the majority of people were of the opinion that IS on a macro lens was not necessary; well guess what, it may be not necessary, but it is damn nice to have! IS in the new 100mm macro lens makes the lens a lot more fun and versatile to use. I can now do nature macro shots in the woods without a tripod; IS combined with excellent higher ISO image quality equals the necessary shutter speed to get the shot handheld.<br>

Canon and Nikon track each other, so I have no doubts that when one of them brings a new professional lens with IS (say the 24-70), the other will follow suit. It's that simple.<br>

As for IS on the lens versus IS on the camera, why not the option of having both? Again, the more options the merrier I will be. So far, I prefer to have the IS on the lens; the IS required for a 600mm is different from the one required for, say, a 24-105 zoom lens. So, IS in the lens is fit-for-purpose, instead of the IS in the camera, which is a kind of one solution fits all (not necessarily the optimal one). IS technology has evolved a lot, and today you can use IS even with the lens on a tripod, and it helps. I do not agree that superteles do not need IS because they will be used on a tripod; even with tripod use, the IS technology will recognize that the lens is on a tripod and adjust accordingly.</p>

[michael_young3]

<blockquote>

<p>Not necessary for the "tripod only" folks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Conversely, mebbe tripods won't be so necessary for the IS folks. ;)</p>

 

[miikka_anttila]

<blockquote>

<p>Conversely, mebbe tripods won't be so necessary for the IS folks. ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, you can take a 8 second exposure with a IS, w/o any blurring... ;)</p>

<p>I think mostly it's a weight, dimensions and IQ. Althought 70-200 f4 IS is an exception to that.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

[JDMvW]

<p>I suspect the main reason for not putting IS on everything is simple historical inertia.</p>

<p>As they work their way through upgrades of various lenses, the hot sellers will always be the first in line for reworking. Much as I would love to see a USM 50mm f/1.8 IS, I will not even begin to hold my breath for that one. I suspect the same inertia factor of not redoing something that has been in line-up for a long time applies to the L glass as much as the regular EF lenses. I don't expect an IS version of the 50mm f/1.2 either.</p>

<p>Given the versions of IS available on inexpensive kit lenses these days from both Nikon and Canon, I think that cost of the IS is unlikely to be the main reason. They may not be making a lot of money on these kit lenses, but I doubt that they are really "loss-leaders" for them. I expect on some of the truly new lenses (of which there are not a lot), they just don't see much virtue in the IS for certain focal lengths, etc.</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>I like the IS lens for any hand held shot, no problem turning it off for tripod shots. I think the reason it is not in all the L lens is so Cannon can charge extra for it. Cost of construction has little to do with price of lens. Example Sigma 50mm to 200mm for $159 dollars Sigma 50mm to 500mm $1000 without or $1600 with stabilization fpr canon or nikon. The area IS helps a lot is macro and long hand held telephoto shots, so I pay extra for it and gripe.<br>

Jim</p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>"Someone want to explain why Canon doesn't build it into almost all new L series lenses (28-70 a good example)?" The 28-70L is an older discontinued lens. The 24-70L, 17-40L and 400L are older lenses, possibly due for an upgrade which might, at least in the case of the 24-70L and 400L include IS, but who knows if that will ever come about?<br>

Of the top of my head, it seems like most new L zooms and some revamped prime lenses are now issued with Image Stabilization - even the new 100mm f/2.8L IS has that capability.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Would in-camera IS bring us cheaper lenses? Probably not. I have just checked the price of lenses comparable to the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS from different manufacturers. Both the Nikon and the Sony versions of this lens were more expensive. And this although the Sony version does not have in-lens IS.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>The large cost of making IS lenses isn't actually the IS unit itself. The 'cost' is the cost of research and development and production. This is why lens prices do not always go up every year, or go up less than the cost of inflation. This is also why new gaming systems come out for $500 and work their way down to $200 over several years. When first introduced, an IS version of, say, the 50 1.2 would cost significantly more than the non-IS, as Canon needs to recoup all the money they spend on R&D to make it. Five years after it's been released, the cost of the two lenses will probably be much closer.</p>

<p>The exception of course are certain 'flagship' lenses like the 70-200 2.8, for which Canon can charge whatever they want because people gotta' have it. You know damn well than an about-to-be-discontinued 1Ds costs them a lot less to make than when it was first released, but they still get $8,000 for it because that very small portion of their business will still pay that. The cost of a Rebel goes down as it gets older (remember that after a year or so they've paid off the R&D bills) because customers in that price range are more likely to shop around, and don't generally have a 'It costs what it costs," mentality.</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>I would love IS in my 50L. I'm not the steadiest and I usually have to have the 50 at 1/100th to stop camera blur. Having IS would mean I could shoot at 1/30th. That would be useful.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"That leaves the 24-70/2.8. Everyone wants IS in that one. Canon is presumably aware of this and probably working on it."</p>

<p>I can't imagine the 24-70mm being heavier than it is right now ?</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>I had the 70-200 F4 and the IS version. I didn't notice any extra weight. IS adds a gram or so at most.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Chris, the IS version is 55g heavier, which admittedly isn't much. (See <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/telephoto_zoom.html">link</a>).</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>If canon made a good full frame 24-70 f2.8 IS L i would sell my 17-55 f2.8 IS and cropped body tomorrow<br>

Dave </p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Thanks for the link Mark, bookmarked! I actually couldn't tell the difference so 55 gms surprises me! Still, that's not a lot in pints...!</p>

[dave_hoffmann]

<p>Sports shooters don't use or need IS, so why should they buy a lens with an expensive feature that isn't going to be used?</p>