Sp12 wrote:
Nope, IS makes no sense on any short lenses, and is just marketing drivel from Canon to get you to buy new 850$ F2.8 non-L primes.
Sonys in on it to, trying to pull you over with 4 stop IS on every lens/FL.
IS may make no sense on any short lens to you. It makes lot of sense to me, quite frequently. Do you ever photograph indoors, in low light, where flash is not permitted and monopods are a hindrance and a hazard? Do you ever need a little more depth of field than you'll get from the f/1.4 setting, which is about all you can get away with to maintain a decent shutter speed without cranking the iso up to insane levels? If you do any of these things, you too might appreciate having IS on shorter focal lengths. Sure, if you're working outdoors in great light, or utilizing strobes in a studio setting, IS won't gain you much. But you, sir, are not everyone.
This is one reason I'm very disappointed Canon didn't put IS on the new 24-70/2.8. The only reason I keep the 7D around is to take advantage of the extremely versatile 17-55/2.8 EF-S lens. It has internal stabilization, which the full-frame mid-range zoom does not.
I can see why IS would be useful for some. As I rarely shoot subjects that are static I don't have a lot of use for IS at shorter focal lengths. Cheaper non IS versions is what I'd like to see. I would've been interested in a Canon 17-55 f2.8 non IS back when I had a crop.
This is crazy . If Canon wants to have IS for every lens in it's lineup then put it in the camera body. What do you need IS in shorter focal lengths for? Are people taking hand held pictures during earthquakes? I shoot with a Sigma 100-300 f4 and don't need IS. Not even for still subjects zoomed out to 300mm.
A tripod costs way less than IS. There are very light ones too. Put a sling on it and carry it over your back and you don't even know it's there. Cut down on caffine and you can probably gain some too
Nothing but a way to get more money for Canon. I've done photography for 37 years without a single IS lens and never found a need for it.
Lets start slapping IS on flashlights we can bring the price from $2.99 to $602.99 and every house should have one . How about IS on hunting rifles then we can bring the cost of a .270 up from $545 to $1145. How about I know IS on glasses wouldn't that be a good one . IS for coffee cups no more spills. IS on computer mouse that way you can be more accurate in photoshop. I definitely want IS on my 3 yr old just think no more telling him to sit still.
Don't get defensive it was tounge in cheek. Well sort of. If canon replaces all their lenses with IS versions isn't that thinking that one subject matter and style is the only say? hmm don't think I should have to pay for something on my lens I won't use but if others want it there should be a version for them too.
My post was not meant as an attack on anyone's subject matter or style. Sorry if you took it that way.
rerdreb wrote:
If canon replaces all their lenses with IS versions isn't that thinking that one subject matter and style is the only say? hmm don't think I should have to pay for something on my lens I won't use but if others want it there should be a version for them too.
Ideally there would be multiple versions of everything. IS can always be switched off.
rerdreb wrote:
My post was not meant as an attack on anyone's subject matter or style. Sorry if you took it that way.
It wasn't perceived as an attack; just possibly another of many posts where people think their way of shooting is the only way anyone would. Thank you for de-escalating.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not sure what the 55-70 is supposed to achieve.
If it's real it could be an f/2 zoom...although the FR (88-112) is very odd on APS-C. Perhaps it's designed around a camera with a smaller sensor, EVIL?
Monito wrote:
Nonsense. Read what I wrote again. It doesn't matter how fast the lens is if you are shooting at f/11 for depth of field. There are many reasons and times to shoot handheld in poor light at the better (lower) ISOs and not shoot wide open.
IS would be handy in a new version of the 50 mm f/1.8.
Sorry, but if you're trying to shoot f/11 and can't keep the ISO low, then it sounds like you don't have enough light to be shooting at f/11 in the first place.
DJL329 wrote:
Sorry, but if you're trying to shoot f/11 and can't keep the ISO low, then it sounds like you don't have enough light to be shooting at f/11 in the first place.
You're completely missing the point. IS can help you keep ISO values low and allow you to stop down for needed DOF. Why be forced to raise ISO and open up?
rerdreb wrote:
This is crazy . If Canon wants to have IS for every lens in it's lineup then put it in the camera body. What do you need IS in shorter focal lengths for? Are people taking hand held pictures during earthquakes? I shoot with a Sigma 100-300 f4 and don't need IS. Not even for still subjects zoomed out to 300mm.
A tripod costs way less than IS. There are very light ones too. Put a sling on it and carry it over your back and you don't even know it's there. Cut down on caffine and you can probably gain some too
Nothing but a way to get more money for Canon. I've done photography for 37 years without a single IS lens and never found a need for it.
Well said, rerdreb. Putting IS on fast primes lenses of short focal lengths is simply an attempt to attract "consumers," because they either don't know enough about photography or are too lazy to get that tripod you mention, and jack up the price. The 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses just announced are replacing ones that cost less than half what the new ones will, which were great entry level lenses. Now, with prices of at least $800, who's going to buy them? The consumers will continue to buy their zooms and the amateurs will choose something faster (28mm f/1.8 or 24mm f/1.4L II).
You're just being silly. If you want IS on wide lenses go Sony. IS on Canon wide lenses is just marketing drivel to take your money. There are no justifications for IS on anything wider than 600mm except for bragging rights. I'm sure you're not interested in paying 300$ extra for IS in EVERY lens when you could have a Sony with IBIS for free. If you want IS on short lenses go Sony and leave us experts alone with our Canons.
Weird lens, IMO. If they replaced the current $90 50/1.8 with this, it would be a disaster. People buy the 50/1.8 because it's cheap and it's good. Replacing it with something that would probably be $400-$500 would all but eliminate that market.
Replacing the 50/1.4 with this would also be a disaster. Most folks who buy this lens want the bokeh, subject isolation, and image "look" of an F1.4 lens. An F1.8 IS lens wouldn't be the same. This move would hand this segment of the market over to Sigma on a silver platter. Sigma would laugh all the way to the bank.
ADDING this lens to the current lineup... and well, that's just a LOT of 50mm lenses.
Sp12 wrote:
You're just being silly. If you want IS on wide lenses go Sony. IS on Canon wide lenses is just marketing drivel to take your money. There are no justifications for IS on anything wider than 600mm except for bragging rights. I'm sure you're not interested in paying 300$ extra for IS in EVERY lens when you could have a Sony with IBIS for free. If you want IS on short lenses go Sony and leave us experts alone with our Canons.
There is nothing silly about it at all. Not everyone has the luxury of carrying a tripod around everywhere they go. As for being an "expert", I wish we were face to face so you can see me as I laugh in yours.
Only partially kidding. 600mm might be a little bit of an exaggeration but I certainly think it is marginal at best in 200mm. Over 200mm I can see a need for some people.
Although it shouldn't, it still shocks me to see people deride a feature or tool because they cannot see any use for it based on their personal shooting style. So much for objectivity.
. If Canon wants to have IS for every lens in it's lineup then put it in the camera body. What do you need IS in shorter focal lengths for? Are people taking hand held pictures during earthquakes? I shoot with a Sigma 100-300 f4 and don't need IS. Not even for still subjects zoomed out to 300mm.
. How about IS on hunting rifles then we can bring the cost of a .270 up from $545 to $1145. How about I know IS on glasses wouldn't that be a good one 
. IS for coffee cups no more spills. IS on computer mouse that way you can be more accurate in photoshop. I definitely want IS on my 3 yr old just think no more telling him to sit still. 
