M Vers wrote:
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.
Totally agree. Love IS in my 100L and 24-105. Prolly just making a fashion statement, though. Whatever that is!
No just dont want to be forced into buying lenses that have IS when we dont need it. If I say "I'm not going to use IS on this lens so can I have it $300 cheaper" do you think they will discount it?
Yeah I can turn it off but I can't get away from paying for it if I need it or not.
You are free to believe as you want but it isn't fair to force it on those that don't want or need it other than to line the corporate pockets IMHO.
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.
rerdreb wrote:
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.
Anything else is a fashion statement IMHO.
For some of the shooting I do, I disagree. People need to take their respective heads out of the depths of wherever they are buried and realize that others may have different needs. I know it's sometimes hard to see past the camera shielding the view of the world around you, but generalizations like this are puzzling (if not simply trolling to get people up in arms over nothing).
rerdreb wrote:
No just dont want to be forced into buying lenses that have IS when we dont need it. If I say "I'm not going to use IS on this lens so can I have it $300 cheaper" do you think they will discount it?
Yeah I can turn it off but I can't get away from paying for it if I need it or not.
You are free to believe as you want but it isn't fair to force it on those that don't want or need it other than to line the corporate pockets IMHO.
Ron
I can sympathize with you, Ron, but whether you like it or not the future moves on, with or without you. If you don't like a product, show Canon you don't by not buying it--remember, no one is forcing you. I was the same way with the 5DII, although it was a lack of features that was the issue, not the overabundance.
rerdreb wrote:
You are free to believe as you want but it isn't fair to force it on those that don't want or need it other than to line the corporate pockets IMHO.
Wow. We get that you don't want to pay for it. We get that you want multiple versions of every IS lens so you can have one without it.
But to leap from there to the idea that nobody else wants it so therefore it is just to line corporate pockets is not a humble opinion; it is a stunning lack of logic. You are back to the idea that everybody should shoot your way.
There are plenty of non-IS options at every focal length.
The IS options have to compete in the marketplace. If there were not a demand and interest for the mechanism it would not sell and it would be a net loss for the corporate pockets.
Since it does sell and there is demand for it, are you going to make another leap of logic and deny those people's skill and ability as photographers and claim that they must be suckers or stupid or worse?
Where are you going with this?
Since when does Canon or any other manufacturer OWE you a camera or a lens? Since never.
So why is it we need IS on shorter focal length fast prime lenses. Maybe I am missing something here. Maybe I just have not had the need for it in the "style" I shoot.
Tell me what can IS in shorter focal length lenses do for me/you?
I honestly cannot think of a good reason other than drive up price.
If you are a landscape photog I am sure you use a tripod and probably some filters Graduated ND etc... On the occasion that I found myself without a tripod and wanted to shoot a landscape I have always been able to come up with something to rest the camera on.
IS is not good for moving subjects you still need the shutter speed to control motion blur. Definitely not going to use IS in any of my sports shots.
Maybe macro photography? I don't do that so maybe there is a need there because you need to shoot with smaller apertures to create enough DOF. So maybe in this case but would IS give you enough to use a macro lens hand held? just your body swaying can move the camera enough to change DOF location within the picture.
So just what do all of you (that fight so hard for this feature) use it for?
As I said before I can totally see the use for longer focal length lenses. 200mm and above. But why the shorter focal lengths? Even then I can't see the need to put it on every lens over 200mm. If I use a 300mm lens for shooting sports action why should I have to pay for IS in the first place let alone carry it around with me everywhere I go for the rest of time as a reminder of what I had to purchase and did not need. Just makes my lens heavier and cost more.
rerdreb wrote:
Maybe macro photography? I don't do that so maybe there is a need there because you need to shoot with smaller apertures to create enough DOF. So maybe in this case but would IS give you enough to use a macro lens hand held? just your body swaying can move the camera enough to change DOF location within the picture.
So just what do all of you (that fight so hard for this feature) use it for?
Yeah - you definitely don't do macro photography out in the field. Swaying your body very slightly intentionally is actually a technique many people use to get outstanding photos. Yes, IS helps for macro. A tripod is all but useless for outdoor macro if there is a tiny breeze (and there is ALWAYS a breeze where I live).
As far as I am concerned, I don't have IS in my 400/5.6 or 500/4.5. What a stupid useless feature to put in long telephoto lenses. Why should I have to pay for it just because other people like it (do I sound self centered and arrogant?).
I am not a huge fan of IS in short lenses, but I am glad that Canon is upgrading their senior citizen lenses, and if we get good build quality, good USM, and IS, then that's great. I have the old 28/2.8 and will be interested to see if the new one is excellent - it's a focal length that I like having a prime lens for.
rerdreb wrote:
Tell me what can IS in shorter focal length lenses do for me/you?
I honestly cannot think of a good reason other than drive up price.
I just posted (only) a single example which you conveniently ignored. There are many other potential advantages (not the least of which is mitigating having to ratchet up the ISO in low light conditions), regardless of whether or not you can envision using the capabilities inherent to IS or not.
Hey see I learned something about macro photography. Kind of match yourself to the flower swaying in the breeze. As long as your subject is moving that makes perfect sense. So maybe macro photog's can use the IS feature. Guess that is a good thing for them.
As far as the 400/5.6 and 500/4.5 go I never said IS doesn't have it's place. They have made IS and Non IS lenses for quite a while. Why all of a sudden do they all have to have IS? Should be a choice you can make. And it still will be. There will be 3rd party lenses without IS and that will probably be the road I have to choose if I want a non IS lens and Canon only offers IS in a certain focal length.
rerdreb wrote:
So why is it we need IS on shorter focal length fast prime lenses. Maybe I am missing something here. Maybe I just have not had the need for it in the "style" I shoot.
Tell me what can IS in shorter focal length lenses do for me/you?
Great success can be had by actually reading threads before responding in them. Earlier in the thread I wrote:
Monito wrote:
Ever leave your tripod at home due to weight or convenience or forgetfullness?
Ever make candid or street photos in low light at dusk or at night or in dim interiors?
Ever like to make a photo with f/11 depth of field and quality ISO that is not bleeding edge?
Ever make a photo on a crop factor camera that requires 1.6x the shutter speed to get the same lack of shake?
Ever make a photo on a high resolution sensor and print very large for a gallery?
Perhaps you have done some or all of those things.
Perhaps even you have done some or all of those things.
rerdreb wrote:
IS is not good for moving subjects you still need the shutter speed to control motion blur
Just because you are limited by your imagination does not mean that other photographers are. Jeff already posted a photo on this page where IS was needed for moving subjects. Again, one is able to obtain outstanding results by actually reading threads.
Monito wrote:
Great success can be had by actually reading threads before responding in them. Earlier in the thread I wrote:
Perhaps even you have done some or all of those things.
Just because you are limited by your imagination does not mean that other photographers are. Jeff already posted a photo on this page where IS was needed for moving subjects. Again, one is able to obtain outstanding results by actually reading threads.
IS is for camera shake not subject motion. IS allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds and avoid camera shake. If you want motion blur there are various ways to do that without IS.
As I said I am all for tools. Photographers can accomplish the same thing by many different methods and it is all creative art and choice of their own. Slapping IS on every lens I don't believe is the answer.
rerdreb wrote:
If you are a landscape photog I am sure you use a tripod and probably some filters Graduated ND etc... On the occasion that I found myself without a tripod and wanted to shoot a landscape I have always been able to come up with something to rest the camera on.
Sometimes you don't have time for a tripod. Or just don't want to bother if it's not a purely dedicated photo outing but still want as nice a pic as you can get. Sometimes there is horrendous wind blowing and unless you have a 100lb tripod and weights on top.... and as for stuff to rest it on, i have to say i've only rarely found something suitable to rest it on.
Sometimes with IS you can get a shot as good as with a tripod without the bother and if oyu are chasing golden lighting you might fit in a number of interesting shots instead of one or two.
IS is not good for moving subjects you still need the shutter speed to control motion blur. Definitely not going to use IS in any of my sports shots.
probably true for the most part, although for car/bicycle type shooters and such IS may get used a lot more, for soccer, football and such it's a lot more rare, often just for a few specialty type shots or sometimes as a last ditch if lighting is truly dire (although the take is generally pretty awful in such cases regardless)
Maybe macro photography? I don't do that so maybe there is a need there because you need to shoot with smaller apertures to create enough DOF. So maybe in this case but would IS give you enough to use a macro lens hand held? just your body swaying can move the camera enough to change DOF location within the picture.
I think a lot more macro work gets done hand-held than by tripod. Bugs often move around so much that tripod work becomes very tricky. And if a breeze blows then the tripod doesn't really help even if it doesn't hurt.
Granted, the lighting is often not good enough, considering how super far you often stop down, to hand hold even with macro IS but it can help, I have gotten some hand held near 1:1 shots that were crisp without using artificial lighting through a combo of the IS on the 100L and using burst mode high fps where the combo can get you a 100% crisp shot at 1/40-1/50th once every burst or two. Without IS you need to take a lot more than a quick burst or two to hit upon a crisp shot and it doesn't really tend to work out at all. Lots of times you still need flash, but IS will get you some nice natural lighting macros at times so you can't discount it, and even when you use flash the IS makes framing much easier, at 1:1 the framing can bounce all over without IS.
As I said before I can totally see the use for longer focal length lenses. 200mm and above. But why the shorter focal lengths? Even then I can't see the need to put it on every lens over 200mm. If I use a 300mm lens for shooting sports action why should I have to pay for IS in the first place let alone carry it around with me everywhere I go for the rest of time as a reminder of what I had to purchase and did not need. Just makes my lens heavier and cost more.
well, there are lots of sports shooters using old 300 2.8, 400 2.8 without IS, 70-200 2.8 non-IS on the sidelines and court sides
rerdreb wrote:
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.
Anything else is a fashion statement IMHO.
marginal need at 200mm? do you know how high the shutter has to be to get it crisp when hand-holding on a high density sensor?
skibum5 wrote:
marginal need at 200mm? do you know how high the shutter has to be to get it crisp when hand-holding on a high density sensor?
It would be different for every individual based upon their technique and how well they can execute that technique. I have seen some that can handhold at a very low shutter speed and the image is sharp. I have seen some that cannot even come close to the guideline of 1/focal length.
rerdreb wrote:
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.
Anything else is a fashion statement IMHO.
I've been shooting for near 40yrs, 30+ of those from a wheelchair, IS is indispensable for me. The EF 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L and 300 f4L are my fav lenses...not everyone walks on this earth, nor do they not have shaky hands...a 100 f2.8L Macro and perhaps the new 24 or 28 are on my buy list.
Think a bit before you prose with such humbleness...fashion indeed...or perhaps try shooting from a wheelchair, I advise against breaking your neck to see my point...cause it sucks shooting without finger movement!
M Vers wrote:
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?
Maybe it's a typo and it's a 35-70 f/2, but that would still only make sense to me if for FF.
Good Point! I am glad that you enjoy photography. Those lenses with IS if they can help you would be totally worth it for you to purchase. Kind of makes my point though that IS is a tool that should be available for anyone who needs it but I don't think it should be the only option.
I have a friend in a wheelchair that does photography too. I think it is great. He does not have IS on his lenses but maybe it would make things easier if he did. I don't know for sure. I do know that he takes some amazing photo's and he enjoys it a lot.
And to your point I should probably clarify that anyone on here can only talk to their specific situation and needs. Just as for you IS is indispensable, for me keeping the price low enough so I can afford it is indispensable. Otherwise as I said earlier I will probably have to look to 3rd party vendors to get the focal lengths I may need if Canon only offers it with the IS option. You would have a perfectly good reason to get the IS though if it can help you enjoy your photography more.
Sp12 wrote:
The point isn't that my need for IS is nonexistent. Point is that if you want IS on useless lenses go
Sony
and stop trying to make Canon some system for non-experts.
[Three year old voice]Howabout you sell all your gear and go nikon[/three year old voice] Adding IS to lenses doesn't make a system any less 'expert' so I fail to see your point in continually associating the two.
Sp12 wrote:
The point isn't that my need for IS is nonexistent. Point is that if you want IS on useless lenses go Sony and stop trying to make Canon some system for non-experts.
Ah yes, a expert purist who insists we should all use old equipment without any useless modern features. Why stop there? Shoot film with 50 year old manual cameras? Oh, wait, been there, done that, still do. However, ....
I figure that if IS is good enough for pros, it is good enough for me in the same kind of situations and goals as a pro would have making their photo.
Do you build all your furniture yourself without any of them new-fangled power tools, which are just crutch?
Prolly just making a fashion statement, though. Whatever that is! 
Adding IS to lenses doesn't make a system any less 'expert' so I fail to see your point in continually associating the two.