Canon Develops New Hybrid IS

[KenjiS]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp

Corrects for linear AND rotational shake like in the Pentax K7, except in a lens

According to article it will be included in a new lens launched before the end of the year

The article notes that it would be of benefit in macro shooting situations...

So does anyone else think an IS equipped macro is coming before the end of the year?

[DarthVader]

180mm IS macro ?...not too bad idea I know Nikon has one with VR.

[wickerprints]

They are likeliest to put this new IS in an L zoom. The telephoto primes are either (1) too new to justify a redesign, and/or (2) too expensive to see any significant sales boost from implementing the new IS on them. Add in the fact that Canon does not have IS on any prime lenses below 200mm focal length, and you see how unlikely it is that they will debut the technology on a prime. Zooms are ideal because they are popular and more tolerant of compromises (primes are scrutinized very harshly as they are expected to be extremely sharp corner-to-corner).

Next, IS tends to be featured on longer zooms; e.g., 24-105/4L IS (which I believe is the widest EF lens with IS), 70-200/2.8L IS and f/4L IS, 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS, and 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS. There's no doubt it will be an L zoom receiving the new IS, and I doubt it will be on the 70-300 DO (it doesn't sell enough to justify it), the 24-105/4L IS is too new, and the 28-300/3.5-5.6L IS is not really popular enough nor is it optically as good. So that pretty much leaves the 70-200/2.8 and the 100-400/4.5-5.6 as the candidates to receive this new IS.

I think in light of this announcement, the 70-200/2.8 is going to get it. In fact, I think BOTH are going to get it. We just haven't heard the rumors about the 100-400 because it's flying under the radar and being overshadowed by the buzz around the 70-200.

[roli_bark]

My humble guess is that It will be introduced on a new 24-70 F2.8 L IS MarkII or a new 70-200 F2.8 L IS MarkII .

[Karl Johnston]

or a 24-135 2.8l to compete with Nikon's version (24-135 3.5-5.5G VR)in 2010

[hollis_f]

My humble guess is that It will be introduced on a new 24-70 F2.8 L IS MarkII or a new 70-200 F2.8 L IS MarkII .

Whereas translation camera movement is the same for any lens, rotational movement get much worse as the lens length (physical, not focal) increases. That backs up the reasoning behind it being on the 70-200 2.8 and/or the 100-400.

Hmm, might be a good idea to flog my 100-400 now, before prices plumment.

[Stealthy Ninja]

As I've said a few times, I want it to be the 70-200 2.8L IS (mark II).

A 100-400 would be cool too. :)

Maybe 200-500... this is fun. :D

Nah, 200-800 f/1.8L IS... that would be interesting. :lol:

[bigcountry]

i would bet that any lens w/ this technology won''t be cheap.

[jacuff]

For use in interchangeable SLR camera lenses as of July 17, 2009

Hmm... wonder if this statement gives any clues? ???

[Pete]

Hmm... wonder if this statement gives any clues? ???

no. It's just the date at which Canon prepared the press release. It's clarifying their claim of "Worlds first".

[Rubberhead]

I've been waiting for them to upgrade the IS on the 300mm f/4L IS...maybe this is it...

[Double Negative]

What IS telling is the statement, "The system, which the company claims is a world's first for SLR lenses, will be incorporated into a lens that will be released before the end of 2009."

So it looks like we're getting at least one new (or at least updated) lens this year... Maybe it'll be the fabled 100-400mm zoom, hehe. :p

[badgerW]

They mention macro so many times in the press release ( http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html ) that I would be amazed if they did not include it in a macro lens. I bet we'll see a new 180L and possibly even a new 100mm with IS. That would be so sweet.

[bjyoder]

They mention macro so many times in the press release ( http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html ) that I would be amazed if they did not include it in a macro lens. I bet we'll see a new 180L and possibly even a new 100mm with IS. That would be so sweet.

That was my guess.

I'm really thinking the first lens introduced with this new IS will be a macro of some sort, followed by all the updates everyone is expecting at some point in 2010.

[nureality]

how about we shoot for the stars... EF 100mm f/2L IS Macro USM!

cost? $1500

[dima1109]

A macro lens with IS would be a bug shooter's dream.

[kenshinvt]

canonrumors.com is speculating with the following:

"Received 3 emails in the last 10 minutes claiming to know which lenses are coming.
Canon will launch the 24-70 f/2.8L IS II and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II near the end of August."

however, these are entirely unsubstantiated.

Sucks for me because I'm about to pull the trigger on a 17-55 2.8 IS, but now I'm not sure if I should wait for a month or two. I'd rather have the 24-70, even if the range isn't as ideal for my crop body, in order to have the full frame upgrade potential later on.

[bjyoder]

Sucks for me because I'm about to pull the trigger on a 17-55 2.8 IS, but now I'm not sure if I should wait for a month or two. I'd rather have the 24-70, even if the range isn't as ideal for my crop body, in order to have the full frame upgrade potential later on.

There is always going to be something better lurking just around the corner. Don't worry about what might happen. Worry about what is happening! :)

[SMP_Homer]

Sucks for me because I'm about to pull the trigger on a 17-55 2.8 IS, but now I'm not sure if I should wait for a month or two. I'd rather have the 24-70, even if the range isn't as ideal for my crop body, in order to have the full frame upgrade potential later on.

There's also the possibility that the next thing coming out isn't as good as what it's replacing... You could be better off getting something now...

[gasrocks]

Why can't life be simple? I wish they would stop developing new things. How can a person ever keep up? WOW.

[lonelyjew]

Does anyone have an idea of how this system works scientifically? I can understand correcting for lateral or vertical movement but to rotate the image around an axis? How do you get a lens to do that rapidly enough to compensate for handshake? Anyways, I really doubt this will create a massive improvement in IS as a whole, I think it is the linear movement that causes the most blur.

[wickerprints]

Does anyone have an idea of how this system works scientifically? I can understand correcting for lateral or vertical movement but to rotate the image around an axis? How do you get a lens to do that rapidly enough to compensate for handshake? Anyways, I really doubt this will create a massive improvement in IS as a whole, I think it is the linear movement that causes the most blur.

I see some clarification is in order.

The existing IS technology attempts to compensate for rotational motions of the camera; e.g., tilting the body up/down or left/right. The new IS attempts to compensate for lateral and vertical movements.

Think of "rotational" movement as if the camera is mounted on a tripod, and you can pivot the camera up or down, or side to side (panning). Think of the "lateral/vertical" movement as if the camera is mounted out the window of a moving car.

The correction of the first type of movement is achieved by means of a gyroscope. When IS is on, a tiny set of electromagnetic gyros are set into motion. These gyros resist rotational forces. If you have a gyroscope and you set it spinning within a gimbal, turning the orientation of the gimbal will not affect the orientation of the gyro's axis (assuming no friction). This is how the body is able to sense if it is being rotated. Multiple gyros are used to sense rotation along any of the three axes.

However, if you move a gyroscope laterally, it is unable to detect this motion. Therefore, one needs to use an accelerometer to detect this second type of motion. Until fairly recently, accelerometers were not sufficiently compact, precise, or cheap enough to use in portable electronic devices. With the advent of MEMS, accelerometers found their way onto devices like the iPhone, and now, I assume this is the same technology that Canon has developed to bring us the next generation of IS.

The combination of stabilization using both gyroscopes and accelerometers should increase the precision, accuracy, and responsiveness of lens-based IS. Camera shake is a complex chaotic series of small motions. I would speculate that this new generation of IS might afford as much as five stops equivalent hand-held ability. That would allow you to handhold 200mm as slow as 1/10 - 1/5 second.

For more information about the scientific basis for these technologies, see the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMS

[bryc24]

Bets anyone?

I say Canon will put it in one of their macro lenses like the 100 f2.8 or the 65 f2.8L
Reasons:
1. Canon seems to be releasing specialized lenses this year(ex. TS-E 17mm f4L, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II)
2. The lens that would get the most benefit out of the new technology is a macro lens. I am not saying they won't put it in a zoom, just that the first lens to come out makes sense to be a macro.

As for the first zoom, I would say it would have to be the 24-70 f2.8L.

What are your thoughts?

[Mike55]

Why wait for lenses to be updated when you can have a system that affects them all, and which is updated yearly.....

[KenjiS]

Why wait for lenses to be updated when you can have a system that affects them all, and which is updated yearly.....

Because optical IS is superior to sensor-shift IS for lenses of 200mm+ :)

[Mike55]

Right...but don't those lenses have to have the new technology first? I just don't see the excitement about a new IS system that is only related to a specific lens. I think in-body IS is the future in that every lens is affected instantly in your lineup, and that the technology can be improved and commercially released annually. It's been a long, long time waiting for the awful IS systems in the 100-400 and 300 F4 to be updated. 12 years and counting? Yikes.

[KenjiS]

Right...but don't those lenses have to have the new technology first? I just don't see the excitement about a new IS system that is only related to a specific lens. I think in-body IS is the future in that every lens is affected instantly in your lineup, and that the technology can be improved and commercially released annually. It's been a long, long time waiting for the awful IS systems in the 100-400 and 300 F4 to be updated. 12 years and counting? Yikes.

I wouldnt call the IS in my 100-400 "awful" thank you very much :/ it works exactly as it should

2 stops on a 400mm is quite a lot you know :/

And so far the effectiveness of in-body stabilization is, while good, in testing only 1.5-2 stops from what i've seen in say the Sony a700...

[Mike55]

I wouldnt call the IS in my 100-400 "awful" thank you very much :/ it works exactly as it should

I have the same IS in my 300 F4 L and even the $150 18-55 IS is far superior( I had one for a bit).


And so far the effectiveness of in-body stabilization is, while good, in testing only 1.5-2 stops from what i've seen in say the Sony a700...

Right, but it's new tech. They will improve on that at least every two years. No need to wait 12 years and counting for small improvements.

The ability to improve IS "in" all of your lenses across the board with every new body release is IMHO the future. It appears to be a superior model in terms of resource allocation as well.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Maybe it'll be the fabled 100-400mm zoom, hehe. :p

I hope so, the current version is WAY too suggestive for me to buy.

Pump, push, pull... :oops:

:lol:

Seriously though, the 100-400 seem to have improved lately, much higher chance of a good copy. Maybe they've secretly introduced some new nano coating to the lens (nano coating is my new joke). ;)

[wickerprints]

In-body IS is fundamentally not the same thing as in-lens IS. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

It is incorrect to say that in-body IS should entirely supplant lens-based IS technology because the former does not outperform the latter in certain situations, and reflects a misconception about the nature and merits of these two superficially similar approaches. To say that the future will bring better in-body IS performance is to (1) state something that, while reasonable, is speculative, and (2) does not take into context the potential improvements in in-lens IS that may or may not outpace in-body IS. There are very good reasons why in-lens IS exists and it has nothing to do with economics. Just because one is unhappy about the refresh cycle on lens designs does not mean in-body IS is the future.

[Mike55]

In-lens IS can surpass in-body by a stop or two all it wants, but it still only works in one lens(not the entire arsenal of the lens manufacturer) and that is the fundamental flaw. It's a patchwork, slow going approach that only helps a specific lens, and is essentially worthless to most of the lenses in the Canon lineup when most of the lenses don't have "it".

[hollis_f]

In-lens IS can surpass in-body by a stop or two all it wants, but it still only works in one lens(not the entire arsenal of the lens manufacturer) and that is the fundamental flaw. It's a patchwork, slow going approach that only helps a specific lens, and is essentially worthless to most of the lenses in the Canon lineup when most of the lenses don't have "it".

But it's an approach that works. I'd prefer to have a system that, as well as the image falling on the sensor, stabises the image in the viewfinder and on the AF sensor. In-camera IS is fine for cameras that use the sensor for focussing and composition.

[rowdy_kk]

Cannon are crowing about combining IS to compensate for shift on top of the angular compensation already compensated for in their current IS lineup. Shift stabilisation has more impact on objects closer to the camera and therefore could be considered more suitable for either macro lenses or lenses in the shorter focal length range. Coincidentally this is the range where canon doesn't have a large selection of IS lenses. I would guess that this technology will first appear on either a macro or their 24-70L

I can see a very good argument for incorporating sensor shift stabilisation into the camera body while leaving the angular stabilisation in the lenses (for lenses in the telephoto and upwards range).

[bjyoder]

In-body IS is fundamentally not the same thing as in-lens IS. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

It is incorrect to say that in-body IS should entirely supplant lens-based IS technology because the former does not outperform the latter in certain situations, and reflects a misconception about the nature and merits of these two superficially similar approaches. To say that the future will bring better in-body IS performance is to (1) state something that, while reasonable, is speculative, and (2) does not take into context the potential improvements in in-lens IS that may or may not outpace in-body IS. There are very good reasons why in-lens IS exists and it has nothing to do with economics. Just because one is unhappy about the refresh cycle on lens designs does not mean in-body IS is the future.

You're right, it has to do with film.

Remember that IS came about nearly 15 years ago, when digital was still a dream. It would have been a lot harder to make the film move around, and so the Canon guys said "hey, lets just do it in the lens," leaving us where we are today.




Right, but it's new tech. They will improve on that at least every two years. No need to wait 12 years and counting for small improvements.

The ability to improve IS "in" all of your lenses across the board with every new body release is IMHO the future. It appears to be a superior model in terms of resource allocation as well.

I like your thinking, but so far, lens-based IS is superior, and sensor shift IS has a long way to go. Until we get away from traditionally designed D-SLRs and move to something akin to Micro 4/3, the camera will have a much easier time focusing with lens-based IS, and you will have a much easier time composing your image, especially with telephoto focal lengths.

I'd be willing to speculate that, once sensor shift IS really catches up, you'll see some system that incorporates sensor shift IS for shorter FL, and an in-lens system that is used with telephoto lenses.

[kenshinvt]

There is always going to be something better lurking just around the corner. Don't worry about what might happen. Worry about what is happening! :)

There's also the possibility that the next thing coming out isn't as good as what it's replacing... You could be better off getting something now...

Thanks, yeah I think I'm just going to ignore the possibility of a nice, new 24-70 IS.

It looks like the 17-55, like most canon lenses, sells for no less than 75% of it's retail price. Might as well just lose a couple hundred dollars in a near-future upgrade than wait only to be disappointed. I can see the very real possibilities of 1. no lens being announced, 2. manufacturing problems (supply or bad design), and potentially outrageous pricing, among other things.

[KenjiS]

In-lens IS can surpass in-body by a stop or two all it wants, but it still only works in one lens(not the entire arsenal of the lens manufacturer) and that is the fundamental flaw. It's a patchwork, slow going approach that only helps a specific lens, and is essentially worthless to most of the lenses in the Canon lineup when most of the lenses don't have "it".


Ok I went for research I'm doing for something I'm writing for school, I'm comparing the 3 Mid-level consumer SLRs, the D5000, T1i and the a330 [They didnt have the 380, the 330 is the closest]

I went with the kit lenses for all three, 18-55s, kept the shutter speed in the range of 1/15-1/30 at 55mm and the Sony consistently %^&$ed itself in terms of stabilization, a result that astounded me

There was VERY noticable camera shake in -every- image taken, I had to ensure steadyshot was on it was THAT bad :/ I was taken aback by this because frankly, I can handhold those speeds at that focal length pretty well on my non-stabilized Tamron 28-75...

I could also FEEL that system engage, it was VERY noticable, much more than my 100-400 or any IS lens I ever used...also was a bit louder as i remember....

The Canon produced sharp shots constantly, Every shot was sharp, No camera shake, No anything...Also the in-lens IS was far smoother [I've never used the 18-55 IS before, which has the latest IS, it was VERY smooth, i could barely feel it engaging]

The D5000 packed up and died on me [the Recall thing I think] and so I didnt get to test it much...at all, given i fired 2 shots and went to check the rear screen and it was completely fried...but i think its results would be similar...

Canon's philosophy for IS is the same as its philosophy when it came to AF

You know how many people criticized In-lens, lens-driven AF motors as being too expensive, too clunky, and basically locking you out of "lots of old lenses"

People criticized Canon in the 80s for dumping the Breech-Block FD mount for the EOS mount, and practically praised Nikon for building an AF-equipped F-mount because it meant you could use all your old glass...

...And then sports shooters used the USM-equipped 300 f/2.8, and 400 f/2.8...And thus the EOS system became the de-facto standard for sports photographers

Canon's early AF optics were just so much faster compared to the Nikon AF optics of the time, the reason was simple, Every lens got a motor that was optimized for THAT lenses characteristics, sure "in body" had a lot of advantages, but speed was not one of them, and professionals spoke with their wallets when Nikon struggled to produce AF versions of their big telephotos [Eventually Nikon had to make the AF-I lenses..which..you guessed it..had built in drive motors :) But they didnt come close to the speed of the USM-equipped Canon supertelephotos until the AF-S ones finally dropped about a decade after Canon showed the world what a USM could do...]

The point is simple, Yes the technology advances, but every lens gets an IS that is optimized for it...

[Lazuka]

If a 24-70 IS gets announced oh man.

[Stealthy Ninja]

If a 24-70 IS gets announced oh man.

Next day it would have a waiting list 100 people long. :lol:

[erickboileau]

a 200-500 for me please ! :-)

[iqbal624]

Next day it would have a waiting list 100 people long. :lol:


I think the waiting list would be much longer than that!!

[Stealthy Ninja]

I think the waiting list would be much longer than that!!

That's just the first day. ;)

It would increase x2 every day until eventually everyone in the world would be on the list (plus babies not born for generations to come). :lol:

[Reevo]

I'm just wondering, how much does this technology benefit a long lens such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS? I already have one and I don't I don't do any macro photography, so does this benefit me at all?

[wickerprints]

I'm just wondering, how much does this technology benefit a long lens such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS? I already have one and I don't I don't do any macro photography, so does this benefit me at all?

You are assuming that (1) this hybrid IS is going to be applied to the 70-200/2.8L IS, and (2) this is the only design modification to this lens.

I want to take the opportunity to point out that neither of these are known to be true. If Canon does decide to update the 70-200/2.8L IS, I can virtually guarantee that it will not merely involve inclusion of the new hybrid IS. I predict that a revision to this design will involve a reduction in the number of elements/groups by replacing some of the UD groups with one or more fluorite elements. You heard it here first, folks. Mark my words.

The existing 70-200/2.8L IS has a LOT of glass, which is heavy, but more importantly, internal reflections and loss of contrast are much more difficult to mitigate when you have that many surface/air transitions. In fact, I believe this lens contains one of the largest (if not the largest) number of elements in any current EF design. Presently it is of excellent optical quality, but I predict that if a redesign occurs, the mark II of this lens will be quite a shocker. It will be noticeably and significantly better, especially at f/2.8, and at 200mm. Color and contrast will be improved, and while it won't rival a prime lens in corner-to-corner sharpness, it will get a lot closer. The existing lens is not particularly sharp from f/2.8-4.0, and in fact it is noticeably soft in the corners. This will be greatly improved in the next version. I also predict that a mark II version will actually be lighter than the present design, as there will be fewer elements.

Canon is unlikely to update such a popular lens as the 70-200/2.8L IS by only touching the IS technology, rather than doing a more dramatic redesign, which is entirely feasible given that this lens is nearly a decade old. New glass/fluorite, coatings, aspherical fabrication methods developed in the meantime enable significant improvement which in turn will result in many owners of the current lens to go out and buy a redesign. If they only add in hybrid IS, that won't get as many people placing an order for the new one.

My predictions for what Canon would do in a hypothetical 70-200/2.8L IS II. In summary:

Hybrid IS.
Use of at least one fluorite element.
Reduction in number of elements.
Reduction in weight.
Improved corner-to-corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures.
Significant improvement @ f/2.8, and @ 200mm.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Annnnd it would sell like crazy if they could keep the price reasonable. :D

[cccc]

how about we shoot for the stars... EF 100mm f/2L IS Macro USM!
cost? $1500
Sounds like a 3rd party named lens

[bjyoder]

That's just the first day. ;)

It would increase x2 every day until eventually everyone in the world would be on the list (plus babies not born for generations to come). :lol:

Sounds like Green Bay Packer tickets! :D :lol:

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ I'm on the Green Bay Packer ticket waiting list and I don't even know what a "Green Bay Paker" is. :p

:lol:

[KenjiS]

You are assuming that (1) this hybrid IS is going to be applied to the 70-200/2.8L IS, and (2) this is the only design modification to this lens.

I want to take the opportunity to point out that neither of these are known to be true. If Canon does decide to update the 70-200/2.8L IS, I can virtually guarantee that it will not merely involve inclusion of the new hybrid IS. I predict that a revision to this design will involve a reduction in the number of elements/groups by replacing some of the UD groups with one or more fluorite elements. You heard it here first, folks. Mark my words.

The existing 70-200/2.8L IS has a LOT of glass, which is heavy, but more importantly, internal reflections and loss of contrast are much more difficult to mitigate when you have that many surface/air transitions. In fact, I believe this lens contains one of the largest (if not the largest) number of elements in any current EF design. Presently it is of excellent optical quality, but I predict that if a redesign occurs, the mark II of this lens will be quite a shocker. It will be noticeably and significantly better, especially at f/2.8, and at 200mm. Color and contrast will be improved, and while it won't rival a prime lens in corner-to-corner sharpness, it will get a lot closer. The existing lens is not particularly sharp from f/2.8-4.0, and in fact it is noticeably soft in the corners. This will be greatly improved in the next version. I also predict that a mark II version will actually be lighter than the present design, as there will be fewer elements.

Canon is unlikely to update such a popular lens as the 70-200/2.8L IS by only touching the IS technology, rather than doing a more dramatic redesign, which is entirely feasible given that this lens is nearly a decade old. New glass/fluorite, coatings, aspherical fabrication methods developed in the meantime enable significant improvement which in turn will result in many owners of the current lens to go out and buy a redesign. If they only add in hybrid IS, that won't get as many people placing an order for the new one.

My predictions for what Canon would do in a hypothetical 70-200/2.8L IS II. In summary:
Hybrid IS.
Use of at least one fluorite element.
Reduction in number of elements.
Reduction in weight.
Improved corner-to-corner sharpness at all focal lengths and apertures.
Significant improvement @ f/2.8, and @ 200mm.

Agreed, the New 70-200 f/2.8L H-IS USM will be a slightly simplified design, maybe a little lighter [More in line with the non-IS 70-200 f/2.8, so 2.9lbs..] and I expect that f/2.8 it will match the f/4 IS in sharpness and at f/4 it will exceed it and possibly be about the sharpest zoom in Canon's lineup...

I expect 4.5 stops of IS in it, and I expect the USM will be upgraded to be even faster, possibly because the 1D will be getting a quicker AF system..also because it makes sense [I mean the 70-200 f/2.8 is a very common lens for sports shooters...]

On full frame im expecting little to no vignetting in the corners, and I'm expecting the bokeh to be absolutely stunning out of it...

I may have high expectations, but I fully expect such a move from Canon, updating one of their best selling most popular lenses means the upgrade needs to be stunning to warrant the cost to a pro...

I expect the price to be about $2200 MSRP, likely about $1800 at stores...

Then I expect a 24-70 f/2.8 H-IS, Stunning quality at 2.8 at all focal lengths, Superb handling of flare, no smaller [And keeping the same sort of trick hood] but dropping the weight a few ounces through use of new coatings and a slightly simplified optical design...

[kenshinvt]

70-200 f/2.8L H-IS USM

so you think they are going to start using a new acronym to distinguish it? or did you see that posted somewhere?

btw i like your predictions, i agree that those kinds of updates would be ideal - lets hope they are going that route

[KenjiS]

so you think they are going to start using a new acronym to distinguish it? or did you see that posted somewhere?

btw i like your predictions, i agree that those kinds of updates would be ideal - lets hope they are going that route


Well, I'm not sure...

I'm thinking they might because it is a new technology, its definately different than the old IS, I'd say this warrants a new acronym and H-IS makes sense...

[lonelyjew]

I really doubt its a possibility but, ideally, it would be great to have a camera with sensor shift based IS as well as lenses with their own IS systems. I can't imagine it would be easy to integrate both into working simultaneously but would it be so unrealistic to have the in camera IS turn itself off when an IS lens is attached? From what I've heard in lens IS isn't very useful at the wide end and the opposite can be said about in body IS and telephoto lenses. So, a company that was out to please the photog would be able to cover the IS end of wide angle lenses in body and have telephoto lenses with their own built in IS systems. Like I said, not going to happen, but it would be nice.

[bjyoder]

I really doubt its a possibility but, ideally, it would be great to have a camera with sensor shift based IS as well as lenses with their own IS systems. I can't imagine it would be easy to integrate both into working simultaneously but would it be so unrealistic to have the in camera IS turn itself off when an IS lens is attached? From what I've heard in lens IS isn't very useful at the wide end and the opposite can be said about in body IS and telephoto lenses. So, a company that was out to please the photog would be able to cover the IS end of wide angle lenses in body and have telephoto lenses with their own built in IS systems. Like I said, not going to happen, but it would be nice.


But if manufacturers don't want to cover their lenses with IS on the wide end because it doesn't matter, why would it matter if it's covered in the body? Not to mention the cost increases that most wouldn't want to pay for. Then they would have to pay for IS in the body AND the lens.

[KenjiS]

But if manufacturers don't want to cover their lenses with IS on the wide end because it doesn't matter, why would it matter if it's covered in the body? Not to mention the cost increases that most wouldn't want to pay for. Then they would have to pay for IS in the body AND the lens.

Yeh but I personally think the cost arguement means absolutely NOTHING when it comes to this in-lens IS thing....For example...

Canon 18-55 IS = $155

Sony 18-55 SAM = $200

Canon is $45 cheaper and having handled both, are equal in build..the Canon even focuses a lot faster...

Canon 55-250 IS = $255

Sony 55-200 SAM = $229

The Canon covers an extra 50mm and is a whopping $25 more expensive...but is that extra $25 just because of the IS? or because the Canon covers out an extra 50mm?

Moving out of the low end...

Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS = $1,699.95

Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G = $1799.99

I expected a larger price difference here..Canon's prices shot up a bit I guess..but still, $100 LESS for a lens with -more parts- the real competetor to that Sony lens is really Canon's 70-200 f/2.8L which is a mere $1,249.99...

Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS = $1,400

Sony 70-400 f/4-5.6 G = $1599.99

Here the difference is $200...Pretty big...

Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS = $4,100.00

Sony 300mm f/2.8 G = $6,299.99

Holy ****cakes batman! Here we have a difference of $2,200!! And what is it buying you?

Nothing...

Its a lot like the AF era arguement that putting lens motors into lenses make the lenses more expensive, Except for the fact that economy of scale means that maybe at first this is true, but eventually it just all works out to the same...

I think the price differences on most modern lenses are more from improved coatings and more expensive optical glass formulations...not to mention inflation! Note that a large chunk of Canon's latest releases have lacked IS and still jumped in price quite a bit, most likely because of material cost more than anything else...

I used Sony and not Olympus for this because Olympus lenses have other things that make them pretty affordable, Only having to cover a sensor half the size helps to make their lenses a lot smaller and use less materials...And Pentax wasnt included because i felt theres not enough thats -directly- comparable..

[cdreemz17]

1 vote for 100mm IS macro!

[bjyoder]

Yeh but I personally think the cost arguement means absolutely NOTHING when it comes to this in-lens IS thing....For example...

...

Holy ****cakes batman! Here we have a difference of $2,200!! And what is it buying you?

Nothing...

Its a lot like the AF era arguement that putting lens motors into lenses make the lenses more expensive, Except for the fact that economy of scale means that maybe at first this is true, but eventually it just all works out to the same...

I think the price differences on most modern lenses are more from improved coatings and more expensive optical glass formulations...not to mention inflation! Note that a large chunk of Canon's latest releases have lacked IS and still jumped in price quite a bit, most likely because of material cost more than anything else...

I used Sony and not Olympus for this because Olympus lenses have other things that make them pretty affordable, Only having to cover a sensor half the size helps to make their lenses a lot smaller and use less materials...And Pentax wasnt included because i felt theres not enough thats -directly- comparable..

I'm not trying to compare cost system to system, because, as you pointed out, the cost of IS is practically nothing anymore (largely thanks to Sony). But if I had a whole arsenal of IS lenses, why would I want to pay for the IS again in the body of the camera?

[KenjiS]

I'm not trying to compare cost system to system, because, as you pointed out, the cost of IS is practically nothing anymore (largely thanks to Sony). But if I had a whole arsenal of IS lenses, why would I want to pay for the IS again in the body of the camera?

Well true...

Unless the cost of the IS in the camera didnt really effect the price any..but even still i dont see a need for it when every lens where you really need IS exists in Canon's lineup

To be honest, I think personally if you need IS in something shorter than a 28mm FF equivalent, Then you probubly need to evaluate your technique and not your glass...

And for me i found the Sony in-camera IS bloody aweful even with a 18-55, certainly NOWHERE near as refined or good as Canon's 18-55 IS lens...

[oaktree]

If you're adding IS to the 24-70, do it to the 17-40, also. PLEASE, I'm begging.

[KenjiS]

If you're adding IS to the 24-70, do it to the 17-40, also. PLEASE, I'm begging.

They have that, its called the 17-55 IS :)

Seriously, No offense, if you need IS in a 17-40, you need to work on technique or get a tripod....once you hit the limits of handholdability on that thing, you're into tripod territory...IS or not...

[oaktree]

They have that, its called the 17-55 IS :)

Seriously, No offense, if you need IS in a 17-40, you need to work on technique or get a tripod....once you hit the limits of handholdability on that thing, you're into tripod territory...IS or not...

I already have a 17-552.8 IS for my XTi. I want a wider zoom (with IS) than my 24-105/$L IS for my 5DmkII. I also have Gitzo tripod when I really need it (e.g., macro). Many museums, churches/temples and aquariums don't allow tripods I need a wide zoom with IS for these situations.

[KenjiS]

I already have a 17-552.8 IS for my XTi. I want a wider zoom (with IS) than my 24-105/$L IS for my 5DmkII. I also have Gitzo tripod when I really need it (e.g., macro). Many museums, churches/temples and aquariums don't allow tripods I need a wide zoom with IS for these situations.

What about a 16-35 f/2.8 then?

I suppose i see your point but even in an aquarium the moving fish are going to be an issue id imagine...

[rklepper]

When I took computer programming way back when, my professor told me that you should always be 5 minutes behind the new technology or you will pay crazy money. Makes sense.

Just to tell you how far back that was, we were using 8 inch floppy disks.


Why can't life be simple? I wish they would stop developing new things. How can a person ever keep up? WOW.

[trancerem]

i wish for a 24-70 is or 70-200 is II, but none of these is gonna be the first hybrid is.
as u might notice, the 24-105 4 is ( kit lens for full frame bodyes ) is dropping price, more, u have a money back of 100$ for a new one.
so, my bet is 24-105 4 is II. :)

[wickerprints]

But there's nothing wrong with the current 24-105/4L IS, which is relatively new ???

My bet's on an older lens, either 24-70/2.8L, or the 70-200/2.8L IS. I don't think it'll go on a prime, with the exception that it could find its way on the 180/3.5L macro or (less likely) the 100/2.8 macro. It won't go on UWA or a non-L lens, so that leaves the above two choices. And I think it would be more likely to go on a design that already has IS, so that leaves the 70-200/2.8L IS as my top pick for the new "hybrid" IS. And in the meantime, they'll probably tweak the design to reduce the number of elements, with a high likelihood they'll replace one or more UD elements with fluorite. You can see that the more recent 70-200/4L (IS and non-IS) incorporate fluorite in their design--this in part explains their superior optical performance compared to the older f/2.8 models.

Process of elimination.

Price changes are not really very good indicators of upcoming changes, because they often incorporate factors not related to a possible update--for example, Canon may drop price because of insufficient demand relative to existing supply, which may be what is happening if more people are choosing to buy the 5D2 without the kit lens than expected.

[KenjiS]

When I took computer programming way back when, my professor told me that you should always be 5 minutes behind the new technology or you will pay crazy money. Makes sense.

Just to tell you how far back that was, we were using 8 inch floppy disks.

This is true..

Though with computers, and many other things, I've found that shooting for the middle ends up the best value..

I buy a computer and spec it out so its not bottom end, but its far from the top end, Sub-$2k...and i dont chinse on cheapo no-name parts or lower end parts [IE my current rig has a massively overspecced motherboard meant for gaming and heavy overclocking, But i chose it because its design also made it fairly reliable and stable]

Usually lasts me, Who is a picky performance guy with severe multitasking disorder about 3 years, and I spend around $1800 when i do so, So $600/year..

Comparison, I have friends whos parents will buy them a $600-700 computer every year, and yell at me and bitch that i "waste money" spending more than $1000 on a computer..

Usually by the third year, my $1800 rig is still quicker than their brand new $700 one...

And my last $1800 computer i sold to a friend for $500 at the end of it, I got my money's worth in my opinion, And so did she [I offered it to her when she said she had a $500 budget, I looked at what you get for $500 and said "I have basically that in my basement, Except its got a faster HDD and FAR superior graphics and sound...."]

This one is halfway through my lifecycle, the Core i7s are very VERY tempting to me right now and I would like a new graphics card, But its also not deficient in any major way...I have a Q9300 at its heart and thats pretty potent, backed up with 8gbs of ram and a newly-done 1.28TB RAID 0 array....

I also have a 3 year old Samsung 50" 720p DLP HDTV I spent $1300 on, At the time, it was an $1800 set i got a fantastic buy on, I see very few in stores that compell me to upgrade, considering id want to get an LCD of the same size [or close, 50" is perfect for my viewing distance] and then id want a 120 or 240hz response rate, Adding that up its actually almost $3k for it...I'm actually fairly mad everyone killed DLPs so fast, because if want a TV bigger than 42" you're SOL without spending at least $2200 if not $2500 for one....

I just replaced the bulb in her earlier this year, and provided the color wheel and DLP engine stay OK I should easily get another 2-3 out of this bulb before I'll worry about replacing it

[Jannie]

Hoping for a 100mm Macro IS "L" series with the new Hybrid technology and wishing it'd be faster than 2.8, even just a third of a stop faster. This would be such an incredible and versatile lens, also would help if it would work with the 1.4 tele extender.

[KenjiS]

Hoping for a 100mm Macro IS "L" series with the new Hybrid technology and wishing it'd be faster than 2.8, even just a third of a stop faster. This would be such an incredible and versatile lens, also would help if it would work with the 1.4 tele extender.

Making it faster would make it a lot bigger most likely or otherwise compromise it optically id imagine..

Theres few macro lenses in any FL faster than f/2.8

[Jannie]

Yeah I know, Nikon has a 105 micro f2.8 with VR for around $900, a friend got one and it's very sweeeeet. I can only hope for a combination lens that I could use for both portraits and macro which are kind of opposite ends of lens design but it's okay to fantasize and consider adjusting the differences in post production. The desire for faster is because so often I really do need it, not for macro work but everything else, it's the main reason why I buy primes. The other thing for me would be if Canon upgraded it's 100mm f2 to a L series, I could get very excited about that.

Ultimately my wish list line up, including lenses in my sig would be:

24L, 50L, 85L, 100macro, 135L, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8.

That leaves me planning for the 50L and possibly the 100 macro (hoping it an L) if they do make a new one with IS, otherwise I've got a 25mm Canon extension tube already in my shopping cart ready to buy if Canon's announcement doesn't offer up something desirable.

[Deejayry]

Has there been any more info released on this new IS system and which lens it will feature on first.

i'm hoping to get a 70-200 2.8 L IS towards the end of the year, but if canon are making a Mk2 version then i might be tempted to hold out for a while until it is released.

[jayro11]

Has there been any more info released on this new IS system and which lens it will feature on first.

i'm hoping to get a 70-200 2.8 L IS towards the end of the year, but if canon are making a Mk2 version then i might be tempted to hold out for a while until it is released.

this seems like an old thread. pretty sure the hybrid IS tech is on the 100mm 2.8L macro IS that was/is being released recently!

[KenjiS]

this seems like an old thread. pretty sure the hybrid IS tech is on the 100mm 2.8L macro IS that was/is being released recently!

Yes, this thread is pretty old, the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is a hybrid-IS lens