Why no 3rd party IS?

I've always wondered -- why is IS not available from any of the the third party manufacturers? Is it the R&D? Cost? Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron has made some affordable and amazing lenses over the years, and yet none of them seems to have touched on the IS market. Surely there is $$ to be earned and market share to take away from Canon and Nikon?

ryleung wrote in post #2541611
I've always wondered -- why is IS not available from any of the the third party manufacturers? Is it the R&D? Cost? Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron has made some affordable and amazing lenses over the years, and yet none of them seems to have touched on the IS market. Surely there is $$ to be earned and market share to take away from Canon and Nikon?

I wondered too - any chance that it's a patent issue?

Sigma has the 80-400 OS and has announced their 18-200 OS that has not been shipped yet. Comes down to cost. Sigma's nitch is good lenses at better prices than Canon. If they added OS and HSM into more lenses they would not fill their nitch anymore.

IS goes by different names with different manufacturers -- Canon's is IS; Nikon is VR. There shouldn't be any patent issues as long as the company develops it own image stabilization technology.

But omg... I am totally not aware of Sigma's OS technology at all! I sure hope they they add this feature into more of their lenses. Then I wouldn't have to just drool over Canon's IS lenses.

IS is just a gimick anyways on a short lens. Blah blah blah people say the need it, see a difference, etc. But IS only really seems to start coming in handy after 200mm. I am glad others dont seem to put IS into their lenses because all IS does is make a lenses cost shoot through the roof!

It's on Sigma's upcoming 18-200 lens. I have not seen it advertised anywhere in the U. S.

cjm wrote in post #2542134
IS is just a gimick anyways on a short lens.

I disagree. You don't really need it when you have plenty of light. There are few times that I didn't have tripod but IS helped me getting a decent night shot.
Also, sometimes you want more DOF on a overcast day, IS helps too.

cjm wrote in post #2542134
IS is just a gimick anyways on a short lens. Blah blah blah people say the need it, see a difference, etc. But IS only really seems to start coming in handy after 200mm. I am glad others dont seem to put IS into their lenses because all IS does is make a lenses cost shoot through the roof!

Nonsense. Any lens has a lower shutter speed limit at which an individual can hand hold and get reasonably sharp results and IS extends that limit.

Remember that only Nikon and Canon us in-lens stabilization. Third party manufacturers want to produce a product that will fit many brands with just an alteration to the lens mount. I would love to see a Sigma 50-500 with their OS system, but they would do be able to offer OS on their lenses for Olympus, Pentax or Sony/Minolta cameras. Apparently they don't think they would generate enough Canon and Nikon sales to warrant the development, manufacturing and marketing costs.

ScottE wrote in post #2542591
Remember that only Nikon and Canon us in-lens stabilization. Third party manufacturers want to produce a product that will fit many brands with just an alteration to the lens mount. I would love to see a Sigma 50-500 with their OS system, but they would do be able to offer OS on their lenses for Olympus, Pentax or Sony/Minolta cameras. Apparently they don't think they would generate enough Canon and Nikon sales to warrant the development, manufacturing and marketing costs.

I understand your argument, Scott, but I wonder how accurate it is. Canon is most definitely the most popular dSLR manufacturer at the moment, and Nikon is in the second spot in terms of market penetration. I have no idea on actual statistical figures, but I would guess that Canon and Nikon together would account for at least 70% (if not more) of the total dSLR market at the moment. Certainly that would be a big enough business case for these 3rd party lense manufacturers to come up with something to satisfy a potential 70% of the consumers out there?

eventually the third parties will have to come out with their versions of IS since canon is driving the bus in that direction.

the ensuing freak show will be a sight to behold i tell ya !

ed rader

Any ideas on how much that Sigma 18-200 might run? $500?

Matt57 wrote in post #2543447
Any ideas on how much that Sigma 18-200 might run? $500?

$500 seems rather excessive to me. After all, the lense is only f/3.5 - 6.3. Perhaps US$400 - $450 would be more appropriate?

Matt57 wrote in post #2543447
Any ideas on how much that Sigma 18-200 might run? $500?

Probably more than that seeing the current 18-200 is $380+/-. Although, for five bills it would get a fair amount of attention.

20DNewbie wrote in post #2543481
Probably more than that seeing the current 18-200 is $380+/-. Although, for five bills it would get a fair amount of attention.

Yep. 18-200 is a huge range. If it does it well, sign me up.

Matt57 wrote in post #2543489
Yep. 18-200 is a huge range. If it does it well, sign me up.

The range is large, but at the long end, you really can't do very much with F/6.3 unless the environment is very bright.