Why the Image Stabalization gap?

Why doesn't Canon include image stabalization (IS) with their 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm prime lenses? They do for the 24mm, 28mm, 200mm, and zooms. I would love an 85mm prime with IS, but no such puppy. Only choice here is to use the 70-200mm tank.

The 24mm and 28mm are brand new lenses. The 35, 50, 85, and 135mm lenses are all older lenses . I'd bet that the next revisions of these lenses have a pretty good chance of including IS.

Does a short lens really need IS? I find when shooting the 70-300 it comes in right handy, but don't miss it on the 50 and 85 at all.

I suppose you need IS on a 50 1.2 if you drink 10 cups of coffee.

tovarish wrote in post #14650996
I suppose you need IS on a 50 1.2 if you drink 10 cups of coffee.

And...enjoy spending more for (unnecessary) bells and whistles?

Ack!! no!, primes cost enough as it is! They are short enough in body for me not to need the IS at all. I appreciate it in the telephotos, but with the fast apertures of the primes it typically yeilds fast shutter speeds anyway and that renders IS pretty much unnessessary.

PicBug wrote in post #14650975
Does a short lens really need IS? I find when shooting the 70-300 it comes in right handy, but don't miss it on the 50 and 85 at all.

I would agree with you Pic - a short FL lens can be held much steadier than a zoom or longer device, and people are happy not to have to pay the extra $400 (?) or so for IS.

if you have good technique the IS is not necessary for anything less than 100mm focal length. Its just another $300 added to the price.

PicBug wrote in post #14650975
Does a short lens really need IS? I find when shooting the 70-300 it comes in right handy, but don't miss it on the 50 and 85 at all.

I found it essential for this shot with my 17-55 f2.8 IS, taken in a dimly lit bar at ISO 3200, f2.8, 1/13th sec and zoomed at 31mm. The IS made the shot possible with near perfect sharpness, and my subjects had to be quite still for the shot. I wanted the ambient lighting for atmosphere.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Preeb wrote in post #14651023
I found it essential for this shot with my 17-55 f2.8 IS, taken in a dimly lit bar at ISO 3200, f2.8, 1/13th sec and zoomed at 31mm. The IS made the shot possible with near perfect sharpness, and my subjects had to be quite still for the shot. I wanted the ambient lighting for atmosphere.

I think what they are saying is with a prime capable of 1.2 or 1.4 for that focal length of 31mm (or 50mm for FF) that they would of been able to get the shot without the need for IS since they could of done it with iso 3200, F1.4 and 1/50th of a second = focal length for the exact same exposure.

F2.8 doesn't stop motion imho.

I don't even like IS. I seem to get sharper shots without it.

Naturalist wrote in post #14651017
if you have good technique the IS is not necessary for anything less than 100mm focal length. Its just another $300 added to the price.

Not everyone that's a photographer, is motionless. It isn't always about technique, but our bodies. There are a LOT of older members on here, and people with bad backs, shoulders, nerves, etc. These can all make handholding a royal PITA.

Actually, the population is rapidly aging, with all the baby boomers, etc. I suppose that only fully able-bodied, and young people should use fast primes?

tovarish wrote in post #14650996
I suppose you need IS on a 50 1.2 if you drink 10 cups of coffee.

PicBug wrote in post #14651004
And...enjoy spending more for (unnecessary) bells and whistles?

Or if you shoot video the is can be quite handy in any focal length.

I would sell any one of your souls for IS on the 135...

i agree. why canon has no 135mm With image stab is incomprehensible.
perhaps its a marketing trick to get us to buy the 70-200. although that wouldnt explain why nikon doesnt have one either.

and

who cares about 24mm IS.