Time for IS in 50mm and 85mm or even 135mm

I vastly prefer primes and I have a lot of them.

I realized shooting today that Canon now has IS all over the map, but not in the key lenses where IS would be amazing.

I was shooting with a 24mm IS, 35mm IS and 100L IS. I went to use a 50mm and really missed the IS. Why Canon. Why no 50mm IS, and why not.

Then I got thinking about it. If they are not going to update the 50f14 then a 50mm f1.8 or f2 IS would be a killer. How about an 85mm f1.8IS. I can't even think about a 135f2L IS or get all hot and sweaty.

I know it can be done. If they can make a 35mmf2 with IS they can do it with a 50mm f1.8. If they can make a 100mm MACRO! IS then they can certainly make an 85mm f1.8 IS. The 100L is even cheap (for what it is) I don't know about anyone else but I'd buy an 85mm f1.8 IS, even non-L if it was in the $800-900 price range.

I don't think I'll buy another prime longer than 20mm without IS.

Am I a solo voice here?

Tom

Heya,

I agree... no idea why they keep releasing wide angle to normal view primes with IS. Sure it's handy and great. But what about on the 85 and 100 and 135 where it will be even more useful?

They're just milking us... they know we will all get the latest 85mm F2 IS once they release it.

Very best,

Why not build IS into the camera body / sensor assembly?
Oh no - I can feel the heat already..... Let me put my asbestos suit on......
Lol.

My one dream lens is an EF 55MM F2 L IS USM Macro, essentially the 100L scaled down, down to the build and weathersealing, and with F2. Yes, I'd fork over $1,000 for it.

I don't want the lens prices to go through the roof, so I'm happy Canon has not released these with IS.

SamFrench wrote in post #16778293
Why not build IS into the camera body / sensor assembly?
Oh no - I can feel the heat already..... Let me put my asbestos suit on......
Lol.

No need to feel the heat, I would rather have the IS crap out on a lens then the body. I rather be without a lens then a body. Most of us have extra lens then an extra body

SamFrench wrote in post #16778293
Why not build IS into the camera body / sensor assembly?
Oh no - I can feel the heat already..... Let me put my asbestos suit on......
Lol.

As a topic that comes up periodically, here is one reason.
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=13846659&p​ostcount=8

Copperny wrote in post #16778593
No need to feel the heat, I would rather have the IS crap out on a lens then the body. I rather be without a lens then a body. Most of us have extra lens then an extra body

Do you have evidence that the inbody IS from Sony and Olympus are breaking down everywhere? Sounds like paranoia to me.

SamFrench wrote in post #16778293
Why not build IS into the camera body / sensor assembly?
Oh no - I can feel the heat already..... Let me put my asbestos suit on......
Lol.

It's an interesting question. Instead of trying to high jack this thread, why not start your own.

If you shoot Canon you must know by now that they have left that decision behind years ago. They have mastered in lens IS are have a huge range of IS lenses.

I was asking a serious question that people who use their cameras should consider. You are presenting forum fodder that tilts at windmills.

Try staying on topic. It's much more constructive.

Tom

I am glad companies like tamron and sigmas are trying to step up. Competition is good for consumers. So whoever makes the first 135 1.8 IS under $1000, I'm pre-ordering.

SamFrench wrote in post #16778293
Why not build IS into the camera body / sensor assembly?
Oh no - I can feel the heat already..... Let me put my asbestos suit on......
Lol.

They could, but it would still not work as well as IS in the lenses because the sensor can't move very much sideways, while a very small lens movement will give a quite large change to the optical path when the light finally reaches the sensor.

The good thing here is that they have managed to cut down a lot on the cost of IS in the lenses, allowing even very cheap lenses to come with IS.

pwm2 wrote in post #16779318
They could, but it would still not work as well as IS in the lenses because the sensor can't move very much sideways, while a very small lens movement will give a quite large change to the optical path when the light finally reaches the sensor.

The good thing here is that they have managed to cut down a lot on the cost of IS in the lenses, allowing even very cheap lenses to come with IS.

I think the cost of IS in a lens was always cheap. Canon just charged a premium because people lined up and paid that premium. Cash cow for Canon.

It would be interesting to know exactly how much time Canon is currently spending trying to produce a couple of wide/normal lenses suitable for mirrorless bodies. The next time Canon do release a mirrorless body, they would probably have to release at least 3-4 new lenses too - the previous attempt at mirrorless was nothing more than a market test to get some feedback.

The problematic 50/1.2 should get a replacement that doesn't suffer so much from focus shifts. And they could really release a 50/1.8 or 50/2.0 too with IS.

Hogloff wrote in post #16779324
I think the cost of IS in a lens was always cheap. Canon just charged a premium because people lined up and paid that premium. Cash cow for Canon.

No, when Canon did introduce IS, the component costs was much higher than now. The addition of large amounts of sensors is the smart phones is what have driven down the costs significantly. It's all about volume. It was also much harder then to manage IS with a tight power budget.

Hogloff wrote in post #16779139
Do you have evidence that the inbody IS from Sony and Olympus are breaking down everywhere? Sounds like paranoia to me.

Let's say that in-body IS have the same probability of breaking down as in-lens IS. But we do know that the IS in the lenses do fail sometimes. Sometimes you can continue to use the lens without IS, but sometimes that lens can't be used until fixed.

With same failure rate in-body, you can't switch to another lens and continue with IS. You might be able to continue without IS, but it is more likely that it isn't just the shake mechanism that has failed but that you get a communication failure with the sensor. So it's time for the backup body. With a shaking sensor, you do need communication wires between a fixed and a moving part - that's not something that is needed in the IS of a lens.