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

Hogloff wrote in post #16780175
I believe you are the one that brought up IS as a failure point in cameras and I just went into say there are many failure points in today's camera and pros carry backup systems just for this reason. Basically IS being failure prone in cameras is no more an issue than any other component being failure prone. Definetly not a reason to not provide IS in the body.

But you are too fixated on "pro", and professionals bringing spare equipment.

The majority of people on POTN aren't professionals. The majority of Canon customers aren't professionals.

A person going on vacation might not be able to afford a spare body. And a person taking a weekend at a zoo might not want/be able to carry a redundant set of equipment.

The implication of a failed in-camera IS would matter way more than a failed lens IS for a very large number of Canon customers.

And a Canon professional would know that all longer lenses do require IS in the lens. While you haven't really managed to show that there are any significant price jump for getting IS in the wider lenses. Canon's cheapest IS lenses are about $200.

kachadurian wrote in post #16778273
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

Ok, so I've gone back and re-read the op's first post and the answer to his question - the sentence with the question mark is-

I can't answer for everyone here. But I use the IS in my Canon wide primes for scenics where I'm not so concerned about "freezing motion".
I use my non-IS Canon 50 & 85 primes for people pics and when I'm generally concerned about freezing the motion either through a quick enough shutter speed and or a fast flash of added light. For those reasons, I'm not really concerned about Canon's 50-85mm lacking IS. Now, when the FL reaches 135 and 200mm my concern changes a little. I do have the option to switch to some very fine f2.8 zooms and all is good in my life.

I do realize and respect individual differences and viewpoints.
So I always like to conclude a discussion like this with - "Your Actual Mileage May Differ"

Always the Best!

pwm2 wrote in post #16780209
But you are too fixated on "pro", and professionals bringing spare equipment.

The majority of people on POTN aren't professionals. The majority of Canon customers aren't professionals.

A person going on vacation might not be able to afford a spare body. And a person taking a weekend at a zoo might not want/be able to carry a redundant set of equipment.

The implication of a failed in-camera IS would matter way more than a failed lens IS for a very large number of Canon customers.

And a Canon professional would know that all longer lenses do require IS in the lens. While you haven't really managed to show that there are any significant price jump for getting IS in the wider lenses. Canon's cheapest IS lenses are about $200.

YOU are the one fixated on in body IS failing. I just said that if YOU are so concerned with in body IS failing...then YOU should also be just as concerned with the AF failing, the metering failing, the shutter failing, the mirror failing...in other words, just about every component in today's complex DSLR. Why do YOU think in body IS will fail more often than any of those other components that I mentioned. I see zero proof out there that in body IS is prone to failure more than the shutter or AF.

I see a huge advantage of having in body IS with a very very little risk of failure. Right now I have no way of stabilizing my 135L or 200L...and they sure could use stabilization at times. Sure Canon could release new versions of these lenses with IS, but gruaranteed their price would at least double.

So continue to want in-body IS. But don't get angry when people make comments about in-body IS. That's just plain silly.

pwm2 wrote in post #16780600
So continue to want in-body IS. But don't get angry when people make comments about in-body IS. That's just plain silly.

Not angry at all...just wanted to ensure you don't lead people down the path thinking in body IS is a gimmick that is prone to failure. That is just wrong.

But I have never said that - I have said that if in-body IS fails, the result is normally worse than if in-lens IS fails. You not agreeing with that statement?

I wish my EF 100mm f/2 USM had IS. I don't wish to pay $999 to replace a lens that has nothing wrong with it. Perhaps another manufacturer will get into some longer stabilized primes. For me, a prime longer than 100mm is too much of a specialty lens.

After seeing Canon come out with IS on the new 24 & 28mm lenses I am sure it will not be long before they release a new 50mm with IS.

Naturalist wrote in post #16781031
After seeing Canon come out with IS on the new 24 & 28mm lenses I am sure it will not be long before they release a new 50mm with IS.

They better think about releasing a new 50 soon as Sigma is going to clean their clocks with their new 50 coming out very soon.

Hogloff wrote in post #16780571
I see a huge advantage of having in body IS with a very very little risk of failure. Right now I have no way of stabilizing my 135L or 200L...and they sure could use stabilization at times. Sure Canon could release new versions of these lenses with IS, but gruaranteed their price would at least double.

Their price may be at least double (no way of knowing, since we're obviously guessing here), but we can't simply believe that the price doubled solely due to the addition of IS unless the optics and other elements of the build remain exactly as they were in the original non-IS version.

Seeing the price increases on vII of lenses without IS (such as the brick), it seems that Canon may jump significantly in price on new iterations of lenses even without IS as a factor. A new lens design will be more expensive, be it with or without IS. There are significant costs to recoup, and it MUST be better than the original in some way(s) in order to make Canon's design and production effort and the consumer's expense worthwhile. IS is but one factor, just as sharpness, build quality and other attributes add to the new design.

Have any lenses been released with no optical changes, only the addition of IS? If so, the price differential there may prove a good example of Canon's valuation of IS.

Dillan_K wrote in post #16778511
I don't want the lens prices to go through the roof, so I'm happy Canon has not released these with IS.

this...i don't think i'd want to pay 2-3X the price for IS versions of lenses that already exist...

DreDaze wrote in post #16786474
this...i don't think i'd want to pay 2-3X the price for IS versions of lenses that already exist...

Lol. Well spoken.

More than IS the 85F1.8 and 100F2 need to be corrected for purple fringing.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #16778475
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.

buy two. I want one as well

pwm2 wrote in post #16780209
The implication of a failed in-camera IS would matter way more than a failed lens IS for a very large number of Canon customers.

from my understanding, a failed inbody IS wouldnt matter much since you can turn it off anyhow. On top of that, I think in body IS is probably a lot less likely to fail due to the size and weight of the sensor.

I'm sure sony or olympus have these numbers.