What exactly is IS and why don't we see 3rd party competition?

Can someone explain exactly what Image Stabilization is and how it works?

If it is an effective technology then why aren't companies like Sigma and Tamron following in suit and producing competetively priced lenses incorporating IS? Is it patented by Canon? Is it just too expensive a technology to attempt to create beter consumer pricing with it?

I see that IS lenses are considerably more expensive but what does it actually do for you? What is the difference when shooting as far as the IS? Does it allow for the use of longer focal lengths at slower shutter speeds without the added motion blur?

TMR Design,
Here is a link explaining what IS is and what it can do
Canon IS Lenses Worth it or not?

Huntington Station?
Ever have chicken at Maria's on New York ave (they were the best)?

Thanks John,

Good article and that pretty much puts things in perspective.

No, I have not eaten at Marias. Does it still exist? Where exactly was it? perhaps you can PM me.

If there are two lenses that cost the same. Here's an example:

Canon 200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon 200mm f/1.8L USM

I would always take the bigger-aperture version.

I had the 70-300 IS f/4-5.6

I sold it, and bought a fixed aperture 70-200 non-IS f/4, and even L.

Eh, that's not really explaining IS, but I don't really recommend it. I believe that if Canon would make a 70-200 f/4L II non-IS, it would have better image quality than the 70-200 f/4L IS.

Sigma have their IS version but limited.

first of all, there is no such thing as a 200 2.8L IS, and the 200 1.8L is discontinued and goes for $5000, anyone that could afford one would take it any day.

as for what IS does. it moves an element of the lens slightly to compensate for camera shake.

Also, sigma has one lens with its own OS (optical stabalizer). the 80-400 OS, but it gets a bad rap, because sigma, for whatever reason, or lack of reason, did not give it HSM focusing.

do we know that the current 70-200f4 has worse IQ than the new IS version?

ed rader

panasonic has it in their digi cams, as does sony now. Nikon has it in their lenses, and dony/minolta have it built into their camera bodies.

the idea is to help eliminate camera shake from handholding a camera below shutter speeds smaller than the focal length of the lens

Read my post better, please. I said "For example:"

Do we know that I wrote "70-200mm f/4L II USM", not "70-200mm f/4L USM".

I know it's not existing, but I think that version would have better IQ.

And do we know that the 70-200 f/4L non-IS is 7 years old?!

a model that doesn't exist will have better IQ than a model that does exist but isn't available.

and the current version being 7 years old is nothing. It has overall better IQ than the newer 70-200 2.8 IS. Believe it or not, but some of the best lenses are decades old

i know what you wrote and i think it's pretty obvious that a new non-IS version would have better IQ.

you seemed to be implying that the current non-IS f4 would have lesser IQ.

i thought you knew something .

ed rader

It doesn't affect motion blur, which I define as the blur of the subjects moving, or that of the background if you pan with the subject. If you have a moving subject, bird, squirrel whatever, IS won't help you if your shutter speed is too slow.

Where it makes the difference is with camera shake. I use the 100-400L IS, often in low light conditions, and I can handhold this at 1/125th with no shake at all, or even down to 1/50th with a good percentage of shots still not showing camera shake. Without IS, I would be looking at 1/400th to be safe and a sporting chance at 1/250th.

I have loads of good shots that I could never have even attempted without the IS on. Yes, I would prefer a 400 f2.8 but it's outside my budget. I am planning on adding a 70-200 f2.8L to my collection, as there are times I am shooting and the shutter speed is so low that the subject has a blurred head or leg, where it moved during the exposure. The rest of the shot is pin sharp as the IS has killed the camera shake however. The 2.8 will allow a faster shutter speed but at the expense of the 100-400s reach.

One situation that the IS excels at is when I actually WANT motion blur but not camera shake. I shoot at airshows and, if I am shooting propellor driven aircraft, I like to use a slow shutter speed to allow the prop to blur nicely, rather than be sharp and look stationary, I want the REST of the aircraft to stay sharp however. To blur the prop requires a shutter speed of 1/125th or slower, without IS attempting to pan with the plane at 400mm would cause increased camera shake and a much lower hit rate.

I have a 28-135 IS too, with which I find much less use for the IS as camera shake is much less of a problem at the shorter length. It has still been necessary for some shots however.

Like so many things in photography, whether it is worth the money depends on what you shoot. For me IS is essential on the 100-400L, but others may not find it useful at all.

It DOES work and at times it makes the difference between getting the shot or not.

John_B wrote:
TMR Design,
Here is a link explaining what IS is and what it can do
Canon IS Lenses Worth it or not?

Thanks for the link.. I really liked Canon's little movie on IS too..it really helped clarify what I would be gaining by moving to IS lenses. Basically throwing out a couple of the factors of the "hand held rule of thumb".

I am sort of in the market for a lense and I above all else want clarity..

I have seen IS lenses advertised on some vendors websites claiming that all IS lenses are manufactored with the exact same quality glass as the L series lenses.

I haven't found anything backing that up.. and generally rather have just L than just "IS" is my opinion at this point. Though L + IS would be optimal.

Has anyone found anything backing up the claim that IS implies L quality glass? I know that the link above sort of counters that..but anyone heard anything like that?

Christopher

I have a 28-135 IS and I have heard that they are supposed to have L glass. I wouldn't like to confirm or deny that, but my personal feeling with the lens is that it can be a little soft at times. Not badly so, but it isn't as sharp as my 100-400L and I am planning to replace it with a 24-105IS L as soon as the supply situation levels out and the price comes down a touch. As such, my impression would be that the glass is regular glass.