New Kit Lens and 55-200 released! With IS!!

Does anyone care?

Moppie wrote in post #3758428
Does anyone care?

Not if there are 50 identical threads.

I care about this as much as I care about them adding IS to the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.

I somehow can't see me selling off my non-IS Ls to upgrade..

I hear that the kit lens with the IS is gonna sell for $200 and that this IS is worth 4 stops.
So does this mean that IS technology costs about $100, including profit?

If so, those IS L lenses that sell for several hundreds of dollars over a non IS counterpart seems to be high profit item for Canon.

Tee Why wrote in post #3758884
I hear that the kit lens with the IS is gonna sell for $200 and that this IS is worth 4 stops.
So does this mean that IS technology costs about $100, including profit?

If so, those IS L lenses that sell for several hundreds of dollars over a non IS counterpart seems to be high profit item for Canon.

the kit lens looks to have micro USM (rotating front element) and a plastic lens mount...i.e., it's junk.

image stabilized junk.

ed rader

Tee Why wrote in post #3758884
I hear that the kit lens with the IS is gonna sell for $200 and that this IS is worth 4 stops.
So does this mean that IS technology costs about $100, including profit?

If so, those IS L lenses that sell for several hundreds of dollars over a non IS counterpart seems to be high profit item for Canon.

If you have a read of the Dpreview.com review of them both, it appears they are built using a much simpler, and therefore cheaper IS system.
I'm guessing that because they are both quite slow ef-s lenses, the elements are a lot smaller than a faster L series lens, and so the mechanism that controls the IS can be lighter and simpler as well.

It is clear that Canon have developed a new IS system though, and I'm sure that will mean more IS lenses in the future. Given that IS is standard on so many competitors bodies, I would expect all new canon lenses to have the new IS.

ed rader wrote in post #3758903
image stabilized junk.

Hubble MKIIn?

Oh crap. I just realised what I posted, it sounds like I care..........

Moppie wrote in post #3758966
If you have a read of the Dpreview.com review of them both, it appears they are built using a much simpler, and therefore cheaper IS system.
I'm guessing that because they are both quite slow ef-s lenses, the elements are a lot smaller than a faster L series lens, and so the mechanism that controls the IS can be lighter and simpler as well.

It is clear that Canon have developed a new IS system though, and I'm sure that will mean more IS lenses in the future. Given that IS is standard on so many competitors bodies, I would expect all new canon lenses to have the new IS.




Hubble MKIIn?

what canon is doing with these "new" IS lenses is sending a loud and clear message not to expect in-body IS in its DSLRs.

with other companies marketing cameras with in-body IS canon needed to come up with cheaper IS lenses.

now you decide if that's a good or bad thing !

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #3758976
what canon is doing with these "new" IS lenses is sending a loud and clear message not to expect in-body IS in its DSLRs.

with other companies marketing cameras with in-body IS canon needed to come up with cheaper IS lenses.

now you decide if that's a good or bad thing !

ed rader

I'd love to see them start putting IS into their other lenses, quite honestly. This just seems like a hollow front. If in-camera body IS is so bad, then why are so many Canon lensed free of their preferred IS?

They better get to work.

Mike55 wrote in post #3758997


I'd love to see them start putting IS into their other lenses, quite honestly. This just seems like a hollow front. If in-camera body IS is so bad, then why are so many Canon lensed free of their preferred IS?

They better get to work.

all of canon's newer zoom releases except the ultra-wides have been equipped with IS (AFAIK).

i expect the trend to continue because that's what the public wants and has proven they will pay for.

in-body IS isn't as effective especially for longer lenses.

the canon IS system is better but it costs more...no surprise there .

ed rader

Moppie wrote in post #3758428
Does anyone care?

I care because I may sell my 75-300 for the 55-250 if:
-the image quality is better (resolving details, flare resistance)
-AF is faster and more accurate

I couldn't care less about IS since it cannot stop action (what I shoot) and the fact tripods exist for a reason.

The kit lens plus this one with a crop body (or 5D II able to use EF-S; see Northlight Images) could be one great travel-light kit.

Can't get too excited about this one. Maybe if it was a constant f/2.8. It would pair up nicely with the 17-55 then.

It was probably too much to ask, and I suppose it would then compete against Canon's 70-200L range

EOS Man wrote in post #3759129
I care because I may sell my 75-300 for the 55-250 if:
-the image quality is better (resolving details, flare resistance)
-AF is faster and more accurate

Sounds like you need the Sigma or Tamron 70-300

I agree about them being a great travel combo though.
If I was heading for a world trip or extended travel I have to admit a 400D plus those two lenses would be very tempting for its easy of use carryablity.

it will be interesting to see if the IQ is on pair with the sigma 17-70 or somethin.