Why aren't there any primes with IS?

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #6363138
Well if you go to the trouble of getting a 1.4 lens and an ISO12800 camera and you still don't have "enough light", i think a tripod would serve you much better than 4 stop IS.

Well, that's like your opinion, man.

Cadwell wrote in post #6363071
Some people will tell you that, some people will also tell you that the older non-IS was sharper. There are many opinions.

Yeah but those folks are wrong.

El Duderino wrote in post #6363356
Well, that's like your opinion, man.

No its a fact, if its that dark you most likely will be on bulb mode and IS is not that good is it

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #6363394
No its a fact, if its that dark you most likely will be on bulb mode and IS is not that good is it

No, it's an opinion. Maybe there are times where one wishes not to shoot wide-open, or at ISO 12,800?

Heck, there's IS in the tiny lens in my G9...it can be done very small.

I don't buy the IS will ruin the IQ. My 70-200 f/4L IS is as sharp as almost any prime in the same range, at the same apertures. (It's as sharp as my old 135L was at 135mm f/4...when the 135L was also at f/4. Yes, I'm serious). That is amazing for any zoom, let alone an IS zoom. If well designed, the IS will not hurt image quality.

Yup, the G9 does have optical IS, impressive in such a small bundle, or impressive to us who have big lenses

El Duderino wrote in post #6363039
Serious issue like not enough light? You're damned right.

What are you shooting in low light that's not going to move for that length of exposure?

IS gives a couple (or possibly more?) stops below 1/fl, so with a 50mm 1.4 we can shoot at 1/60 without IS, but surely at 1/15 anything living within the frame will move and this negates the need IMO (and likely the opinion of Canon too).

And most landscape shooters (pic's without people) favour tripods by default as it helps with their more studied approach.

Phil V wrote in post #6363694
What are you shooting in low light that's not going to move for that length of exposure?

IS gives a couple (or possibly more?) stops below 1/fl, so with a 50mm 1.4 we can shoot at 1/60 without IS, but surely at 1/15 anything living within the frame will move and this negates the need IMO (and likely the opinion of Canon too).

And most landscape shooters (pic's without people) favour tripods by default as it helps with their more studied approach.

One instance I would find it helpful is walking around the city streets at night. It would be nice to take quick shots of things (not of people), and I hate dragging along a tripod.

Jman13 wrote in post #6363436
Heck, there's IS in the tiny lens in my G9...it can be done very small.

Whilst the gyro sensors can be relatively small, the lens group needs to be of sufficient diameter to be related to the maximum aperture. Consequently the IS drive actuators also need to be larger.

Bob

El Duderino wrote in post #6363017
Seriously? Why not?

I want a f/1.4 prime with IS, gosh darnit.

Pair that with a 50D with ISO up to 12800, who would need a tripod?

EDIT: haha, wait. I meant short focal length primes.

Glad you added the edit.... I was going to ask which Canon primes you could possibly want it on besides the 800, 600, 500, 400 (two out of three at least), 300 (both of them) and 200mm (one out of two).

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned it would be a waste. Merely unnecessary added complexity, not to mention extra cost, size and weight on most shorter lenses.

There's exactly one Canon prime I feel would benefit quite a bit from IS being added: the 135/2. When used on a full frame camera, it's not all that important. When used on a crop sensor camera, it would be very nice to have IS on this lens.

Of course, now that the price of IS technology has come down quite a bit it might be added to the 400/5.6 too. The 300/4 could use an updated version, too.

IS is far more valuable and useful on long lenses. I wouldn't go out of my way to get it on any lens 100mm or shorter. If the lens has it, fine. Nice to have. But if, for example, there were two otherwise identical 17-55/2.8, one with IS at a higher price and another without it, I'd buy the cheaper lens without it in a heartbeat.

I opted for the 24-70/2.8 for its faster aperture, over the 24-105/4 IS.

Higher ISO capability cameras and a number of simple, good shooting techniques that can be learned and used make IS sort of a marketing gimmick on shorter lenses, as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, I have three teles (two primes and a zoom) with IS and love it on those.

Want it on all your lenses? Switch to Pentax, Sony or Olympus with in-camera stabilization. In-camera is not quite as effective as in-lens IS, but pretty close on teles especially. Stabilization in any form is less effective on shorter lenses, and near useless at macro distances... even Nikon has had to admit that, being the only ones selling a macro lens with stabilization.

You could also add a qyro unit to your camera.... The movie industry has used them for handheld work for years. They are quite effective so long as you don't mind the added weight and cost. I understand a gyro unit will work well in conjunction with Canon IS, in fact.