Certain Canon lenses that don't have IS?

LeDave · 03-14-2010, 03:38 PM

I just realized just now that the $1250 dollar 24-70 f/2.8 USM does not have IS which is sort of strange. Why doesn't it have IS anyways? Doing further research, it appears that there are more, including the $750 dollar 17-40 f/4 USM and the 1500 16-35 f/2.8 USM II

Is IS new to Canon lenses? I'm confused because just looking around, you're paying over a thousand for the lenses, and even 1,500 for the 16-35 f/2.8. They are all weather-sealed and have a AF motor, yet at the same time they lack IS which is strange.

Just curious.

Big G · 03-14-2010, 03:55 PM

I am unsure why they don't have IS.

It seems that IS is more common on the digital range of lenses (EF-S) than the EF. Remember, the EF lenses you're looking at are old, they haven't changed in a long time. I would expect Canon will release IS versions of those lenses eventually, but in the meantime, if it ain't broke...

LeDave · 03-14-2010, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Big G

It seems that IS is more common on the digital range of lenses (EF-S) than the EF.

Yeah I realized that too, makes the 17-55 IS USM much more attractive than the 24-70 if you own a aps-c. The full-frames will just bump their ISO to get a decent shutter speed at anyways. Makes sense since the 70-200 requires IS for even full frame at that focal length, but the 17-40 is an f/4 lens and it doesn't have IS for $750. But I guess you're right, IS ain't really needed for lower-focal length FF lenses so Canon won't even bother to waste their time; but still for 1500... Sheesh, IS or not I would want it anyways if I were to pay that much for a 16-35.

Big G · 03-14-2010, 04:15 PM

Even on the 70-200mm, I am not sure that IS is that important, I'm currently mulling this over myself. If you're into sports or wildlife, you're likely to be using a high shutter speed anyway to freeze action (I don't really go below 1/750 of a second) - at this sort of shutter speed, the IS becomes pretty pointless as well as not working quite so well for shooting moving subjects. From what I've been reading over on the Canon forums, IS on the 70-200mm is important for those that shoot reasonably static objects indoors where they may want to drop down to 1/60 of a second at the longer focal lengths.

aleonx3 · 03-14-2010, 05:10 PM

That is the price to pay on the Canon camp...

In fact, I did not realize that until I saw the pictures from one of the "pro" photogs in a wedding party I attended (as guest). He used that 24-70mm lens and didn't take any chance of dragging the shutter.

pingflood · 03-14-2010, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

I just realized just now that the $1250 dollar 24-70 f/2.8 USM does not have IS which is sort of strange. Why doesn't it have IS anyways? Doing further research, it appears that there are more, including the $750 dollar 17-40 f/4 USM and the 1500 16-35 f/2.8 USM II

Is IS new to Canon lenses? I'm confused because just looking around, you're paying over a thousand for the lenses, and even 1,500 for the 16-35 f/2.8. They are all weather-sealed and have a AF motor, yet at the same time they lack IS which is strange.

Just curious.

Adding IS to a lens requires more than just sticking some servos in there and calling it a day. A lot of the lenses are older designs and would require some re-design to get the IS elements in there. New designs like the EF-S 17-55 get IS since it's not a "retrofit" to an existing lens. For the more established glass, priority is given to the longer lenses since they benefit more from it. And no doubt at some point marketing and making the most money comes into play.

Really no different from why Pentax doesn't weatherseal all their Limiteds...

er1kksen · 03-14-2010, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Big G

Even on the 70-200mm, I am not sure that IS is that important, I'm currently mulling this over myself. If you're into sports or wildlife, you're likely to be using a high shutter speed anyway to freeze action (I don't really go below 1/750 of a second) - at this sort of shutter speed, the IS becomes pretty pointless as well as not working quite so well for shooting moving subjects. From what I've been reading over on the Canon forums, IS on the 70-200mm is important for those that shoot reasonably static objects indoors where they may want to drop down to 1/60 of a second at the longer focal lengths.

Even when using higher shutter speeds, in-lens IS is beneficial in telephotos for its effect of stabilizing the image in the viewfinder, which means that it's also stabilized over the autofocus system. One less source of movement for the autofocus to worry about, letting it do its job more easily.

Big G · 03-15-2010, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by er1kksen

Even when using higher shutter speeds, in-lens IS is beneficial in telephotos for its effect of stabilizing the image in the viewfinder, which means that it's also stabilized over the autofocus system. One less source of movement for the autofocus to worry about, letting it do its job more easily.

That's not necessarily true, it depends on what you're using the lens for. Personally, IS doesn't make sense to me as I will be shooting moving subjects such as sports and BIF which will involve panning - I presume you are aware that most of Canon's IS lenses detect panning and disable the IS anyway?

So as I say, IS isn't important to me due to the nature of what I will be using it for.

pingflood · 03-15-2010, 08:59 AM

They don't disable IS for panning, they just make IS stabilize along one axis instead of two. More recent lenses auto detect this; older IS lenses like my 300/4 has a switch for "Mode 2" which does this.

Big G · 03-15-2010, 09:17 AM

Yes sorry, that explanation is better than mine!

.

Pingflood, do you leave IS on if you tripod / monopod the lens? On my K20D, I always turned it off, and based on what I read about the IS lenses, the recommendation seems to be the same: if it's not hand held, turn it off?

pingflood · 03-15-2010, 09:20 AM

The newer IS lenses are able to detect being stationary (e.g. tripod mounted) but I generally just turn IS off regardless.

Big G · 03-15-2010, 09:44 AM

Good to know, I think i'll go for the 70-200m f/4 without IS then - it's half the price of the IS version!

pingflood · 03-15-2010, 10:43 AM

Yeah, big difference there so if you don't feel you need IS it's a no-brainer. The 70-200/4 in either version has incredible optics.

palmor · 03-15-2010, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Big G

Good to know, I think i'll go for the 70-200m f/4 without IS then - it's half the price of the IS version!

Yup, and Canon wouldn't loose sales of their IS lenses if they put IS in body..

Sorry, just a comment about a thread Ping and I are involved in on one of the Canon boards

John

pingflood · 03-15-2010, 07:00 PM

I'm sure Canon only tacks on their actual cost of adding IS, out of the kindness of their hearts.

I really wish Canon or Nikon would just cave in and offer in-body IS, then whoever wasn't first will soon follow, and everyone wins. There's really little reason not to offer it; if in-lens IS is as superior as they claim they should have no problem selling IS lenses to the more demanding crowd, and the hobbyists would get all their lenses stabilized.

ps: palmor, hasn't that thread been educational? We've learned not only that in-lens IS is clearly superior, but also that in-body IS makes your pictures noisier. Makes you wonder if the K-x would shoot clean ISO 25600 if that horrible, ineffective, noisy sensor stabilization crap was removed.

03-14-2010, 03:38 PM	#1
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Certain Canon lenses that don't have IS? I just realized just now that the $1250 dollar 24-70 f/2.8 USM does not have IS which is sort of strange. Why doesn't it have IS anyways? Doing further research, it appears that there are more, including the $750 dollar 17-40 f/4 USM and the 1500 16-35 f/2.8 USM II Is IS new to Canon lenses? I'm confused because just looking around, you're paying over a thousand for the lenses, and even 1,500 for the 16-35 f/2.8. They are all weather-sealed and have a AF motor, yet at the same time they lack IS which is strange. Just curious.

03-14-2010, 04:00 PM	#3
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067 Original Poster	Originally posted by Big G It seems that IS is more common on the digital range of lenses (EF-S) than the EF. Yeah I realized that too, makes the 17-55 IS USM much more attractive than the 24-70 if you own a aps-c. The full-frames will just bump their ISO to get a decent shutter speed at anyways. Makes sense since the 70-200 requires IS for even full frame at that focal length, but the 17-40 is an f/4 lens and it doesn't have IS for $750. But I guess you're right, IS ain't really needed for lower-focal length FF lenses so Canon won't even bother to waste their time; but still for 1500... Sheesh, IS or not I would want it anyways if I were to pay that much for a 16-35. Last edited by LeDave; 03-14-2010 at 04:08 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera	hangu	Photographic Technique	4	08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Is there an adapter for Canon FD lenses?	Deniz	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	2	04-24-2010 05:26 AM
Question about using Canon lenses...	nitrox28	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	12-16-2009 08:41 AM
Used Canon Lenses	daacon	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	7	05-09-2009 12:22 PM
For Sale - Sold: Canon lenses	Buffy	Sold Items	0	06-07-2008 10:06 AM

03-14-2010, 03:55 PM	#2
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	I am unsure why they don't have IS. It seems that IS is more common on the digital range of lenses (EF-S) than the EF. Remember, the EF lenses you're looking at are old, they haven't changed in a long time. I would expect Canon will release IS versions of those lenses eventually, but in the meantime, if it ain't broke...

03-14-2010, 04:15 PM	#4
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Even on the 70-200mm, I am not sure that IS is that important, I'm currently mulling this over myself. If you're into sports or wildlife, you're likely to be using a high shutter speed anyway to freeze action (I don't really go below 1/750 of a second) - at this sort of shutter speed, the IS becomes pretty pointless as well as not working quite so well for shooting moving subjects. From what I've been reading over on the Canon forums, IS on the 70-200mm is important for those that shoot reasonably static objects indoors where they may want to drop down to 1/60 of a second at the longer focal lengths.

03-14-2010, 05:10 PM	#5
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	That is the price to pay on the Canon camp... In fact, I did not realize that until I saw the pictures from one of the "pro" photogs in a wedding party I attended (as guest). He used that 24-70mm lens and didn't take any chance of dragging the shutter.

03-14-2010, 05:48 PM	#6
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by LeDave I just realized just now that the $1250 dollar 24-70 f/2.8 USM does not have IS which is sort of strange. Why doesn't it have IS anyways? Doing further research, it appears that there are more, including the $750 dollar 17-40 f/4 USM and the 1500 16-35 f/2.8 USM II Is IS new to Canon lenses? I'm confused because just looking around, you're paying over a thousand for the lenses, and even 1,500 for the 16-35 f/2.8. They are all weather-sealed and have a AF motor, yet at the same time they lack IS which is strange. Just curious. Adding IS to a lens requires more than just sticking some servos in there and calling it a day. A lot of the lenses are older designs and would require some re-design to get the IS elements in there. New designs like the EF-S 17-55 get IS since it's not a "retrofit" to an existing lens. For the more established glass, priority is given to the longer lenses since they benefit more from it. And no doubt at some point marketing and making the most money comes into play. Really no different from why Pentax doesn't weatherseal all their Limiteds...

03-14-2010, 07:01 PM	#7
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by Big G Even on the 70-200mm, I am not sure that IS is that important, I'm currently mulling this over myself. If you're into sports or wildlife, you're likely to be using a high shutter speed anyway to freeze action (I don't really go below 1/750 of a second) - at this sort of shutter speed, the IS becomes pretty pointless as well as not working quite so well for shooting moving subjects. From what I've been reading over on the Canon forums, IS on the 70-200mm is important for those that shoot reasonably static objects indoors where they may want to drop down to 1/60 of a second at the longer focal lengths. Even when using higher shutter speeds, in-lens IS is beneficial in telephotos for its effect of stabilizing the image in the viewfinder, which means that it's also stabilized over the autofocus system. One less source of movement for the autofocus to worry about, letting it do its job more easily.

03-15-2010, 05:02 AM	#8
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Originally posted by er1kksen Even when using higher shutter speeds, in-lens IS is beneficial in telephotos for its effect of stabilizing the image in the viewfinder, which means that it's also stabilized over the autofocus system. One less source of movement for the autofocus to worry about, letting it do its job more easily. That's not necessarily true, it depends on what you're using the lens for. Personally, IS doesn't make sense to me as I will be shooting moving subjects such as sports and BIF which will involve panning - I presume you are aware that most of Canon's IS lenses detect panning and disable the IS anyway? So as I say, IS isn't important to me due to the nature of what I will be using it for.

03-15-2010, 08:59 AM	#9
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	They don't disable IS for panning, they just make IS stabilize along one axis instead of two. More recent lenses auto detect this; older IS lenses like my 300/4 has a switch for "Mode 2" which does this.

03-15-2010, 09:17 AM	#10
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Yes sorry, that explanation is better than mine! . Pingflood, do you leave IS on if you tripod / monopod the lens? On my K20D, I always turned it off, and based on what I read about the IS lenses, the recommendation seems to be the same: if it's not hand held, turn it off?

03-15-2010, 09:20 AM	#11
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	The newer IS lenses are able to detect being stationary (e.g. tripod mounted) but I generally just turn IS off regardless.

03-15-2010, 09:44 AM	#12
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Good to know, I think i'll go for the 70-200m f/4 without IS then - it's half the price of the IS version!

03-15-2010, 10:43 AM	#13
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Yeah, big difference there so if you don't feel you need IS it's a no-brainer. The 70-200/4 in either version has incredible optics.

03-15-2010, 06:00 PM	#14
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	Originally posted by Big G Good to know, I think i'll go for the 70-200m f/4 without IS then - it's half the price of the IS version! Yup, and Canon wouldn't loose sales of their IS lenses if they put IS in body.. Sorry, just a comment about a thread Ping and I are involved in on one of the Canon boards John

03-15-2010, 07:00 PM	#15
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	I'm sure Canon only tacks on their actual cost of adding IS, out of the kindness of their hearts. I really wish Canon or Nikon would just cave in and offer in-body IS, then whoever wasn't first will soon follow, and everyone wins. There's really little reason not to offer it; if in-lens IS is as superior as they claim they should have no problem selling IS lenses to the more demanding crowd, and the hobbyists would get all their lenses stabilized. ps: palmor, hasn't that thread been educational? We've learned not only that in-lens IS is clearly superior, but also that in-body IS makes your pictures noisier. Makes you wonder if the K-x would shoot clean ISO 25600 if that horrible, ineffective, noisy sensor stabilization crap was removed.