When Canon releases a new EOS R body with IBIS could it mean a new life for old lenses? I think it would be very interesting for owners of Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L (or 1.0L), EF 85mm f/1.2L, EF 135mm f/2L and several other lenses to simply add IS to all those lenses by buying a new body. Consider, for example, the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L, it could become Canon EF 800mm f/11.2L IS by adding a teleconverter on a R body with IBIS. It know it might be not as good as IS on the lens and some of these lenses might suffer from age, from not being natively designed for R body, from not being designed for a high resolution sensor, but how wonderful it would be to give new life to some old lenses? Ou(R )future might might be interesting after all.
A new Canon EOS R body with IBIS - A new life for old lenses?
- Thread starter antonioleandro
- Start date
I'm not really sure what your question is, because why would IBIS not offer stabilisation for lenses without it?
On Olympus /Panasonic bodies if you attach a vintage lens you can manually enter the focal length so the camera IBIS knows how to stabilise the image. If you attach a modern lens it reads the focal length from the standard lens-body communication protocol.
On Olympus /Panasonic bodies if you attach a vintage lens you can manually enter the focal length so the camera IBIS knows how to stabilise the image. If you attach a modern lens it reads the focal length from the standard lens-body communication protocol.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The 400/5.6 L with a 2xTC is not a good example for several reasons. The lens is soft at 800mm (see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0). f/11.2 is above the DLA, and f/11.2 is not good for AF. 800mm is one hell of a focal length to stabilise, and IBIS will not be at its best.
Upvote
0
Why is that? Using the 16-35 f4 IS with IS had about 1 to 1,5 stop effiency, but with the 200 f2 it had 5 stops... macro close up and wide angle has the least amount of IS benefit imo.
Upvote
0
I was thinking IBIS would help lenses such as my 35mm f/1.4, or if I were to get the new, magic RF 50mm f/1.2L...someday.
I guess even the old 135mm f/2L would only benefit slightly from IBIS?
I guess even the old 135mm f/2L would only benefit slightly from IBIS?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
"A new Canon EOS R body with IBIS - A new life for old lenses?"
I hope not - their current (market leading IS) mucks up far too many shots as it is. What about cameras with no IBIS and lenses with no IS/VR/OS etc?
I gave up trying to get decent shots with stabilisers quite a while ago and have been happier ever since.
I am sure stabilisers have their place - but it is not in my setup. Unfortunately it is impossible to get many modern lenses without it!
I hope not - their current (market leading IS) mucks up far too many shots as it is. What about cameras with no IBIS and lenses with no IS/VR/OS etc?
I gave up trying to get decent shots with stabilisers quite a while ago and have been happier ever since.
I am sure stabilisers have their place - but it is not in my setup. Unfortunately it is impossible to get many modern lenses without it!
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
Yup! I do not like IS. It wasn't until I stopped using it that I realised how many shots I was missing.
Certainly for some extreme conditions IS/OS/VR etc will get you shots that one couldn't otherwise get - but how often is that? I have no need for IS when shooting 11/12th century church interiors (very small windows) on a cloudy day and IS is useless for long exposures = I just don't want it and would like the reduction in lens size that no IS brings. Let alone the havoc IS causes for my main pursuit - wildlife/birds.
This is just what I have found.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
Well I can't get many sharp shots hand holding my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS with IS on on moving subjects - but I get loads with IS off! Also many of my subjects have a habit of moving a little (less than an inch) when they are perched so I still need fast accurate AF and IS impedes this quite a bit, remember with the 800 at it's minimum focus distance I have virtually no depth of field so AF has to be spot on.
With my more sensible lenses (16-35 F4 L IS, 24-70 F2.8, 300 F2.8 L IS etc) I honestly can find little/no use for IS. I don't try to hand hold in the dark but I do hand hold in pretty crappy light with all my lenses - still prefer IS off.
This is just what I have found to be the case, not gospel, just my observations. Give it a try and see what you think for yourself. Many local togs have seen the light and are now benefiting from better AF (more keepers) by using the OFF mode.
IS off may or may not work for you - but it dies for me and a number of other. Give it a go?
Upvote
0
I'd be very happy with a couple stops of benefit to the 135 f/2. Its a fast lens but sometimes i'm just on the edge of being able to get a sharp image in low light. I lost mine in a smash and grab a couple years ago and I'd like to replace it but I'm certain the minute I buy one Canon will announce an IS version. Of course it would also probably be twice as expensive as the existing lens. I'm sure we all have favorite lenses that would benefit. Canon is pretty much the last manufacturer to get on board. I understand it may not be appropriate for the rugged 1D/7D bodies but the R's would be a good place to roll it out. It's not a deal breaker for me but it seems like it would be a nice additional tool.
Upvote
0
I’ve tried it a few times for soccer, on and off, both on my 85 L IS and previously on 200 f2 L, but I didn’t get less sharp shots with IS on, it just made it easier to track the subject. And for every other still shot I can’t use a lens like the 200 without IS, I’ll get camera shake at almost any speed. Agreed that on the 16-35 IS the difference with and without at 16mm is pretty minimal, but it’s still a tad easier with IS.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
