Canon again mentions a Pro EOS R body, with IBIS and dual card slots

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
You will not find many wide angle primes with IS today. So a five stop IBIS like in the Sony A9 means that you can use ISO 800 instead of ISO 25600 for a hand held night shot. In both cases you can take the picture, but of course with ISO 800 it looks much cleaner.

My favourite subjects are skyscrapers and very often you are not allowed to use a tripod at the plaza in front of a skyscraper. In Dubai for example the whole downtown area around Burj Khalifa - even including streets and sidewalks - is owned by the company Emaar. They do not allow tripods anywhere in that area, unless you have a written permission and paid a high fee. Observation decks are another problem. Empire State Building is a good place for night shots of Manhattan, but you can't use a tripod there. And then there are even cities like London or Paris, where tripods technically are forbidden anywhere, unless you have a special permission.

Of course there are some options of wide angle zooms like the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 with IS, but how cool would it be, if you could just use ANY lens on your camera and it was stabilized? For example that super sharp 17mm tilt and shift lens from Canon.

For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive.
I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts made for other systems that use IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,414
791
I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.
Isn't the whole point of "very high end lenses without IS" to have no "counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account"?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
Isn't the whole point of "very high end lenses without IS" to have no "counterparts with IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account"?
No. I'm talking about lenses in one system from one manufacturer with IS lenses and no IBIS and corresponding lenses from other systems with IBIS made by other manufacturers that have no IS. Where is the cheaper 85mm non-IS lens made to go with an IBIS system that optically performs as well as, say, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS? Even in the more budget lens category, where are the cheaper 24mm f/2.8 lenses made for cameras with IBIS that optically perform as well as the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS?


Or where are the cheaper 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lenses for IBIS systems that are optically as good as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III or the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR? In the second case, even manufacturers of systems with IBIS are beginning to include IS in longer focal length lenses because the effectiveness of IBIS diminishes for the same amount of sensor movement as the field of view narrows.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,414
791
No. I'm talking about lenses in one system from one manufacturer with IS lenses and no IBIS and corresponding lenses from other systems with IBIS made by other manufacturers that have no IS. Where is the cheaper 85mm non-IS lens made to go with an IBIS system that optically performs as well as, say, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS?
That's what I'm talking about. Why do you think that "cheaper" is a factor for the target market of "very high end lenses without IS"?

For example, do you think "cheaper" was a factor in not adding IS to TS-E 17?
 

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
40
35
I understand Michael's point. He was referencing earlier posts.

His point, for example is that the Canon RF 24-70mm goes for around $2200 - $2300 give or take. It has image stabilization because there is no IBIS in Canon bodies.

The Sony 24-70mm doesn't need Image Stabilization because the Sony body has IBIS. But the Sony lens is about the same price as the Canon lens, even though it doesn't have IS. Why isn't the Sony significantly less expensive since it doesn't have IS?

That's the general point. Among the universe of high-end lenses, you would think the lenses that don't have Image Stabilization, that are made for IBIS bodies, should be considerably less expensive. But apparently they're not.

Edit: ...Additionally some lenses may not exist at all for the IBIS bodies, like a relatively inexpensive but high quality non-IS fast prime at a certain focal length
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
465
270
Canon's EF 135 f2 would benefit considerably from a couple stops of IS from an IBIS body. Even one stop would be very helpful. That lens has very nice IQ, almost ideal Canon color, is very affordable and doesn't really have a an IS analog in Canon's lens catalog. If an RF/IS version shows up it going to be a close to a $3000 lens. That alone would move me towards buying any Canon body with IBIS.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
That's what I'm talking about. Why do you think that "cheaper" is a factor for the target market of "very high end lenses without IS"?

For example, do you think "cheaper" was a factor in not adding IS to TS-E 17?
Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:

"For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."

If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,629
748
Southeastern USA
Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:

"For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."

If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?
Now we are trying to get into the minds of the folks who set prices. With Sony, my first guess is volume. Historically, they have not sold nearly the volume of FF lenses as Canon (and perhaps they still don't), and they probably don't have as much infrastructure for production of high-end FF lenses. (Or they might be having other companies make them?) So they would need to charge more per unit to profit. Plus, from a marketing standpoint, if the company believes the lenses must have a certain cachet, and they want to put in customers minds that a Sony lens is every bit as good as a Canon lens, they wouldn't make it a priority to set a lower price and point out that Sony is lacking a feature that Canon has.

Just brainstorming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,414
791
Because I was responding to a comment that claimed:

"For me it just makes much more sense to have Image stabilisation in the camera than having it in every lens, which of course makes every lens more expensive."

If IS makes every lens that has it "more expensive", why are similar lenses that do not have IS no less expensive?
Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.

Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
Now we are trying to get into the minds of the folks who set prices. With Sony, my first guess is volume. Historically, they have not sold nearly the volume of FF lenses as Canon (and perhaps they still don't), and they probably don't have as much infrastructure for production of high-end FF lenses. (Or they might be having other companies make them?) So they would need to charge more per unit to profit. Plus, from a marketing standpoint, if the company believes the lenses must have a certain cachet, and they want to put in customers minds that a Sony lens is every bit as good as a Canon lens, they wouldn't make it a priority to set a lower price and point out that Sony is lacking a feature that Canon has.

Just brainstorming.
That still makes the statement that putting IBIS in the camera "so that every lens will be cheaper" to be false.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.

Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).
I was replying to a comment that said "... which of course makes every lens more expensive."


It did not say "some" lenses. It did not say "low cost" lenses. It said every lens.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
Because you were asking about "very high end lenses", for which such small parts of their BoM costs don't really affect their market price, as they are expected to be high margin products anyway.

Maybe you should look at pancake lenses and their IS-having equivalents (or explain a lack thereof).
Again, I'm not making any sort of claim that IBIS is not useful and there aren't use cases where it may be a better solution to a problem (such as making lenses smaller and lighter, even if they are not the best in terms of optical performance -ergo your pancake lenses). I'm disputing the claim that putting IBIS in the camera instead of putting IS in the lens unequivocally makes all IS lenses more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.

Where are all of these non-IS lenses for cameras with IBIS that are always cheaper than IS lenses for cameras without IBIS (when focal length, maximum aperture, optical performance, etc. compare at the same level)?
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
371
294
Hamburg, Germany
I'm disputing the claim that putting IBIS in the camera instead of putting IS in the lens unequivocally makes all IS lenses more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.
You may even go a step further and make the argument that lenses designed for a system with IBIS are likely to be more expensive. The reason for that is that the sensor moves, therefore the lens has to have a greater image circle and has to be more optimized towards even performance across the frame, unless IBIS is allowed to degrade the image quality.

Nonetheless, the inability to point out the lenses you're asking for is no counter evidence for the point you were arguing against. Pricing is influenced by so many factors, we really can't draw much from it. One big factor is how many units are expected to be sold, and with the market leader not having any IBIS cameras, any comparison between their prices and the ones for systems with IBIS are already muddied. Maybe it could be said that IS is unlikely to have a big impact on production cost based on such evidence.

I agree that making absolute statements is often not a good idea, and in this particular case I believe we simply lack the knowledge about the involved topics (markets as well as the technological side of things) to prove or falsify them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Skyscraperfan

EOS M50
Aug 7, 2018
27
12
I'm still trying to find those very high end lenses without IS made for systems with IBIS that are demonstrably cheaper than their counterparts made for other systems that use IS when focal length, aperture, image quality, etc. is taken into account.
Canon might not have those lenses, but third party manufacturers have them. For example that whole Sigma Art lineup does not have an IS.

Canon on the other hand has some very expensive prime lenses that many people will not buy, because they do to have an IS. For example the 35mm f/1.4. Just imagine that lens with IBIS! IS seems to be very expensive or technically difficult at lens with very fast lenses. So they usally are a stop slower. The 35mm f/1.4 does not have IS, but the 35mm f/2 does. The 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, but the 24-70mm f/4 does.

You will also find some examples where the IS version of a Canon zoom lens is much more expensive than the non IS version. Just look at all the 70-200 lenses from Canon! There are versions with f/4 and f/2.8 each with IS and without IS and the IS versions are much more expensive.
 

Daner

EOS M50
Aug 15, 2017
35
23
Stockholm
TBH using adapted EF glass is the way right now. The RF50, 85 and 28-70 are the only RF lenses really worth using. The other offerings are only equal to the existing EF glass. Not better.
I disagree. The RF 24-105 is considerably sharper and has better IS than either model of the EF 24-105. I also find that for my purposes, the greater range, lighter weight, smaller size, and IS make it a better all-around single lens for travel than the EF 24-70 f/2.8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quirkz

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
517
305
I disagree. The RF 24-105 is considerably sharper and has better IS than either model of the EF 24-105. I also find that for my purposes, the greater range, lighter weight, smaller size, and IS make it a better all-around single lens for travel than the EF 24-70 f/2.8.
And the RF24-240 doesn't have an EF counterpart, the EF versions of the 24-70 and 15-25 lack IS, the new 70-200 is a lot lighter, etc.
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
245
347
And the RF24-240 doesn't have an EF counterpart, the EF versions of the 24-70 and 15-25 lack IS, the new 70-200 is a lot lighter, etc.
The closest is the EF 28-300L, but that is over twice the weight of the RF superzoom, and is significantly more expensive since the target market is entirely different.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
Canon might not have those lenses, but third party manufacturers have them. For example that whole Sigma Art lineup does not have an IS.

Canon on the other hand has some very expensive prime lenses that many people will not buy, because they do to have an IS. For example the 35mm f/1.4. Just imagine that lens with IBIS! IS seems to be very expensive or technically difficult at lens with very fast lenses. So they usally are a stop slower. The 35mm f/1.4 does not have IS, but the 35mm f/2 does. The 24-70mm f/2.8 does not have IS, but the 24-70mm f/4 does.

You will also find some examples where the IS version of a Canon zoom lens is much more expensive than the non IS version. Just look at all the 70-200 lenses from Canon! There are versions with f/4 and f/2.8 each with IS and without IS and the IS versions are much more expensive.

Those cheaper Sigma Art lenses also do not AF worth a flip on Canon bodies, either. So they are not exactly "equivalent" other than whether they have IS or not.

The reason Canon included IS on "consumer grade" lenses like the EF 35mm f/2 IS but not on the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II is because 1) They didn't think true pros want/need IS in the 35mm focal length range 2) the way IS works (by slightly misaligning the lens) means it would compromise IQ and 3) The lower overall optical performance of the consumer grade lenses means IS doesn't impose as significant a hit on IQ. (IBIS can also compromise IQ in a different way because the image circle center is no longer directly over the center of the sensor.)

As for the Canon 70-200mm series, the non-IS EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L is a 1995 design with 18 lens elements in 15 groups that does not perform near as well optically as the 2010/2018 EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III with 23 elements in 19 groups. The non-IS EF 70-200mm f/4 L is a 1999 16 element/13 groups design that does not perform near as well optically as the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS (2006) with 20 elements in 15 groups, or the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS II (2018) that also has 20 element/15 groups that are slightly different from the previous version as well as having two stops better IS. There are more optical differences than just the presence or absence of IS. They're all totally different optical formulae (other than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II/III which do share the same optical formula apart from lens coatings) that give varying levels of IQ as well.