Why do fast primes not have IS?

[tayassu]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

 

[Maximilian]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

Hi tayassu!

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

Hi tayassu!

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

Thanks for the clear and unemotional explaination. That is unusual on the Internets Tubes. ;D

Helps people like me get some learnin' ;D

 

[David Hull]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

Hi tayassu!

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

I also think that there is a degradation that comes with thee things and the companies that are making fast primes are generally going for the best MTF curve they can get. So putting the IS gizmo in there costs them some performance in that regard. Zooms are always a compromise so for those it doesn't matter as much (and they are already big and heavy).

 

[dolina]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

I honestly wouldnt be surprised if the next L primes will have IS. It just that you have to wait for the timing and product cycle to play out for the current generation of primes.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.
Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

I agree with your explanation, but I hope that we shall soon have a Canon 50mm F1.8 IS. : Actually, I would like more of a 50mm F1.4 IS, but now that Sigma has a great 50mm, do not think Canon will want a Image Stabilizer version that weighs more than 1 kg and costs $ 1200. :-\

 

[IMG_0001]

I would add that element alignment is quite critical for fast primes in order to have decent sharpness and uniformity in the image. Possibly critical alignment would be hard to achieve for those fast, thin-DOF lenses.

I'd also second the element weight issue.

 

[Larry]

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

Superteles with IS have large elements.

Weight and energy consumption should therefore be even greater, per your explanation.

Does the larger housing of the superteles provide more space for the mechanism that moves the elements?

Comments?

 

[tayassu]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

Hi tayassu!

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

Thanks a lot for the explanation!

 

[tayassu]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

I honestly wouldnt be surprised if the next L primes will have IS. It just that you have to wait for the timing and product cycle to play out for the current generation of primes.

I hope so... :

 

[CANONisOK]

I'm sure I'll get throttled for this comment but here it goes: typically, I don't stop down my f/1.2 lenses a whole lot. Sort of negates the point of having them. Therefore I tend to use pretty decently fast shutter speeds relative to the focal length. Others may use theirs differently of course.

 

[sdsr]

I wish Canon would put IBIS in at least some of their dslr bodies (and mirrorless, when/if they ever show up; likewise Sony in its mirrorless cameras), thereby making this a non-issue. I realize there's some controversy whether it's as effective as lens IS, but it works well in Pentax dslrs (Sony too, I understand, though I've only very briefly used one) and Olympus OMDs, and Canon can still keep it in the lenses that have/need it....

 

[Dylan777]

I'm sure I'll get throttled for this comment but here it goes: typically, I don't stop down my f/1.2 lenses a whole lot. Sort of negates the point of having them. Therefore I tend to use pretty decently fast shutter speeds relative to the focal length. Others may use theirs differently of course.

+1.......I don't see the point buying f1.2 lens and shoot at f4. On Canon lenses, I like to turn down the dial twice - hit sweet spot everytimes

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I wish Canon would put IBIS in at least some of their dslr bodies

So do I. Like everything else in photography IBIS is a compromise. One, that in my opinion, is justified. Canon can still make their telephoto lenses with in lens stabalization as that seems to work better with the longer FLs.

But as you wrote, other manufacturers do IBIS and don't seen to have problems.

Does video work better with one system? I never shoot video so I have no idea..

With film cameras, the only option was to have the stabalization in the lens. But with digital, the issues of IBIS systems can be mitigated. If either Canon or Nikon were to offer IBIS for their more normal FL lenses and still offer in lens stabalization for those long FL lenses that really need it.

A tog can only dream.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

+1.......I don't see the point buying f1.2 lens and shoot at f4. On Canon lenses, I like to turn down the dial twice - hit sweet spot everytimes

I see it a different way. I buy a 1.4 lens, not because I want to shoot at 1.4, but because I want sharp images at 2.8 -- stopped down 2 stops. That way on those shots when I need to shoot at 1.4, I can, but for most of the shots I can easily shoot stopped down.

It all depends on what type of photography each photographer does. Some like to shoot wide open, others like to stop down. I guess that's why they make changable apertures on lenses. ;D

 

[mb66energy]

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

Superteles with IS have large elements.

Weight and energy consumption should therefore be even greater, per your explanation.

Does the larger housing of the superteles provide more space for the mechanism that moves the elements?

Comments?

Superteles have large front elements but the IS group is mostly a thin lens element of much smaller diameter nearer to the bajonet than to the front element.

In standard lenses and wide angles you need smaller radii for the lens surfaces so the lenses become thicker and have higher mass - this implies higher forces to reposition them fast enough to counteract camera shake etc.

But your argument - in a tele you have more space - might be an additional reason.

A third one: A 2.8 300mm lens typically costs several thousands of dollars - 500 dollar more for a fast IS isn't prohibitive, it's a 10% increase of the cost or price. For a fictional EF 1.8 50 IS it means a 500% increase of cost or price!

 

[CANONisOK]

I'm sure I'll get throttled for this comment but here it goes: typically, I don't stop down my f/1.2 lenses a whole lot. Sort of negates the point of having them. Therefore I tend to use pretty decently fast shutter speeds relative to the focal length. Others may use theirs differently of course.

+1.......I don't see the point buying f1.2 lens and shoot at f4. On Canon lenses, I like to turn down the dial twice - hit sweet spot everytimes

+1. Exactly. If I want something with more DOF, I'll show up with the 24-70ii or the 70-200ii, not a fast prime. There would be more argument for IS in the 24-70ii, as it a slower lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS : Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?

Those lenses were designed several years ago for full frame cameras. IS was not needed for shorter focal lengths, and did not really start appearing in "L" in lenses until about 1999. It appeared in a consumer zoom in 1995.

Adding IS increased the cost, and like any new feature, it was expensive. The main benefit of IS was in the longer focal lengths where camera shake and vibration was difficult to eliminate blurring.
With the advent of APS-C Rebel bodies in about 2002, consumers were able to afford Digital DSLR's, and because of the 1.6 crop factor, a 200mm lens was more prone to blurring from shake, and because inexperienced users could just snap off a shot without carefully setting up, the feature became popular and started appearing in APS-C lenses of much wider focal lengths. The feature sold very well, so lenses have been adding the feature where possible. The new 24-70 f/2.8L does not have it. There were prototypes with IS, but apparently, it was not considered good enough or necessary for that lens.
Now, with video in DSLR's becoming popular, IS in wide focal lengths and fast primes has finally found a reason to exist. Handheld video really benefits from IS. That's why we are seeing new prime lenses with IS. They are not f/1.4 or faster, presumably because of the expense and difficulty, but they will come, it can be done, its just a matter of price.

 

[CANONisOK]

+1.......I don't see the point buying f1.2 lens and shoot at f4. On Canon lenses, I like to turn down the dial twice - hit sweet spot everytimes

I see it a different way. I buy a 1.4 lens, not because I want to shoot at 1.4, but because I want sharp images at 2.8 -- stopped down 2 stops. That way on those shots when I need to shoot at 1.4, I can, but for most of the shots I can easily shoot stopped down.

It all depends on what type of photography each photographer does. Some like to shoot wide open, others like to stop down. I guess that's why they make changable apertures on lenses. ;D

If you want sharp pictures at 2.8, you need the 24-70ii or the 70-200ii.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=397&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Just as sharp in center, more corner sharpness, less CA, probably a hair of distortion but that can be fixed in post. And you can change the FL. The right tool for the job.

 

[sdsr]

By the way, there are *some* fast primes with IS - e.g. Sony makes some 1.8 APS-C e-mount primes that have it (35mm & 50mm; maybe others).