Canon's new IS system

eoren1

I just read this about Canon's new IS system:
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/canon_hybrid_image_stabilizer/

"Making it’s debut in a new SLR lens due for release before the end of 2009, the Hybrid Image Stabilizer optimally compensates for angular camera shake (rotational) and shift camera shake (linear), using a new acceleration sensor that determines the amount of shift-based camera shake."

There were rumors of the 70-200/2.8 is getting discontinued. This might be the first place the new IS system shows up

E

ziggy53

Here is the corporate statement:

http://www.canon.com/news/2009/jul22e.html

Note that they claim some success with macro photography applications with this IS system.

Good catch Eoren.

Jabba

I finally broke down and bought the 2.8 IS 70-200.... so you can bet that they'll put this feature in that lens first.:smack

Balls187

Jabba wrote:

I finally broke down and bought the 2.8 IS 70-200.... so you can bet that they'll put this feature in that lens first.:smack

If you think so, you could probably sell your 2.8 IS for durn close to what you paid for it and wait and see what happens.

You never know, Canon could stick the hybrid IS inside bodies, and move away from in-lens implementations.

ziggy53

Balls187 wrote:

... You never know, Canon could stick the hybrid IS inside bodies, and move away from in-lens implementations.

All Canon IS systems to date, the new "hybrid" IS included, are based on movable optical elements within the host lens. There is no way to translate this into a body based system.

Canon and Nikon continue to insist that lens based IS is the best method and best technology for the greatest results.

I do expect that someday camera manufacturers will produce an IS system that includes "both" chip based (in-camera-body) and lens based IS that work cooperatively. The first place this "might" happen would be in the Four-Thirds system where Olympus uses chip-based IS and Panasonic uses lens-based IS and they share a common lens mount system. Imagine a cooperative IS system based on those 2 technologies.

Jabba

If you'd like, I could go out and buy a current 4/3 body and all accessories to speed the process along~

Balls187

ziggy53 wrote:

Canon and Nikon continue to insist that lens based IS is the best method and best technology for the greatest results.

Go figure. Canon and Nikon both say lens IS is the best.

Isn't that a bit like asking a wolf to count your chickens for you?

ziggy53

Balls187 wrote:

Go figure. Canon and Nikon both say lens IS is the best.

Isn't that a bit like asking a wolf to count your chickens for you?

A lot of folks think that Canon and Nikon just want to sell expensive lenses with IS, which might be true, but the unfortunate truth is that there are some very good laws of physics involved which indicate that IS really does work best in the optical systems versus the chip based IS.

It turns out it really is easier to torque an optic element close to the nodal center of the lens than it is to rapidly move the imager, especially if working with a longer focal length lens where the chip movement needs to be extreme.

Here is an independent quote from Tom Yi, founder of "LAShooters'":

"... the lens based systems seem to yield about 3-4 stops while the body system gives about 2 (stops)."

http://lashooters.org/showpost.php?p=462&postcount=3

Manfr3d

Canon also anouced that they will start shipping the first lenses with the new IS before end of 2009. I'm guessing that we'll see the first implementations of the new tech in the low end 18-55mm zooms.

Robinivich

The new shift capability means a lot more for short focal length stabilization than it does for long, since shift is something you'd need more with shorter camera-subject distances, where the photographer literally moves sideways significantly relative to the subject. I'd say shift is a non issue with telephotos for most purposes, except very close portraits and telephoto macro.

This technology would make the biggest difference in stabilizing A) Macros, and Standard zooms indoors.

Situations where you're close enough to your subject for swaying of the photographer will make a difference to shots.

I'd expect to see some updated macro lenses coming out, and maybe some standard zooms with the technology.

Pindy

This is a very cool announcement. IS can always be improved—and should be!

Manfr3d

Anyone else dreaming of a 24-70mm f/2.8 L with IS?

ziggy53

Manfr3d wrote:

Anyone else dreaming of a 24-70mm f/2.8 L with IS?

Absolutely.

divamum

Manfr3d wrote:

Anyone else dreaming of a 24-70mm f/2.8 L with IS?

That might even be enough to woo me from my Tamron 17-50... well, assuming I win the lottery or something

NeilL

Robinivich wrote:

The new shift capability means a lot more for short focal length stabilization than it does for long, since shift is something you'd need more with shorter camera-subject distances, where the photographer literally moves sideways significantly relative to the subject. I'd say shift is a non issue with telephotos for most purposes, except very close portraits and telephoto macro.

This technology would make the biggest difference in stabilizing A) Macros, and Standard zooms indoors.

Situations where you're close enough to your subject for swaying of the photographer will make a difference to shots.

I'd expect to see some updated macro lenses coming out, and maybe some standard zooms with the technology.

Macro IS lenses are a waiting market.

NeilL

Manfr3d wrote:

Anyone else dreaming of a 24-70mm f/2.8 L with IS?

Not really. I think the 24-70 needs a bigger revision than just installing IS.

Manfr3d

NeilL wrote:

Not really. I think the 24-70 needs a bigger revision than just installing IS.

Interesting. I wonder why you would say that. I am currently holding back to buy a standard zoom because I cannot decide between the 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 IS (and because I have no real need for a std zoom right now)

NeilL

Manfr3d wrote:

Interesting. I wonder why you would say that. I am currently holding back to buy a standard zoom because I cannot decide between the 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 IS (and because I have no real need for a std zoom right now)

It's my impression that there has been from the beginning something of a halo of controversy around the 24-70. Many, many comments down the years of bad copies, and back/front focusing problems. On the positive side, people talk about it's useful range on a FF, its color and its bokeh, but it's rare to hear this lens described as tack sharp. A few people do describe it as sharp, but I wonder if they have any experience of a truly sharp lens. (My socks were blown off the first time I used the 135mm L - I know, an unfair comparison - at least it used to be, but a fact nevertheless!)

In the days when the 24-70 first came into production, the standard attitude was that good sharpness could not be expected from zooms. Get a prime if you wanted sharpness. The 24-70 did nothing to change that attitude. Now, however, the typical comment is that in a significant number of cases, zoom lenses perform equally with primes, and even better them in some situations. The change of mind has been due to the very recently produced zooms (and many of them additionally have camera shake correction).

I recently sold my 24-70 of 1 1/2 years here on dGrin. It was a good copy, sharp enough if you weren't too particular. I loved its color, and it was certainly a useful lens for traveling. I quickly got used to its size and weight, and I appreciated its quality construction. I never had it calibrated (I recommended to the buyer to get it calibrated and checked with them if there was a Canon Service Center accessible), and as we know, this is a rite of passage for every lens, and also I probably never used it to its best advantage. However, I was always disappointed with its (minor) softness, and in the end frustrated with its not being longer. I also came to think that it did not give me quite the light advantage I began to expect a 2.8 should. I think that not all fast lenses of the same aperture size are equal in their performance in low light.

I now have replaced it with the 24-105mm F4L IS USM. I have only yet done a few test shots, but already I am thinking that this lens is going to be more useful to me in low light, apart from anything else.

Its just a hunch I have that zoom lens design and construction have made some progress since the 24-70, and that perhaps if a new version 24-70 were built now it would be smaller and lighter, have less focus problems, have better sharpness and low light performance - and IS! I think the whole package could be improved. I secretly believe that Canon have really already replaced the 24-70 with the 24-105. It is smaller, lighter, my copy (as yet uncalibrated - but I'm taking everything to Australia when I go on vacation soon to have it all calibrated) is sharper, it seems to have better performance in low light at f4, its extra length is really useful - and it has IS. Of course, it can't stop action in low light as well as the 24-70, but I really think, for my purposes, the trade comes out favoring the 24-105.

ziggy53

The Canon EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM is known to have to quality control problems and it is unusual in that it is one of the supposed "flagship" lenses for Canon. When you get a good one it can be excellent and has potential to beat the EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM when the 24-70mm lens is at f4.

Adding optical IS to a lens is not as simple as many folks assume and a new 24-70mm, f2.8 IS lens would almost certainly be a new optical formula as well. Whether the quality control problems would be corrected is anyone's guess.

Balls187

ziggy53 wrote:

The Canon EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM is known to have to quality control problems and it is unusual in that it is one of the supposed "flagship" lenses for Canon. When you get a good one it can be excellent and has potential to beat the EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM when the 24-70mm lens is at f4.

Adding optical IS to a lens is not as simple as many folks assume and a new 24-70mm, f2.8 IS lens would almost certainly be a new optical formula as well. Whether the quality control problems would be corrected is anyone's guess.

Not to mention that reportedly the IS vs of lenses seem a tad less sharp.

At least is the case with the 70-200 F2.8 IS vs Non IS.

kwalsh

Balls187 wrote:

Not to mention that reportedly the IS vs of lenses seem a tad less sharp.

At least is the case with the 70-200 F2.8 IS vs Non IS.

However I believe the exact opposite is the case with the 70-200 F4 IS, at least based on a number of peoples opinions and photozone tests (of course this may again be the whole YMMV or sample variation).

Manfr3d

Balls187 wrote:

Not to mention that reportedly the IS vs of lenses seem a tad less sharp.

At least is the case with the 70-200 F2.8 IS vs Non IS.

I don't think this is a general rule. Super telephoto lenses with
IS rock their own world. The Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS pwns
every other zoom in that range.

Balls187

Manfr3d wrote:

I don't think this is a general rule. Super telephoto lenses with
IS rock their own world. The Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS pwns
every other zoom in that range.

Really, the 70-200 F4 IS beats both the F2.8 models?

Interesting indeed.

I sold my 70-200f2.8 IS because I never used it, and I didn't like it's performance. I picked up a 16-35 II and have been in love ever since. When I need to go long, I rent.

Qarik

The other aspect of this discussion is the fact that as the zoom power decreases the the need for IS decreases as well. IS for 200mm lens is CERTAINLY going to be used and used frequently. If I am shooting at 24mm though..I may not need except in the most demanding of situations.

:cry Poor canon folk..the nikon 24-70mm is like having 46 individual primes (24mm prime, 25mm prime, 26mm prime, etc) lens stacked together into one lens!

Manfr3d

Balls187 wrote:

Really, the 70-200 F4 IS beats both the F2.8 models?

Have a look:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=242

Balls187

Sharp!