| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Why put IS on long telephoto lenses?
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
 |
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 8:31 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> This maybe another stupid question but why put that into lenses?
Why not make two versions of each lens as well and keep the ability to service them.
It would allow people to afford either version while also having the ability to have canon repair if needed. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 8:36 PM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> From a financial standpoint there are increased costs associated with having additional products. Increased R&D, marketing, inventory, parts, etc. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 8:41 PM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> It would be interesting to see how long it takes Canon to make back the costs it takes to develop a lens, manufacture, etc.. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:06 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Just keep in mind that the high margin for the camera manufacturers is not the camera bodies but the lenses and accessories. This offsets the low margins on PS and bodies.
If you doubt me, explain how the secondary lens manufacturers stay in business. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 9:19 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> And anyways, who would buy a 400mm or longer without IS? I understand the grand majority of people with 400's and longer shoot with tripods, but at that magnification even the littlest vibration could cause the image to suffer. Why not have the added security of an IS motor? (Yes, I realize people have budget constraints and such, but I'm talking people buying new lenses here)
If you use the 1/shutter speed theory, and are using a 500mm with a doubler, you will need a SS of at least 1/1000th of a second right? That is not always possible, so why not use IS and be able to shoot up to 2 speeds slower? |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 10:03 PM on 03.30.09 |
->> Tim, it depends what you shoot. I had a 500 f4 IS and definatly made use of the IS because it was a lens I liked to use for things like wildlife. Shooting late in the day at 500mm f4, 1/125 IS definatly becomes very handy
On the other hand, on my 400 2.8 IS, I only used it for sports. IS was of no use because it was always on a monopod and I never shoot below 1/500th of a second. IS simply slows down the lens AF. Its more elements to move around.
I had the Canon 70-200 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS and the non IS was defiatly sharper of the two, less elements. However having the IS made it useful for low light wedding and other events so I was glad to have IS
Switching to Nikon, I was lucky I could still buy a 400 2.8 non IS for $1500 less than the IS version. Why spend that money on something I'm never going to turn on, maybe with the exeption of shooting PGA with a doubler but how often do I do that realistically to make it worthwhile. I'm a 99% field sports guy, I dont need IS on long glass. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 11:18 PM on 03.30.09 |
| ->> Jeff, I know what you mean. The majority of my work though is covering concerts where a SS of 1/500th is a luxury, which is why I would opt for the IS version. I guess it all really boils down to the individual and what they will be using the glass for. |
|
Stephen O'Brien, Photographer
|
Houston | Tx | USA | Posted: 1:50 AM on 03.31.09 |
| ->> Like Jeff said, I use the stabilizer when shooting wildlife in low light situations. I also use the stabilizer when using a 1.4x or 2x converter on my 400 lense, even when shooting subjects with a high enough shutter speed. It's practically a must with the converter, in my experience, to keep from getting camera shake. |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 7:32 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> Why? If you shoot absolutely nothing but sports then I can see your point.
Shoot one service from the top balcony of a church at 1/60th (or similar event) and you are thankful for the IS. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 8:22 AM on 03.31.09 |
->> When the IS technology is inexpensive enough for Canon to put it into even their $200 P&S cameras and their $150 DSLR lenses, there really isn't much of a reason to not put IS into almost every new lens.
It's like remote control... it used to be that you had to pay a premium for having a television that let you change channels from the La-Z-Boy but now it's virtually impossible to find a television in any price range that *doesn't* have a remote. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 9:31 AM on 03.31.09 |
| ->> All the wildlife photographers out here LOVE that IS stuff. When you're sitting in a blind and shooting at dawn or dusk and you're exposure is 1/125 or below with a teleconverter, I imagine IS is a Godsend. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|