I'm a noob (even before that - I don't even have an SLR yet) so the question may seem stupid: do you think that Canon IS is a temporary stop-gap or is here to stay.
It's not that the technology is not useful - from what I read (and it all makes sense) it's a very useful technology. I just question its implementation and the future of this implementation: it makes more sense to me to implement it in the body, not in the lens. In other words, it should shake the sensor, not the lens. I understand that this is feasible as other manufacturers (Minolta?) already do that, effectively transforming any ordinary lens into an IS lens.
Since the average serious photographer owns more lenses than bodies (at least I think so), it would make sense to implement this in the body, not in the lens.
If this is the case, I'd rather invest in high quality lenses without IS (say the 70-200 L) rather than on regular lenses with IS (say the 70-300 IS) and enjoy them on the new IS-enabled bodies.
Again, I'm a noob, so it may be total bull what I'm saying, so don't be harsh.
Thanks,
Mihai
It's not that the technology is not useful - from what I read (and it all makes sense) it's a very useful technology. I just question its implementation and the future of this implementation: it makes more sense to me to implement it in the body, not in the lens. In other words, it should shake the sensor, not the lens. I understand that this is feasible as other manufacturers (Minolta?) already do that, effectively transforming any ordinary lens into an IS lens.
Since the average serious photographer owns more lenses than bodies (at least I think so), it would make sense to implement this in the body, not in the lens.
If this is the case, I'd rather invest in high quality lenses without IS (say the 70-200 L) rather than on regular lenses with IS (say the 70-300 IS) and enjoy them on the new IS-enabled bodies.
Again, I'm a noob, so it may be total bull what I'm saying, so don't be harsh.
Thanks,
Mihai