Why are there no non-macro prime lenses with Image Stabilization ?

[Solarflare]

Anyone knows why prime lenses apparently never have IS/VR ?

Unless they are macro, anyway.

 

[enzodm]

At least in the Canon series, this is simply not true (24, 28, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 800 with IS).

However, short focal lengths need IS less than long focal length, because they are less prone to blurring due to movement (you know the rule, shutter speed > 1/focal length).
Portrait lenses (50-135) need IS less because you are shooting a moving subject, so photographer movement (which is what is cured by IS) is just a part of the problem.
Macro lenses need IS less because you preferably use them on tripod, where IS is not useful.

 

[pisicel]

I believe prime lenses are not used in action photography, so they don't really need an IS.
Also I understood that stabilization can also affect negatively the quality of the image. Not talking here about motion blur.

 

[enzodm]

I believe prime lenses are not used in action photography, so they don't really need an IS.

action photography is where IS is less needed, because subject movements should be frozen using fast shutter speeds.

 

[Solarflare]

VR basically makes a tripod superflous, or at least less useful. Thats why I think its awesome to have on any lens.

Especially since I got my 35mm prime as a low light lens, where long shutter times are of course also frequent.

 

[rexbobcat]

Canon is coming out with a new 28mm 2.8 IS.

I'm hoping that there will be more consumer primes coming out with IS to use for DSLR video.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I believe prime lenses are not used in action photography, so they don't really need an IS.Also I understood that stabilization can also affect negatively the quality of the image. Not talking here about motion blur.

If you watch football, all those photographers on the sideline use big prime lenses.

 

[Overread]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

First up pretty much all the big white L lenses and those beyond around 100mm have IS. Even many of the 70-300mm are getting IS as well.

The only section of the lens range that has less IS present is the focal lengths under 100mm and that is mostly because IS is not as much a demand. IS only counters the effect of handshake and for lenses under 100mm you only need around 1/100sec for a sharp handheld shot. Furthermore the other bonus of IS, that of a smoother viewfinder image is, again, less of a factor for these shorter focal lengths (at least for the average person).

IS is becoming more common in the shorter lenses, but mostly because it:
1) adds a new feature
2) helps with video work where you can't up the shutter speed to get a smoother shot.

 

[snowbear]

Nikon has VR in nine current production primes, from 85mm to 600mm.

 

[davisphotos]

What IS prime are you looking for? As has been pointed out above, IS is less helpful in shorter lenses, although Canon seems to be rolling it out for purposes of video shooting. I wouldn't be surprised if they roll out an IS 50 and 85 sometime in the not completely distant future. Canon's IS primes: 24, 28, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 800

 

[fjrabon]

VR/IS doesn't work as well for long shutter speeds that come from using a short focal length lens in low light. ie, it won't work as well if you're trying to use it with a 35mm at f/2.2 in low light. VR/IS works best at fixing tiny, but quick jolts. Like the blur you'd get out of trying to hand shoot a 200mm shot with a 1/100s shutter speed. It's not going to help as much if you're trying to take a shot with a 35mm at 1/10s shutter speed. In fact, it will often even make things look worse in that sort of scenario.

Since most consumer grade primes are shorter focal lengths (35mm, 50mm being the most common consumer grade primes), you're noticing this effect. it actually has very little to do with them being primes as much as it has to do with them being shorter focal lengths. Notice, for instance, that you almost never find VR/IS on wide angle zoom lenses, even though these lenses routinely are in the $500+ range.

 

[usayit]

I believe prime lenses are not used in action photography, so they don't really need an IS.
Also I understood that stabilization can also affect negatively the quality of the image. Not talking here about motion blur.

Incorrect.

Sports/Action photography is among the most demanding on equipment. In particularly, you need long and fast telephotos which usually equate to fast long primes. They require the faster aperture in order to keep the shutter speeds up as much as possible... something difficult to do with a slower zoom lens. You only need to examine the lens choices of the professional sports photographer to see that primes (w/IS) domintate this arena. At least with the Canon line of lenses, almost every long telephoto is either equipped or has a version equipped with IS.

I've seen zero reports (with the exception of IS on tripods causing feedback problems) indicating that IS contributes to any noticable image quality degredation.

 

[Overread]

I've seen zero reports (with the exception of IS on tripods causing feedback problems) indicating that IS contributes to any noticable image quality degredation.

IS can have some detrimental effect, but it depends how you shoot. IS/VR/OS all work by first spinning up the elements to give its effect. During those few moments of spinning up it can result in a slightly softer image. If you're the type of photographer who is moving, raising and shooting fast, without holding the shutter half way to engage the IS to start with, then those few seconds at the start might lose you the shot as you wait for the IS to spin up.

That said once one is aware of this one can adapt to it. Either running the IS for longer before the shot appears (drains on the battery) or using a monopod and disabling the IS - asides if its an action shot you're fast snapping chances are the shutter speed already has to be pretty high.

 

[jake337]

I thought IS/VR/OS was about stabilizing the image in the viewfinder, not actually helping you achieve slower shutter speeds? Am I way off here? Or is it that once one has a more stabilized image in the viewfinder the can achieve better image quality at slower shutter speeds?

 

[fjrabon]

I thought IS/VR/OS was about stabilizing the image in the viewfinder, not actually helping you achieve slower shutter speeds? Am I way off here? Or is it that once one has a more stabilized image in the viewfinder the can achieve better image quality at slower shutter speeds?

It's about stabilizing the images. It's done physically, not with software, so the stabilization you are seeing in the viewfinder must be reflected in increased image sharpness.

Think of it like it provides you with slightly steadier hands.