Why I don't think we'll ever see IBIS

[TWX]

Christopher Frost's latest Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 lens review just appeared today, and while watching it, a comment of his struck me, in that Canon has apparently stated that their RF-mount lenses will come with new/better/extra features to distinguish them from their older EF-mount lenses. He proceeds to discuss the image stabilization that the RF lens has, compared to the predecessor EF Mk.II that doesn't have IS.

This got me thinking, Canon is certainly in the business of selling cameras, but Canon is also in the business of selling lenses. I've purchased a total of four Canon cameras if I include the Rebel EOS film camera I bought for its lens, and I have a total of nine Canon lenses, two of which were bought brand new, plus three third-party lenses, in a pair of Tamrons and a Tokina.

Take one of the Tamrons, the 70-300mm A005 SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD. It's basically got all of Tamron's bells and whistles in it and essentially was created to compete directly against Canon's offerings, and as such its new retail price is $449, only $50 less than Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM at $499. Among the features both lenses have is some form of image stabilization, and I have a suspicion that this feature is a major part of the price, explaining why the Tamron costs almost as much as the Canon.

So basically if Canon were to implement in-body image stabilization, suddenly they would first, be competing with third-party lens manufacturers producing optically nice but unstabilized lenses with potentially much lower MSRPs than genuine Canon lenses would have, and second, their newer RF and EFM lenses would continue to compete with their older EF and EFS lenses lacking image stabilization or would otherwise not compel existing customers to upgrade to the new lens with more features.

As long as Canon continues to create new or revised lenses for RF and EFM that have more features to them than the EF and EFS lenses they share focal lengths and aperture sizes with, they'll have a chance of selling more of those lenses than if they basically improved their existing lenses by way of improving how the camera can stabilize them.

IBIS for Canon might help a lot of us out with existing lenses, but remember, they want us to buy more products, and while they're maintaining protocol interoperability it's not in their interests to give us any "free" features that remove incentive to us to buy more of their products. They don't appear to be taking active steps to stop me from using my existing lenses, but they're not going to make those lenses work any better than they did as-new either.

 

[weepete]

Any lens stabilisation is, IMO, a nice to have rather than an essential. For me anyway it's probably one of my least used features, because either I care enough about the image I'm using a tripod with mirror lockup and remote release or there's a moving subject in the shot that only in a few very spesific circumstances IS will help.

Maybe if Canon had kept the mounting system like Nikon has I'd have a different view on it. But with high ISO images getting so clean nowadays and other ways to more relyably get shots I really fell that it's more of a bonus.

Or put it this way, how much of a premium would you be willing to pay for a Canon body with IBIS over one without?

 

[Derrel]

In-body image stabilization cuts down on the ultimate long-term reliability of the body , perhaps not by much, but it's a small factor.

My experience is that Vibration Reduction or Canon Image Stabilization Is extremely valuable when doing slow speed handheld panning , and when shooting from a moving platform such as a sport fishing boat , or when shooting in the Wind. these three situations are ones in which a tripod does nothing, or Works less-than-ideally. There are of course other situations in which stabilization makes things much easier. Stabilisation has made it possible to offer relatively slow maximum aperture zoom lenses. Which are quite useful for travel and landscape photography without needing a tripod. In some areas tripods are strictly prohibited, and the stabilization is quite useful. Stabilization offers you a much wider shooting window/envelope.

It has been shown that stabilization dedicated to a specific lens outperforms in -body systems, but it is nice to have any lens stabilized when it is used on a body with IBIS.

Stabilization is a lot like autofocus was 30 years ago: There were a lot of people who saw no advantage to autofocus. I would venture to say that stabilization has made it possible for the existence of 200 to 500 mm and 150 to 600 mm lenses.

 

[JBPhotog]

I believe you will see IBIS in DSLR's, some brands have it in their FX mirrorless bodies already(Nikon Z series for example). There also may be advantages to IBIS over lens IS(VR) since at certain speeds and at certain f-stops, lens IS(VR) can actually cause slight jittery bokeh.

With communication between cameras to a specific lens, I'm not sure IBIS is any worse than IS(VR) with the latest models, at least I haven't read anything contradicting that point.

I think for most people who are brand agnostic, they do recognize that some brands produce a specific look and colour that can not be duplicated with third party glass. Whether a camera has IBIS or lenses have IS(VR), there are other factors in making lens choices since the use of any stabilization tech is only a small portion of the shooting most people do.

 

[Derrel]

Putting IBIS in means doing away with a two- tier lens strategy...if stabilization is in all bodies, that does away with the option to produce a more- costly stabilized lens and a less-costly non-stabilized model.

 

[JBPhotog]

Precisely what you see Nikon doing with the Z Series.

 

[TWX]

Stabilization is a lot like autofocus was 30 years ago: There were a lot of people who saw no advantage to autofocus. I would venture to say that stabilization has made it possible for the existence of 200 to 500 mm and 150 to 600 mm lenses.

I can see that. When I took those Kenko 1.4x teleconverter shots I was at 420mm handheld and I had decent enough results as to run up against the teleconverter's limitations, undoubtedly due to the IS/VC in the lens, despite Kenko's suggestion to turn the feature off.

I like IS but I like aperture more given my particular indoor use. IS does nothing for me with a fast-moving kiddo indoors. It's great outside though when there's enough sunlight that I don't have to fight against darkness.

 

[Derrel]

I have found VR/IS quite useful over the past 18 years...in a lot of situations, first with the Nikon 80-400 VR, then in a 70-200/2.8 VR, then the 200mm f/2 AF-S G VR, then the 24-105 f 4 L IS and the Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 IS, and most recently for about the past 8 years in the Nikon 70-300mm AFS G.

 

[weepete]

In-body image stabilization cuts down on the ultimate long-term reliability of the body , perhaps not by much, but it's a small factor.

My experience is that Vibration Reduction or Canon Image Stabilization Is extremely valuable when doing slow speed handheld panning , and when shooting from a moving platform such as a sport fishing boat , or when shooting in the Wind. these three situations are ones in which a tripod does nothing, or Works less-than-ideally. There are of course other situations in which stabilization makes things much easier. Stabilisation has made it possible to offer relatively slow maximum aperture zoom lenses. Which are quite useful for travel and landscape photography without needing a tripod. In some areas tripods are strictly prohibited, and the stabilization is quite useful. Stabilization offers you a much wider shooting window/envelope.

It has been shown that stabilization dedicated to a specific lens outperforms in -body systems, but it is nice to have any lens stabilized when it is used on a body with IBIS.

Stabilization is a lot like autofocus was 30 years ago: There were a lot of people who saw no advantage to autofocus. I would venture to say that stabilization has made it possible for the existence of 200 to 500 mm and 150 to 600 mm lenses.

Very interesting Derrel, it's great to find out how and what features other people find useful. It opens up a different way of shooting. I know for myself it offer little to no advantage but I'm a landscape and wildlife guy and I do have a 150-600, largely I turn IS off and just increase shutter speed as I do try to get a lot of BIF shots, admitedly when perched the OS switch is useful, not only to trade for a lower ISO but to make it easier to get an AF point on a small target.

Genuine question though, would you trade a faster aperture for IS?

 

[Derrel]

I had the 200mm f2 and it had VR...it was an amazing imager. The 80 -400 was f/4 at 80 but only f /5.6 at 400mm...VR /IS offers incredible shooting opportunity for slow speed panning and for shooting in the wind and for shooting aboard boats. It's not really a matter of aperture, but having a lens that allows you to stabilize it in ways which are basically impossible with a tripod... The ability to hand hold a long telephoto lens like a 400 mm. At 1/6 of a second would mean that we would need that 400 to be an / 1.4. Or or f 1, or f/0.95.

When ocean salmon fishing a stabilized Lens is the correct tool. The same goes for when you are shooting from another moving platform, like a ferry boat or a helicopter or a tour bus... Image stabilization is not the equivalent of aperture, but Is more about widening the shooting envelope.

 

[weepete]

I had the 200mm f2 and it had VR...it was an amazing imager. The 80 -400 was f/4 at 80 but only f /5.6 at 400mm...VR /IS offers incredible shooting opportunity for slow speed panning and for shooting in the wind and for shooting aboard boats. It's not really a matter of aperture, but having a lens that allows you to stabilize it in ways which are basically impossible with a tripod... The ability to hand hold a long telephoto lens like a 400 mm. At 1/6 of a second would mean that we would need that 400 to be an / 1.4. Or or f 1, or f/0.95.

When ocean salmon fishing a stabilized Lens is the correct tool. The same goes for when you are shooting from another moving platform, like a ferry boat or a helicopter or a tour bus... Image stabilization is not the equivalent of aperture, but Is more about widening the shooting envelope.

Yeah, I'd totaly see how an IS lens could be useful on a boat. Admitedly most times I'm on a boat I'm more focused on fishing than photos. That's a whole other story though.

It's really good to hear your practical applications of VR (aka IS, OS for those that don't know). Very interesting to me as I'm doing the photo's for our fishing club!

 

[Derrel]

On the way to the fishing grounds 0'Dark Thirty, 1/5 second, ISO 1600, 24-105 L IS USM, at 24mm, Canon 5D, boat running about 20 knots.

 

[Derrel]

 

[Derrel]

Same trip , the night before, 105mm setting, 24-105 L IS USM, f/9, 1 second exposure. Hand-held with Canon 5D.

 

[kalgra]

According to Canon Rumors IBIS is already confirmed in the upcoming R5 and R6 bodies. However I would be surprised to ever see IBIS in any of their DSLRs.

In addition I think IBIS can only help sway people on the fence toward their most premium RF lenses like the 50 1.2/ 85 1.2 / 28-70 f2 and rumored 135 1.4 which are already huge and crazy expensive yet have no stabilization.