How effective are Canon IS lenses?

[rhodeislandguy]

I'm trying to decide on a DSLR and Canon is certainly in the running. I would like to have IS, however. I realize this may be difficult to measure objectively, but generally speaking how effective is the IS on Canon lenses? I'm most interested in the more affordable lenses--say the new 18-55 mm or the 28-135mm, not "L" series. Does it vary by lens? How does it compare to the inbody IS of other brands? Various reviews have suggested, for example, that Sony a700 SSS may help gain 1 to 2.5 stops. Would the Canon gain be the same or better?

[WestCoast]

I've forgotten the numbers, but I believe that the manufacturer claims of Canon's IS and Nikon's VR stabilization are pretty similar. They're also higher than what Sony/Minolta claims for the in-body Super Steady Shot. I've never directly compared in-lens to in-body image stabilization, so take the manufacturer claims for what they're worth.

[rhodeislandguy]

I've forgotten the numbers, but I believe that the manufacturer claims of Canon's IS and Nikon's VR stabilization are pretty similar. They're also higher than what Sony/Minolta claims for the in-body Super Steady Shot. I've never directly compared in-lens to in-body image stabilization, so take the manufacturer claims for what they're worth.

I just found on the Canon web site that the company claims 4 stops for the 18-55 and 3 stops for the 17-85. I did not see any specific claim for the 35-128. So these are in line with what is claimed for the a700 (4 stops). But I've heard folks suggest that in lens IS (aka Nikon VR, Sigma OS) is superior to in-body, so I'm still curious if there is a difference in practice.

[WestCoast]

So these are in line with what is claimed for the a700 (4 stops). But I've heard folks suggest that in lens IS (aka Nikon VR, Sigma OS) is superior to in-body, so I'm still curious if there is a difference in practice.

Various reviews have suggested, for example, that Sony a700 SSS may help gain 1 to 2.5 stops.

If Sony's in-body IS is only gaining 1-2.5 stops, that may explain why the in-lens IS is supposedly better. :confused:

[swpars]

Here's a Pop Photo comparison of sensor-shift cameras versus image-stabilized lenses - and here are the results (sensor-shift cameras tested with a 200mm lens).

This is prior to the release of the Sony a700.

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4615/image-stabilization-special-stop-the-shake-lab-report-page2.html

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/image/2007/W38/9192007114549.gif

I would argue that the in-lens figures are conservative - here is a link to a shot with the Canon 70-200 f4 L lens (handheld) that seems to give about 4 stops.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/enzyme00/493973623/

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/67909965/m/219007057831?r=323000457831#323000457831

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT
Exposure: 0.067 sec (1/15)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 135 mm

[DonSchap]

If you can spring for IS in every lens you shoot ... then by all means, Canon is waiting for you with open arms. They will take you into "the fold" like nobody's business ... because, that is their business.

But, if you simply want to use lower cost, non-IS-equipped lenses on your in-the-body-IS camera, then Canon and Nikon are not the gameplan.

Almost every single PRIME (fixed focal length) lens under 300mm does NOT have IS in it. This can be troubling. A lot of third party lenses, zoom or otherwise, also do not have IS in them ... so that's at issue.

Personally ... I have found IS to be simply a terrific fall back when shutter speed drops to 1/30 sec or slower. I get a few more "keepers" per round. I didn't always think like this, because my film cameras simply never had that capability ... but since going digital, I'm a convert. :o

If Canon added IS the their bodies ... they'd rule the roost ... but since they have opted not to ... the in-the-body-IS crowd is growing. IS-equipped-lenses normally are not cheap ... and that cost is in every single one of them.

"Deep pockets, you have, I would say. Yes, very deep, indeed."

32029

"Very pleased Master Canikon will be."

[swpars]

I fail to see the price advantage of Sony-mount lenses over Canon IS or Nikon VR lenses.

Sony 70-200mm f2.8: $1999

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463920-REG/Sony_SAL70200G_70_200mm_f_2_8_APO_G.html

Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR: $1625

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html

Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS: $1569

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html

So it looks like the f2.8 telephotos with in-lens stabilization are cheaper and more effective at steadying vibration than the Sony lens mounted on a Sony body with in-body stabilization.

[DonSchap]

Excuse me ... but don't you think this is a bit of an extreme comparison? How about picking something a little more ... within the realm of newbie-reason ... like a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 w/ IS and w/o

Or even a Minolta 24-105mm (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/337/minolta-24-105mm-f35-45d-af.html) vs Canon 24-105mm w/ IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-GREY/Canon_0344B002_24_105mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html).

Or for that matter, every single (<300mm) PRIME lens that gets IS on a SONY, Olympus or Pentax ... versus PRIME lenses on the Canon or Nikon, which can not. Having IS in the body and in the lens is the perfect combo, because then you could choose. But, they are not playing that way ... yet.

No ... if you have the coin ... IS-in-the-lens is your ticket, no doubt about it. Ready, hand in pocket ... grab and pull ... what do you see? IS-bucks, right? Oh ... thought not. Welcome to the club. :rolleyes:

[WestCoast]

If Canon added IS the their bodies ... they'd rule the roost

I'm pretty sure that they already do rule the roost. SONY would do a lot better if they didn't charge an obnoxious $1,400 for the good-but-not-great A700 body. Or if their marketing people had a clue and were able to compete with the D40 and the XTi, but that's a different story.

IS isn't terribly important until you get over 50 mm. And cheap, fast (f/2 and lower) 50 mm primes that take great shots without IS are widely-available. Agreed that in-body IS is nice, but the prices on the consumer-grade 50-200 and 70-300 IS/VR "Canikon" lenses are very reasonable ($200-$450).

[rhodeislandguy]

Here's a Pop Photo comparison of sensor-shift cameras versus image-stabilized lenses - and here are the results (sensor-shift cameras tested with a 200mm lens).


Thanks swpars! This is exactly the info I was looking for. According to this test it appears that most IS lenses reviewed gained 2-3 stops (a few more--the Nikon 18-200 rocks for IS!, a few less). According to the magazines' camera review, the a100 did about the same while the a700 maybe did slightly better (2.5 to 3+). Other inbody IS did not do as well. Anyway--depending on brand--one system at this point does not appear to be dramatically better or worse than the other. So I can now go back to comparing other features and price without worrying about IS. Also happy to hear from your experience that the in-lens IS numbers may be conservative. Thanks for sharing the photos.

[Rhys]

I find the IS is very useful. It's not perfect but it's useful. I'd rather have IS and a slower lens than no IS and a faster lens.

[swpars]

I find the IS is very useful. It's not perfect but it's useful. I'd rather have IS and a slower lens than no IS and a faster lens.

Agreed - for example, if I am to replace my kit lens with a superior lens - the Nikon 18-55mm VR f3.5-5.6 at around $200 is looking like a much better deal (with most of the capability) than the Sigma 18-55mm f2.8 HSM with no stabilization at twice the price.

[WestCoast]

Agreed - for example, if I am to replace my kit lens with a superior lens - the Nikon 18-55mm VR f3.5-5.6 at around $200

I agree with you guys. And apparently Nikon does as well, as the aforementioned VR lens is scheduled to be their kit lens of the future.

While in-body IS is certainly advantageous, it's going to mean less in the future if IS becomes standard in Nikon/Canon/Sigma/Tamron lenses.