L Series Lens with no IS, Why?

[penderphoto]

I'm a Canon shooter and in particular L series lenses. But I have a question and it's also be discussed in a few fb groups that I posted the same question in. But I really would like to know from a Canon Rep what Canon the manufacturer has to say about this question that I have.  

Does anyone know why Canon put out there 24-70 2.8L with no IS? Its a Pro L lens. Why would they not add that feature? I've always wondered this, so I needed to calm my thoughts.  If your paying for L glass. I would assume you would get all the options available. If you use it or not. Now the tilt-shifts. I understand why those wouldn't have IS because there generally on a tripod anyways.  

I would love a Canon rep to chime in on this.  

Out of 27 L lenses. 

14 have IS.

4 are Tilt-shifts. 

Thank you for your time

[p4pictures · Accepted solution]

This will be a decision made by Canon considering various factors.

1. Size of the lens will increase with adding IS as some of the glass elements need to be slightly larger
2. Weight will increase with adding IS
3. Will IS be really beneficial since 1/25th to 1/80th would be hand holdable normally depending on zoom position
4. Price
5. Complexity of the lens - may impact ease of servicing, or fragility / reliability

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM was 150g lighter and 11mm shorter than the older EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM that it replaced and the optical performance was significantly improved.

Moving to the RF mount means that the lens design can take advantage of the shorter distance between the rear lens groups and the sensor, this changes the constraints and gives the lens designers additional options to explore. They chose to include IS, but in doing so the weight increased from 805g to 900g and the length also increased from 113mm to 126mm compared to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. It looks like they readjusted the priority to include IS, over size and weight.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

I do not believe you will get a response from a Canon rep here. 

I understand  you are referring to EF glass.  I purchased a sigma art 24-70 instead of the Canon equivalent because I wanted IS.  My lens was heavier, but I never regretted the choice.  I had about 6 years with it.  

I believe Canons choice was related to cost and weight.  Maybe others can provide their thoughts.  

[penderphoto]

Yes Rick, I'm referring to the EF models. The 24-70 2.8L in particular. 1800-1900 for a L series Pro lens and it doesn't have IS. I'm wondering why?

I've heard well you don't need it for that small of focal length. But the 18-55 kit lens has it. So that don't hold water with me. Cheap kit lens has it and not a L series pro lens.

You don't need it with that fast of Fstop.  Maybe, but it's a Luxury lens. Give to me and I'll make the choice if I need or want it on or not.

To expensive,  we're already paying for the pro glass and the 2.8. So give us everything.

RF model of the same has IS and is 2100. So???

I just would really like to hear from Canon why they didn't offer it at the time of release.

I know I probably will never find out. But I'm still going to try.

Cheers Rick

[jrhoffman75]

“I've heard well you don't need it for that small of focal length. But the 18-55 kit lens has it. So that don't hold water with me. Cheap kit lens has it and not a L series pro lens.”

I don’t work for or represent Canon, but perhaps, as the cost of IS has come down, they decided to add it to lenses with smaller maximum apertures to allow greater exposure flexibility. Lower useable shutter speed capability with IS can compensate for the f/5.6 vs f/2.8 limitation. 

[p4pictures · Accepted solution]

This will be a decision made by Canon considering various factors.

1. Size of the lens will increase with adding IS as some of the glass elements need to be slightly larger
2. Weight will increase with adding IS
3. Will IS be really beneficial since 1/25th to 1/80th would be hand holdable normally depending on zoom position
4. Price
5. Complexity of the lens - may impact ease of servicing, or fragility / reliability

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM was 150g lighter and 11mm shorter than the older EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM that it replaced and the optical performance was significantly improved.

Moving to the RF mount means that the lens design can take advantage of the shorter distance between the rear lens groups and the sensor, this changes the constraints and gives the lens designers additional options to explore. They chose to include IS, but in doing so the weight increased from 805g to 900g and the length also increased from 113mm to 126mm compared to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. It looks like they readjusted the priority to include IS, over size and weight.

[penderphoto]

Brian, Thank you for your response. I appreciate it.

[Waddizzle · Accepted solution]

Welcome to the forums!

I would agree with Rick’s observation that you should not expect a response from a “Canon rep” in these forums.  I would suggest that you contact them in writing.  Yours is a highly technical question pertaining to design decisions, so I would not expect any company to reveal proprietary information regarding intellectual properties.

We, as users, can only speculate on the reasons.  I do not think Image Stabilization is really needed in wide aperture lenses shorter than 100mm, because your shutter speeds would typically be faster than 1/100 of a second.

Under some shooting conditions and scenarios, having IS enabled could create undesirable effects such as soft images or even pulsing.  One frequent scenario that I’ve heard people complaint about with the R5 when shooting video is how the image shifts.  When they post examples of the issue, they are focusing on fairly distant objects, like hundreds of yards away, if not miles away.  They are most often shooting video handheld, which is why they feel that they should have IS enabled.

This brings me to my next point.  The primary job of IS is not to minimize motion blur in your photos.  The primary job of IS is to provide a stable image in the EVF/OVF for the photographer, but more importantly for the AF system.  

It only takes a small fraction of a second to capture most images.  This means that the IS system probably spends more than 99.99% stabilizing the image for the AF system.  If your shooting conditions warrant the need for IS because of slow shutter speeds, then you probably need a tripod and should turn off the IS, anyway.

[penderphoto]

Thank you for the reply.

[ebiggs1]

The bottom line, however, is that IS is not a prerequisite for a lens to be considered "L" level. The ef 400mm f5.6L is another example. Canon thought the price point and the weight restrictions they wanted warranted eliminating IS form that lens They made a fantastic wonderfully light super tele.

Keep in mind at one time no lens, no matter its quality level, had IS and somehow we got the sot.

[p4pictures]

Not a Canon choice to leave IS out of the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM they weren't ready with IS technology at the time as it was introduced in 1993, two years before the first lens with IS was introduced; EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 

Lots of historical info in the Canon Museum https://global.canon/en/c-museum/lens.html?s=ef