Advantage of Non IS Design

[pixtweak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

 

It has been my understanding that IS adds additional complexity and tradeoffs to lens design and that a lens without it will can offer better image quality. Does anyone have any links or information I can reference regarding this topic. Thanks...

[Nitnaros]

I am not aware of that;

 

My practical experience is with the Canon 70-200/f2.8 IS L, which is a very good zoom.

I can shoot it w/o problems at the 200 end with 1/60 *with* IS turned on.

 

I have not yet managed to shoot my lux-75 slower than 1/250.

 

IS must add to the weight of a lens (gyro sensors and a mechanism to move lens elements), yes, but image quality will benefit from compensating shaking.

 

If I can choose IS yes/no, I would clearly vote "yes".

 

Peter

[LJL]

My experience with Canon's IS is mainly with the 70-200 f2.8L IS and the 400 f2.8L IS lenses. Both are outstanding. However, IS does little good if the subject is moving much. Nothing better than higher shutter speed there. Also it takes a half second or more for the gyros to spin up on the IS units, but once they are kicked in, things work exceptioally well. I seldom use the IS on the 70-200 except for some portrait shooting. On the 400, I use a monopod a lot, and unless I am shooting non-flying birds or something, the IS is of limited value.

 

Again, if the subject is not moving, IS works really well at steadying the movement from the camera in both vertical and panning motions. If the subject is moving, I find that I get much sharper images by shutting off the IS, upping the shutter speed, and letting the faster AF take control.

 

Not sure that answers your question directly, but all the IS talk and value is pretty dependent upong what you are shooting.

 

LJ

[pixtweak]

Thanks both for responding. My question isn't realy about how effective IS is or when to use it, but rather the design of the lens itself and acheiving maximum possible optical quality. I seem to have read in some Leica report/article that compromises are introduced when IS is added into the design of a lens. In other words a better optic can be achieved without IS. That is what I am wondering.

[ho_co]

F--

see Erwin Puts on the topic (http://www.imx.nl/).

 

If I read him correctly, some of his recent comparisons of Canon and Leica lenses show that in the past 10-20 years, the Canon lenses haven't improved in image quality all that much (they were, of course, already quite good), while over the same timeframe the Leica lenses have made major advances (and they were already quite good as well). For Canon, that's at least partially because of the addition of creature comforts like image stabilization. (Again, that's my reading of Puts.)

 

But Peter is correct as well: I can get amazingly good shots from my 18-200 VR Nikkor handheld at 1/30 sec at 300 mm equivalent--something I can't approach with any Leica lens. On the other hand, the Nikkor is under $1000 and although it does a good job, it comes nowhere near the pure optical quality of my Leica lenses mounted on a tripod.

 

The extra gimbals and goombahs of IS do make the lens more complex, and with more surfaces you've got the need for more corrections and the chance for more internal reflections, so the compromises continue to mount

 

--HC

[Artichoke]

Thanks both for responding. My question isn't realy about how effective IS is or when to use it, but rather the design of the lens itself and acheiving maximum possible optical quality. I seem to have read in some Leica report/article that compromises are introduced when IS is added into the design of a lens. In other words a better optic can be achieved without IS. That is what I am wondering.

I don't know about this optical limiting stuff

for a RF IS is not something that would seem worth the bother

IS is more useful at longer focal lengths & the strength of RF is at the wider angles

the bulk added by IS is not trivial, though the weight is less an issue for me ...I have the Nikkor 105 f2.8 and 200 F2 VR (Nikon's equivalent of IS) and they are both stellar lenses optically from my experience

not having such a system available for the R series Leica puts them at a considerable disadvantage, IMHO but for a rangefinder IS makes little sense

[pixtweak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes it may have been in one of Erwin's lens articles that I read this. I was thinking about this as it relates to Canon's new 16 - 35 2.8 L II. It would be great if this lens approaches or matches the Zeiss 21 of Leica 21 - 35. I was considering that by not having IS this indicates that Canon was intent on maximum possible quality and left IS out to acheive this and keep the price under control. With demands of high resolution FF I am hoping these new II series lenses raise the bar. Again if there is some documentation related to this one way or the other I would be interested in looking at it.

[carstenw]

I am not aware of any documentation on it. However, the trouble is the moving element(s). It is not possible for a little motor to position the moving element as accurately as a fixed element is placed. The design presumably compensates for this by making the exact positioning of this element less crucial to the results.

 

The Canon 70-200/2.8 without IS has a reputation for being slightly sharper than the IS version. However, the IS version enjoys a very good reputation, so I am not sure whether the difference is important.

[reddawn]

Yes it may have been in one of Erwin's lens articles that I read this. I was thinking about this as it relates to Canon's new 16 - 35 2.8 L II. It would be great if this lens approaches or matches the Zeiss 21 of Leica 21 - 35. I was considering that by not having IS this indicates that Canon was intent on maximum possible quality and left IS out to acheive this and keep the price under control. With demands of high resolution FF I am hoping these new II series lenses raise the bar. Again if there is some documentation related to this one way or the other I would be interested in looking at it.

 

hmmm.... why would u need IS on a wide angle zoom such as the 16-35?

 

It is possible to shoot at lower shutter speeds with wide angles and still get good results. IS I think would be more for longer focal lengths ie 70mm and up. Even Canon's midzoom, the 24-70 f2.8L does not have IS either. (IS was however implemented on the 24-105 f4L, possibly because of the focal length and the slower maximum aperture)

[Riley]

for Panasonic superzooms and kindred, OIS has added 3 stops to the low end

which is cheaper to organise than better iso performance while it doesnt replace it

[dugby]

Yes it may have been in one of Erwin's lens articles that I read this. I was thinking about this as it relates to Canon's new 16 - 35 2.8 L II. It would be great if this lens approaches or matches the Zeiss 21 of Leica 21 - 35. I was considering that by not having IS this indicates that Canon was intent on maximum possible quality and left IS out to acheive this and keep the price under control. With demands of high resolution FF I am hoping these new II series lenses raise the bar. Again if there is some documentation related to this one way or the other I would be interested in looking at it.

 

We've noticed you've come to Leica for an answer relevant to Canon lenses and Canon's implementation of IS within a FF environment.

 

What have you found in the Canon world of fredmiranda.com ? What do they say there on this subject ?

[jaapv]

For a number of reasons, not the least of which is the ability to compensate for focussing errors by focussing on a matte screen, the exact positioning of lens elements must be to a more narrow tolerance on a rangefinder lens. IS would be very difficult to implement to that tolerance. A "floppy front" lens like the Canon 28-135, quite a good lens on a SLR camera, would be a disaster on a rangefinder, for example.

[pixtweak]

carstenw - Thanks, I think you have described in general why this is probably the case. I was hoping to find the information I had read before (not sure if it was Erwin's site or in Leica lens brochures). Now I am realy curious to find it again and any other articles that document this issue to the extent that it may introduce compromises over traditional non IS lenses. It would be good information to have if for no other reason than to share it when the question is raised in the future.

 

 

Dugby - the question concerns IS and its impact if any on optical design/quality. The Leica forums include many participants who are knowledgeable and appreciate discussion regarding photographic equipment. As stated in an earlier post I remember seeing this issue raised in an article discussing Leica optics. My interests and experience are not limited by brand, and the Leica forums are a refreshing exception to the brand xenophobia many other forums exhibit.

[deltoid1]

carstenw - Thanks, I think you have described in general why this is probably the case. I was hoping to find the information I had read before (not sure if it was Erwin's site or in Leica lens brochures). Now I am realy curious to find it again and any other articles that document this issue to the extent that it may introduce compromises over traditional non IS lenses. It would be good information to have if for no other reason than to share it when the question is raised in the future.

 

 

 

Dugby - the question concerns IS and its impact if any on optical design/quality. The Leica forums include many participants who are knowledgeable and appreciate discussion regarding photographic equipment. As stated in an earlier post I remember seeing this issue raised in an article discussing Leica optics. My interests and experience are not limited by brand, and the Leica forums are a refreshing exception to the brand xenophobia many other forums exhibit.

 

 

Go to British Journal of Photohraphy online. Anders Uschold often mentions that IS degrades image quality according to his tests. OTOH, it seems that the new 70-200 f4 IS is sharper than the non-IS version.

[innerimager]

just browsing this thread, but...I have the nikon 200mm/2.0 VR and it's optical quality, with or without stabilization engaged, is as good as any lens I've seen from any maker. It's the top on the Nikon food chain IMO, so my experience says it isn't so.....Peter

[DaveEP]

I am not aware of that;

My practical experience is with the Canon 70-200/f2.8 IS L, which is a very good zoom.

I can shoot it w/o problems at the 200 end with 1/60 *with* IS turned on.

 

I still have a couple of IS lenses (70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400L IS and having just sold my Ef 300 f2.8L IS), and recommend IS for telephoto. It does help quite a bit with lower shutter speeds, and the keeper percentage (at lower shutter speeds) is substantially higher.

 

I have not yet managed to shoot my lux-75 slower than 1/250.

 

Practice! I have shot as low at 1/25 with my 75cron on the M8 and still got a shot sharp enough for an A3 print. I could not do that with a Canon body/lens. Every time I tried, I failed.