IS version

[Tabazan]

Hello to all,


Where can I find a version/spec chronology list of IS on Canon lenses (i.e. oldest to newest) ?


Have some IS been updated on the same version lenses ?


Thank you


Happy Easter

[neuroanatomist]

IS will not be updated on the same version of the lens (i.e. a stealth update). If IS is updated, it will be part of the revision of the lens design, as in the update on the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS to the just-released MkII version.


I'm not aware of any list of IS versions for various lenses - I think you need to read the specs or review of a particular lens to find that out. This site: http://www.eflens.com/ has links to the Canon specs and several review pages for Canon lenses.

[Tabazan]

I'm not aware of any list of IS versions for various lenses - I think you need to read the specs or review of a particular lens to find that out.

Thanks,


In fact, as I plan to buy a 300mm f4, which IS has been largely discussed (as old), I wondered what is the difference in shake stability efficiency, if it's noticeable, with most recent lenses (100mm macro IS L for example).


But its just stability efficiency only, not the mode 1 and 2 or other spec.


For example, on my Sigma 120-400 I find the IS very effective (for me), even though stab process is a bit strange (moves and growls a lot, then stabilize for good after 1/2 second)

[Mark Elberson]

The typical progression of Canon's IS implementation has been 2-stop up to 3-stop up the current 4-stop IS. I believe that the 300mm f/4 has the older 2-stop variety. On a super telephoto lens though 2-stop IS is EXTREMELY helpful. If you follow the standard 1/mm rule of thumb on a full-frame camera you could hand hold the 300mm f/4 @ 1/75th and @ 1/120th on a 1.6 FOVCF camera. Unless you're shooting landscapes(or other static objects)the odds are that you'll need those minimum shutter speeds to combat subject blur.

[neuroanatomist]

I do notice a significant difference in the IS performance between myEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM (2-stop IS) set at 100mm and myEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM (4-stop hybrid IS). The macro is much better stabilized, IMO. In addition to the difference in stabilization capability, the implementation is different (the newest IS version is nearly silent, whereas the IS on theEF 300mm f/4L IS starts with a 'clunk' you can hear and feel and becomes a low humm/buzz).

[peety3]

The differences are completely noticeable. I've posted my "killer shot" of the Seattle Space Needle (575' tall structure, with the ability to see which ~30" TVs are on and where the people are; handheld at 1/13th at 9:30PM from what I suspect to be 1.25 miles away) taken with the 200mm f/2 IS. That was better than 4 stops of IS performance (1.3x FOVCF so EFL was 260mm). I was at ISO 1600, so at best I had two stops of ISO to use up if I needed it; the 70-200/2.8 with its 3 stop IS unit would have put me right on the edge of handholdability at ISO H (6400) if not shaky (and not nearly the clarity wide open).


Here's the 14mm view: http://c0460882.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Seattle0820-001.JPG


Here's the 200mm view: http://c0460882.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Seattle0820-004.JPG

[adrian mandea]

Neuroanatomist have you got your 100-400? was I right regarding the IS system? the 300f4 IS L has the same one so it's not a very good one but it is there.the best thing is never to try the IS in the 70-300mm IS and you will not be dissapointed.otherwise.....

[Sheiky]

I rented the 100-400 last week and I was amazed by the IS. I've even made a sharp picture handheld at 1/6th, but my keeperrate was 1 out of 100 I guess[:P] 1/30th of a second did very well for me. At 400mm of course, forgot to mention that. But those are all subjective to a lot of things. When I had the 1/6th shot is my subject was like 6,5-7m away and the short distance makes the IS function a lot better! Since the weather was amazingly foggy I didn't really made far away shots (I did, but they where rubbish in the nicest way), so I can't tell how good the IS was on further focus distances.


Anyway I was very pleased with the IS in the 100-400. Theoretically 2-stops perhaps, but I had a lot more. I'm also curious how this "2-stops" definition is made. Is there a particular standard? Focus distance (or subject-distance) plays a big role in my believe, so there should be some sort of test to determine the IS functionality. Or is it just a lot of shooting and taking averages?

[neuroanatomist]

Neuroanatomist have you got your 100-400? was I right regarding the IS system? the 300f4 IS L has the same one so it's not a very good one but it is there.

Yes, I received my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: red;"]L IS USM lens earlier this week. I haven't had a chance to get outdoors with it yet (has been raining all week), but I have tested it indoors.


To answer your question, no, I don't think you were right - the IS on the 100-400mm performs exactly as I would expect. At 400mm, the 1.6x crop makes the angle of view equivalent to 640mm. The 1/focal length guideline suggests I should be able to handhold that at 1/640 s - and keep in mind, that's a guideline, what it really means is that at a shutter speed of 1/focal length, an 'average' person (whatever that means) should get about a 50% keeper rate. With IS off, that's just about right - slower than 1/640 and I start to get many shake-blurred shots. IS for this lens is rated at 2 stops. So, that means zoomed to 400mm I should get a 50% keeper rate at 1/160 s shutter speed. In fact, I get a decent hit rate even at 1/100 or 1/80 s (still over 50%).

the best thing is never to try the IS in the 70-300mm IS and you will not be dissapointed.otherwise...

I'd be disappointed in the IQ of the 70-300mm lens,in the rotating front element and the lack of full time manual focusing. Those are the reasons I didn't buy that lens. But I'm still not sure why you feel disappointed in the IS on the 100-400mm. The 70-300mm at its longest focal length, with it's 3-stop IS, should allow you to handhold (at that 50% keeper rate) down to about 1/60 s - that's one-and-a-third stops faster than the 1/160 for the 100-400 at it's full extension. I suspect it comes down to expectations. My EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM has 4-stop hybrid IS - I can get sharp handheld shots at 1/8 s. I've gotten sharp images handheld with my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (3-stop IS) at 1/2 s shutter speed, due to the combination of short focal length and IS - that's a speed you'd normally need a tripod to achieve. I certainly don't expect that from the 100-400mm lens - it performs as it should in my hands.

[adrian mandea]

enjoy it,and let us see some images when the weather will be better


adrian