# IN Lens Stabilization



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 16, 2011)

A article posted by Nikon explaining why they feel in-lens stabilization works better.

I'm not passing judgement, just passing it along for your reading.

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/23997/session/L3RpbWUvMTMxMDM4MzY2Mi9zaWQvUlV6Y3ZJeWs%3D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2011)

Canon feels the same way... (obviously)

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/lens/merit/index.html


----------



## bycostello (Jul 26, 2011)

where else would it be.. on an SLR anyway...


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 26, 2011)

bycostello said:


> where else would it be.. on an SLR anyway...



Sensor shift. It has their own advantages too.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/alpha_01.html#block1


----------



## bycostello (Jul 26, 2011)

I can see the advantage of the sensor shift method as in it is in the camera... as everytime i buy a lens i am buying another image stabalising system and so a degree of duplication as i can't obvioulsy use 2 lenses at the same time.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 26, 2011)

bycostello said:


> everytime i buy a lens i am buying another image stabalising system and so a degree of duplication as i can't obvioulsy use 2 lenses at the same time.



Same idea with Autofocus, Nikon (and Pentax iirc?) went the road of AF motor in the body, and drive with a screw. Then they gave up and put the AF motor in the lens (after they realised it's faster), and stopped putting the motor in the cheaper bodies, so it's a crapshoot buying nikon lenses and bodies unless you research well first.
But that made sense, in a way, lower-end-camera buyers only buy 1 lens and 1 body, cheaper to put it in the lens. Pros who keep their glass for 20+ years will want to AF with their pro body, so they still get an AF motor in-body.

As for IS, pretty much the only plus is that you can IS with any old lens up to 100 years old that you can adapt to your body. And for someone who buys a lot of glass vs bodies, buying non-IS glass can make a decent cost-saving.
Everything else is a downside though, worse performance because it's not tuned to the size/weight/focal length, overheating easier, and not active in the viewfinder annoys me no end for long slow handheld lenses.

I do hope that Tamron Idea gets up and running though, if it's got the IQ and performance to justify the cost, then you could use any non-IS lens, on any DSLR, and you get the best of both worlds (the only downside left would be that it wouldn't be tuned for individual lenses, so not as good as in-lens, but probably better than in-body)


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 26, 2011)

I think that stabilisation both optical and sensor, is over abused. I switch it off when I don't need it as I feel it is better without it. 

Adding IS in lenses increases the cost by adding extra optic elements. The extra elements decreases image quality too. To counter this decrease, they will need to add even more money to improve the lens overall optics. 

The 70-200 2.8 performs slightly better than the 70-200 2.8 IS even although it cost much more. To be able to beat the old 70-200 there was the need of the 70-200 2.8 IS II with even a higher price and this happened 20 years later. For me IS means lower quality/price ratio, for the advantage of a better stabilisation system. 

Does spending hundreds, or even thousands extra for every lens worth 4 stops instead of 3 stops and a stabilised viewfinder ? This is subjective and the answer will differ for every user.


We are lucky that Canon lenses have relatively low prices. Sony non stabilised lenses cost the same as the Canon IS lenses. I think a reason for this is due to the fact that Sony don't sell as much lenses as Canon and cost per lens might be higher, or maybe they are just abusing their clients


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 26, 2011)

A big problem with in-camera stabilization for sony has been overheating in video mode. some of their cameras overheat in 3 minutes of video.

Sony recommends that you turn it off.

Really usefull when turned off!


----------



## motorhead (Jul 26, 2011)

_"The 70-200 2.8 performs slightly better than the 70-200 2.8 IS even although it cost much more. To be able to beat the old 70-200 there was the need of the 70-200 2.8 IS II with even a higher price and this happened 20 years later. For me IS means lower quality/price ratio, for the advantage of a better stabilisation system". _ 

I chose the non IS version a few years ago for that very reason. But the new mk11 f/2.8L IS version blows them both out of the water. It's night and day ahead of either. Of course it's also not cheap.


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 26, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A big problem with in-camera stabilization for sony has been overheating in video mode. some of their cameras overheat in 3 minutes of video.
> 
> Sony recommends that you turn it off.
> 
> Really usefull when turned off!



You are referring to video recording with sensor shift not still photography. For video heating, there are some rumors of testers saying that the heating problem has improved. 

Previously, I just wanted to mention a particular disadvantage of IS which is not mentioned often. When comparing these 2 technologies from a quality point of view, IS wins, but if we add money into the comparison, and look what we can get with that money, I think in real life people will give more credit to sensor shift. 

A common question is "should I get 70-200 2.8 or 70-200 4.0 IS ? " The cost of these lenses are very similar, showing that IS and sealing is about the cost of a 1 stop optical gain. As a personal choice, I will pick the 2.8 lens even without any sensor shift stabilisation. If we get 3 stop sensor shift, how many will choice the 70-200 2.8 vs the 70-200 4.0 IS ? In this way we are also including price in the comparison rather than just stabilisation quality. 

In real life, with the price advantage, we could get a new 70-200 2.8 lower priced than the old 70-200 2.8 IS, and with a better quality then new 70-200 2.8 IS II. That would be interesting.


----------



## recon photography (Jul 27, 2011)

i have always wondered about somehow using both effectively i'm sure Canon could do it they are awesome


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jul 27, 2011)

I bought a Canon EOS 33 film camera (2nd hand, $150 in mint condition, for education & fun), and Canon's choice to put IS in the lens means I can benefit from it even when used on the film body.

[Maybe historically it was the other way around, as in Canon putting IS in the lens because film couldn't be shifted, but I'm just as happy anyway.]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> Previously, I just wanted to mention a particular disadvantage of IS which is not mentioned often. When comparing these 2 technologies from a quality point of view, IS wins, but if we add money into the comparison, and look what we can get with that money...



This is a very valid point! I'd like to turn that argument around and apply it where it _really_ matters. As consumers, we're looking for a cost-effective solution. As corporations, Canon and Nikon are looking for a profit-generating solution - and your argument is consistent with a preference for a lens-based IS system, because requiring customers who want IS to purchase a separate IS system with each lens generates more revenue for the manufacturer.

One other factor not mentioned is the example of hybrid IS (in the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS), which compensates for translational shift in addition to angular shift. A system like that is really relevant only at macro distances, so it makes the most sense to put that in a macro lens, rather than in a camera body.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 27, 2011)

recon photography said:


> i have always wondered about somehow using both effectively i'm sure Canon could do it they are awesome


Unless there is something in the EF signalling to allow the camera body to shut down IS (which I doubt), you would at the very least need to shut down IS on the lens and then activate it on the camera - a two step process at least. Possible, though I would rather they didn't have an "IS-OFF" button on the camera - another thing to bump and then gum things up, all for in-camera stabilization which only helps with unstabilized lenses. I'm sure that stabilizing currently unstabilized EF-mount favorites would be awesome, though (but nowhere near as good as replacing those lenses with stabilized versions).


----------

