# IBIS with EF Lenses



## docsmith (Oct 5, 2020)

My R5 arrived on Friday. One of the first tests I was curious about was how good would IBIS + in lens IS be on something like my EF 16-35 f/4L IS. In two different tests, I really did not see much of an improvement over in-lens IS only, getting down to hand holdable shots around 1/8 to 1/4 of a second and not the 1-2 secs I am hearing go by with those using the RF 15-35. Of course, much of this could be the EF mount, fewer connection pins, etc. But I am curious what others are finding with their EF lenses.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 5, 2020)

docsmith said:


> My R5 arrived on Friday. One of the first tests I was curious about was how good would IBIS + in lens IS be on something like my EF 16-35 f/4L IS. In two different tests, I really did not see much of an improvement over in-lens IS only, getting down to hand holdable shots around 1/8 to 1/4 of a second and not the 1-2 secs I am hearing go by with those using the RF 15-35. Of course, much of this could be the EF mount, fewer connection pins, etc. But I am curious what others are finding with their EF lenses.



IBIS is mostly disabled when used with EF IS lenses, for a proper test you need either EF non-IS lenses or RF lenses.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 5, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> IBIS is mostly disabled when used with EF IS lenses, for a proper test you need either EF non-IS lenses or RF lenses.


Thanks. My question is more practical, if others were seeing benefit with EF lenses that have in lens IS. I understood from Canon's video that there was only partial interaction, but, at least thus far, it seems to have little actual benefit. I am impressed with lenses w/o in lens IS, for example, I was handholding my 24-70 II at 24 mm ~1/4 sec and getting usably sharp images pretty consistently, even a few at 0.5 sec. But, the 16-35 f/4L IS, really the same range even at 16 mm and in lens IS. I expected a bit of a bump by the IBIS with in-lens EF IS, but, thus far, I am not seeing it.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 5, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Thanks. My question is more practical, if others were seeing benefit with EF lenses that have in lens IS. I understood from Canon's video that there was only partial interaction, but, at least thus far, it seems to have little actual benefit. I am impressed with lenses w/o in lens IS, for example, I was handholding my 24-70 II at 24 mm ~1/4 sec and getting usably sharp images pretty consistently, even a few at 0.5 sec. But, the 16-35 f/4L IS, really the same range even at 16 mm and in lens IS. I expected a bit of a bump by the IBIS with in-lens EF IS, but, thus far, I am not seeing it.



My suspicion is that with EF IS lenses IBIS will only do rotational adjustments, no shake adjustments.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2020)

EF lenses with IS do not include the electronics needed to coordinate with the in camera IBIS. However, the IBIS still does add some stabilization that the lens can't do. It may or may not be easily apparent.

There is a video that might help understand what happens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 5, 2020)

Could we also talk about prime EF lenses? I have two left, the ef 35mm f/1.4L and the ef 135mm f/2. Any experiences? I'm expecting the shorter focal length to do better, but that 135mm? Hmmm... It would be loverly.


----------



## bernie_king (Oct 5, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Could we also talk about prime EF lenses? I have two left, the ef 35mm f/1.4L and the ef 135mm f/2. Any experiences? I'm expecting the shorter focal length to do better, but that 135mm? Hmmm... It would be loverly.



In my testing I'm getting around 2 stops with the 135 f/2. Not so much a scientific test but rather trying with IBIS on and Off.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 5, 2020)

bernie_king said:


> In my testing I'm getting around 2 stops with the 135 f/2. Not so much a scientific test but rather trying with IBIS on and Off.


Thanks! Any little bit helps. I'm thinking combining the 2 stops with R5's cleaner images at higher ISO's, and my 135mm will be fun to use again _handheld_.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 5, 2020)

I do not have the 135 f/2, but ~2 stops is about what I saw with the Sigma 50 mm Art (I have not checked the firmware yet, but I had sharp images at 1/10th). But the 85 f/4 IS is no better on the R5 than on my Canon 5DIV. Matter of fact, to my eye, the 5DIV with lens IS on was doing a bit better than the R5. Which is likely due to the resolution difference.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 5, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> IBIS is mostly disabled when used with EF IS lenses, for a proper test you need either EF non-IS lenses or RF lenses.



Oh wow...that's disappointing.
I'm waiting awhile on the R5, but in the meantime have been playing with a GFX100....and as far as I know, the IBIS in that works with IS and non-IS lenses.

I'd have thought Canon, knowing that at the start, a LOT of EF glass will be used with the R5 for the first few years, they'd have figured a way to coordinate IBIS to work with all EF lenses.

That's a bit disappointing.

So, would it be better on the canon with EF IS lens to turn IS off on the lens and just let IBIS do all the heavy lifting?

Do ya'll think this might change with future firmware updates to the camera?

cayenne


----------



## bernie_king (Oct 5, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Oh wow...that's disappointing.
> I'm waiting awhile on the R5, but in the meantime have been playing with a GFX100....and as far as I know, the IBIS in that works with IS and non-IS lenses.
> 
> I'd have thought Canon, knowing that at the start, a LOT of EF glass will be used with the R5 for the first few years, they'd have figured a way to coordinate IBIS to work with all EF lenses.
> ...



You can't turn the IS off on the lens and just use IBIS. When you have an IS lens complete control (ON/OFF) of all stabilization is via the switch on the lens. The IBIS function in the menu is grayed out. It's all or nothing. As for a firmware fix, it's doubtful. The RF lenses with IS were designed with this combo in mind. I'm sure some of the extra pins in the mount facilitate this. I am just glad the IS works as well or a tiny bit better with the R bodies


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Oct 5, 2020)

bernie_king said:


> You can't turn the IS off on the lens and just use IBIS. When you have an IS lens complete control (ON/OFF) of all stabilization is via the switch on the lens. The IBIS function in the menu is grayed out. It's all or nothing. As for a firmware fix, it's doubtful. The RF lenses with IS were designed with this combo in mind. I'm sure some of the extra pins in the mount facilitate this. I am just glad the IS works as well or a tiny bit better with the R bodies



Well, that put a hard stop on my desire to order an R5 as I have at least a dozen L lenses with IS. If the user can't select between lens IS, IBIS, or no stabilization, I guess I will be sticking with the R for mirrorless.

A major let down....


----------



## bernie_king (Oct 6, 2020)

ColorBlindBat said:


> Well, that put a hard stop on my desire to order an R5 as I have at least a dozen L lenses with IS. If the user can't select between lens IS, IBIS, or no stabilization, I guess I will be sticking with the R for mirrorless.
> 
> A major let down....


Well, you do you I guess. The IS works just as good as it ever did, maybe even a little better... but just a little. Not like you're going to get better performance with the R, but if you ever do get an RF lens you'll get the full benefit. On top of that, there are so many other reasons that the R5 is better. The AF itself is worth the price of admission. I don't have my R5 yet (tentatively this week) , but I do have an R6 and I have no complaints with my IS lenses. I have researched and the IBIS works the same on the R5. The AF on my R6 is better than my 1DX II.


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

ColorBlindBat said:


> . If the user can't select between lens IS, IBIS, or no stabilization


The IS switch on IS EF lenses also toggles the IBIS. So you get lens IS + IBIS or nothing as your two, user selectable options when using an EF IS lens.

And of course the IBIS does improve performance, but as it can't properly coordinate with the lenses, it may not help with shake in the left-right / up-down plane. It's not doing nothing though, which is what the R does.

Not dismissing your decision, it just seems like an unreasonably hard turn based on something that doesn't seem to bad to my eyes.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 6, 2020)

How well does the R5's IBIS work on non-IS lenses?<P>
Is IBIS still working and a factor for 3rd party lenses or let's say, adapted lenses?

C


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 6, 2020)

cayenne said:


> How well does the R5's IBIS work on non-IS lenses?<P>
> Is IBIS still working and a factor for 3rd party lenses or let's say, adapted lenses?
> 
> C


Yes, it works for Canon non IS lenses. For 3rd party lenses, most modern ones work fine, once again, if they have IS, the camera can't coordinate with them, the electrical connections are just not there. Its not a matter of firmware. Some 3rd party lenses don't work with the IBIS. Old ones with no electrical connections will work but you must enter the focal length into the camera.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 6, 2020)

cayenne said:


> How well does the R5's IBIS work on non-IS lenses?<P>
> Is IBIS still working and a factor for 3rd party lenses or let's say, adapted lenses?
> 
> C


I have been playing around with my current group of EF lenses. Granted, most have some form of in lens IS. But, those that don't, including the EF 24-70 II and Sigma 50A, I am seeing ~2 stops of stabilization from the IBIS in the R5. I have not updated the Sigma 50A's firmware, so maybe it will improve, but, actually, 2 stops is nice. I consider it a positive.


----------



## ColorBlindBat (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> The IS switch on IS EF lenses also toggles the IBIS. So you get lens IS + IBIS or nothing as your two, user selectable options when using an EF IS lens.
> 
> And of course the IBIS does improve performance, but as it can't properly coordinate with the lenses, it may not help with shake in the left-right / up-down plane. It's not doing nothing though, which is what the R does.
> 
> Not dismissing your decision, it just seems like an unreasonably hard turn based on something that doesn't seem to bad to my eyes.



My decision to not by an R5 now is based on: 
=============== 


> koenkooi said:
> 
> 
> IBIS is mostly disabled when used with EF IS lenses, for a proper test you need either EF non-IS lenses or RF lenses.


===============

The four main reasons for my interest in an R5 are (in this order):
1) IBIS
2) Better auto-focus
3) Animal eye focus
4) Higher frame rate

If what @koenkool said is correct, the primary reason for buying (for me) an R5 is gone.

It surely shouldn't be a problem for Canon to update the firmware so a user could select IS or IBIS via a menu option with the lens IS switch enabling/disabling whichever stabilization method has been selected.


----------



## tron (Dec 28, 2020)

I tested IBIS with my 135mm f/2L (a non-IS lens). It seemed effective because if I recall correctly I could shoot at up to 1/6 sec with no motion blur. My best record with RF24-70 2.8L IS at 70mm is at 1/3 sec. 

I haven't made tests with IS EF lenses though.

A strange(?) finding in all tests though. Within these limits I get fails (blurs) but I also get excellent (steady) results too.

When I surpassed these limits the results were disastrous! There was a big jump to 100% very blurry photos!


----------



## stevelee (Dec 29, 2020)

Is my impression (which I think I got from reading this here) correct that IBIS is more effective on shorter lenses than on long ones?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Is my impression (which I think I got from reading this here) correct that IBIS is more effective on shorter lenses than on long ones?


That's always been the case, yes.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 30, 2020)

Is there any IBIS benefit using the R5 with the EF 400mm f/5.6 lens? If there is any stabilization improvement, does it show up in the EVF?


----------

