|
All images © Bob Atkins
This website is hosted by:
|
 Author
|
Topic: Canon's plans for lenses (Read 10918 times)
|
jerrila
Newbie
Posts: 3
|
I just received a news release from Canon about their new IS technology. I just purchased a EF 100-400 L IS lens, and find it great on my 40D. But I seem to buy my Canon equipment just before they release a newer version. For example I waited with my 10D until I was sure I would be getting something better for my
dollars. Of course my 40D came just before the 50D was announced. Do you know if Canon will be replacing the 100-400 this fall? If so, I still have return privileges on my lens, and I can wait for the new one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
The new IS is really designed to address isues more common with macro lenses than telephoto lenses. It's basically designed to help with lateral camera shift as well as angular rotation. Lateral shift is only a factor in image sharpness for closup and macro work.
I very much doubt that Canon will be replacing the IS system on all their lenses anytime soon. There's really no need to. What I think we may see will be a few image stabilized macro lenses appearing over the next year or two.
Canon are saying that they will incoroprate the new technology in an SLR lens which is planned for release by the end of the year. They don't say what lens, but I'd bet a lot of money it will not be the 100-400 zoom. My money would be on an IS version of the 180/3.5 macro.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 22, 2009, 09:03:38 AM by Bob Atkins »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jerrila
Newbie
Posts: 3
|
Thank you for clearing that up. I know you don't have any facts yet, but would you take an educated guess whether I am safe for awhile with this lens? I would just hate to read two months from now that they have come out with a faster version of the same focal length.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
My guess is you are safe as far as an upgrade in speed goes. A 100-400/4 lens would be large and very expensive. The Nikon 200-400/4 sells for around $6250 and I doubt a Canon 100-400/4 would be cheaper!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jerrila
Newbie
Posts: 3
|
Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it. And I promise not to write nasty things if you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KeithB
|
I guess that this also means that Lens IS is not going to be phased out in favor of Body IS.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
Not unless someone puts a gun to Canon's head. That gun is the consumer's wallet. If people aren't leaving Canon and Nikon in droves for the body based IS of Pentax and Sony, Canon's not going to go in that direction of their own accord.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
whizkid
|
Bob,
When I read the annoucement of Canon's new hybrid "IS" development my thoughts went immediately to the non-IS EF 180 macro as a possible first for updating as well. The longest macro in Canon's inventory seems a best starting point.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 24, 2009, 04:26:22 AM by whizkid »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KeithB
|
Seems to me that IS for a macro would also need "front-to-back" stabilization, too. My problem when squatting in a field shooting a flower or bug is that the plane of focus keeps moving due to the short depth of field. The side to side part can usually be fixed by cropping, the plane of focus is much more critical.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
Well, a tripod is the cure for all those things! With a tripod you don't need any additional image stabilization. I know a tripod isn't always possible, but sometimes I think we're getting a little lazy and expecting IS to do what a tripod can do - and it can't.
In principle, the plane of focus could be stabilized by the AF system. Continuous AF should be able to compensate for back and forwards movement of the camera. In practice I'm not sure it always does that well since AF isn't instantaneous.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
