Hugo Lopes wrote:
> > > Maybe simply every lens gets IS one day.
> >
> > I may be in the minority, but I sure hope this doesn't happen.
> >fcc
>
> Why?
I knew someone would ask! :-)
More moving parts inside means the potential for reduced reliability and more
expensive repairs. From what I've seen just on this list, the IS mechanism seems
fairly susceptable to being knocked out of alignment.
Most IS designs seem to use more lens elements than their non-IS counterparts,
which in principle is something to be avoided. I don't think it's a coincidence
that some IS lenses perform less well on bench tests than than do the non-IS
versions.
I, personally, don't care for the "swimming" image in the viewfinder produced by
IS.
Unnecessarily adds to the cost of a lens. Is there any real value in a 35/2 IS
lens? As another example, given the already considerable size and weight of the
28-70/2.8L, I don't see where adding IS would be an improvement. Now, if they
wanted to introduce a 28-90/3.5 (or 4.0)L IS, that would make more sense to me
(although you still lose the compositional advantages of a large max aperture).
The false security of having "two more stops" of lens speed can contribute to
sloppy technique.
It just plain costs too much, and makes a lens less robust.
If Canon does some day make *all* their lenses IS, I may need to sell off and
switch to Nikon. ;-)
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
