Canon have improved their image stabilization (IS) system in one of their latest lenses:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
![EF_70-200mm_f2.8_L_IS_II_USM_w200_tcm14-701541[1]](http://www.dead-pixels.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Canonsnew70200mmlenswithnewImageStabiliz_12506/EF_70200mm_f2.8_L_IS_II_USM_w200_tcm147015411.jpg "EF_70-200mm_f2.8_L_IS_II_USM_w200_tcm14-701541[1]")
This lens offers a “4 stop Image Stabilizer”, meaning that you can increase the time that the shutter is open by 4 stops before you’d start to see camera shake due to the camera being held in your hand.
You can get this great feature for just £1000 more that the same lens with the standard IS (currently priced at around £1300), and £1200ish more than the same lens without any stabilizations.
“Great” you might shout, but wait… lets think about what this lens might be used for…
Firstly, it’s a zoom lens, up to 200mm, so you’ll probably be shooting something that’s a decent distance away: birds, cars, sport, your next victim (depending on your hobbies), and all of these subjects are likely to be moving fairly quickly.
Generally the lens wouldn’t be used for more stationary objects such as landscapes or buildings.
Which makes me wonder:
Is leaving the shutter open longer a good thing for this lens?
In order to get a crisp image of these subjects, ideally you’d have a fast shutter speed to freeze any motion and get a sharp, well defined image!
Image stabilization version 2 would be perfect on a wide angle or kit lens, allowing you to take great landscapes or architecture shots where the subject doesn’t move, so why bring it out on this zoom lens?
So, dear Canon, please develop “Subject Stabilization” technology, allowing the photographer to freeze their subject motionless until the photo has been taken.
If only because football matches would be much more humorous.
It seems that you’re paying a lot more for a feature that would be rarely used on this lens.
Just my thoughts, comment away with your “well actually…”’s….
Comment (1)
I see you’re point and I do agree (at least mostly; There /are/ situations where image stabilisation allows you to better capture the action in a shot by using longer shutter speeds. For example I went to watch the touring cars (stock cars for the Americans among us) last weekend and in order to freeze the action I needed to use a shutter speed of less than 1/125 sec, however the shots I took at 1/60 sec whilst panning to follow the car in frame came out much more pleasing as the background was nicely blured, but the car was kept crisp. It was only because of the image stabilisation on my lens that I was able to do this. However… that said, I have (and was using) the MK I version of this lens and it’s awesome. I really don’t see how they could have made sufficient improvements to justify the whopping £1000 price hike on top of the MK I which was a staggering £1300 at full retail price itself.