image stabilization

[tikaldogos]

never using a prime lens...why does a prime lens not have image stabilizing??

[Patti Edens]

Some do.

I don't know why some don't, but my guess as to a couple of reasons would be the lens was designed before IS was developed or to keep the cost down.

Canon has a lot of prime lenses with IS -
Newer 100mm f2.8 macro (old one doesn't have it)
300mm f4
400mm f2.8
500mm f4
and more

[ttruelove]

I'm not sure the 'actual' reason why some primes don't have IS, but here are some personal thoughts:

I shoot with small primes (30mm, 50mm, 85mm) all the time and these lenses are quite light. I rarely get motion blur especially when I add additional light (speedlight) to the subject to 'freeze' them or shoot over 1/60 sec (I try to stay around 1/125). The images are nice and sharp most of the time, so I think IS would be overkill and add weight to a light-weight lens. However, I see the need for IS on macro lenses like the 100mm Macro (Canon). The lens is considerably bigger and heavier than the 85 1.8. Image stabilization helps dearly with close up shots that would otherwise be blurry without a tripod. Larger prime lenses get much heavier and the need for IS would increase, as would the weight. If we think about it, when would we use a 300mm prime without a tripod? Even with IS, a tripod would be recommended or your arm would just fall off LOL.

Just my thoughts. Hope they help.

[rfortson]

Well, if you shoot with Pentax, Sony or Olympus, they are stabilized. :)

Like others said, though, for the shorter/faster lenses, it's not really necessary. It's nice for the longer telephotos.

[ttruelove]

Gotta love in-camera stabilization. Jealous :)