Before the rush

Before the rush
by evan-pak

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Fast prime lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens work nicely in low-light situations. But I'm quite sure they would work even more nicely if they had optical image stabilizers. It seems to me that no such lenses are available in the Canon system. Is this true? Maybe even for prime lenses in general? If yes, is there a reason for this?

share|improve this question
A more-specific version of this question: Why there is no Canon 50mm IS lens? – mattdm Nov 24 '11 at 1:16
And tangential but practically relevant if image stabilized short-teleophoto primes are something you really want: What is the difference between in-lens image stabilizing and in-sensor image stabilizing? – mattdm Nov 24 '11 at 1:21
In 2012, Canon launched a set of f/2.8 image stabilized primes, at 28mm and 24mm. – mattdm Jun 4 '12 at 0:01
up vote 30 down vote accepted

As of today there are 38 prime lenses with image stabilization. Almost half (16) of them are from Canon and 2 are Canon-mount Sigma (data from these search results at NeoCamera).

What you will notice is this is less common in the wide focal-length, with the only wide-angle stabilized lenses being Canon's 24mm, 28mm and 35mm, (all others below 100mm are designed for 1.5x or 2x crop sensors). This is because longer lenses benefit more from stabilization because they require higher shutter-speeds to give a sharp image.

Take for example a 500mm which would require 1/500s. This stabilization you can take it down to 1/125 or 1/60 even which is still a general purpose shutter-speed. Now take a 50mm which already gives a sharp image at 1/50s, you can bring that down with stabilization to 1/15 or 1/8 even. Those shutter-speeds are not suitable for moving subjects and even grass and leaves will blur. Now, of course, all shutter-speeds are useful, just that you gain more by stabilizing a long lens than a short lens. As a matter of fact, some people ask why certain wide zooms are stabilized, saying it's a waste of money!

share|improve this answer
Canon has a 24mm IS lens. – Matt Giesbrecht Apr 2 '12 at 19:50
As of end of Q1 2012 Canon released several new primes with IS, including a 24 and 28mm. – Håkon K. Olafsen Apr 3 '12 at 7:58
Would it be appropriate to update this answer following lens releases since it was written 2 years ago? – drfrogsplat Feb 6 '14 at 3:07

Prime lenses with image stabilization do exist, and I believe they will become more popular with time.

One great example of the implementation is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. It provides 4 stop hybrid image stabilization, great for angular as well as shift movement. A 50mm prime will not benefit nearly as much as a 50mm, especially when you start considering macro capabilities.

As you go up the range, you will see that many prime lenses offer image stabilization, just in the situations that benefit the most from it, long telephoto prime lenses. Examples: 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, etc.

I think the main thing that it sounds like you are looking for is a wide angle or normal lens with image stabilization. For prime lenses that are wide especially this is not as important, but I do not believe any technical reason exists why this is not implemented. It more likely is just not sought after by most for price, weight, and size considerations.

share|improve this answer

Canon has recently announced the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM image-stabilized wide-angle prime lenses.

share|improve this answer

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM is the first thing I thought of when I read this post...

But it is true that you don't tend to find them at the wider end; simply because you can get away with slower shutter speeds and so the fast aperture is in itself enough to get you the sharp shots, and the addition of IS would add weight, cost, and something else to possibly go wrong! :-)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.