Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Can you explain why you feel you need image stabilization on a 30mm?

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

For the same reason it's very useful on my Tamron 17-50mm lens (and Canon makes the 17-55mm IS). Simply put, as careful as I am to not be sloppy, often shooting from a monopod, my 17-50mm with IS has made a big difference especially when my hand is touching the focus ring or I'm carefully re-framing shots. But that lens is only f2.8 :p

It's strange to me how people just readily and whole heartily accept how things are. A 30mm f1.8 w/Image Stabilization is a lens that should exist. Or it could be a 50mm. Whatever, something in that ballpark.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

I think to really be useful, we would want x-y stabilization in a wide lens, like in the 100L macro.

When using a wide to capture a landscape, stabilization isn't really needed. When using a wide on a very close object to push perspective, things can get jerky, unless you have really good grip gear. Unfortunately, when you're close, it's not just a matter of stabilizing the angle like we need with long lenses. We need to stabilize translation as well.

Not long ago, I did a jib shot where we needed to pan while raising the jib. This led to some unwanted motion. We looked at stabilizing it in post, but it wasn't possible. Because of the unwanted x-y motion, we could either stabilize the foreground or background, but not both. I don't know that 3D IS would have helped, but I know that angle-only IS wouldn't do the trick.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Well, you have to accept that this whole thing with the DSLRs shooting video was actually an accident and it was not planned nor expected.

This is a fact and all their lenses were designed for stills and for stills image stabilization makes almost no sense in focal lengths under 100mm or so. It is quite different for video but you have to accept that this is something completetly new even for canon and it will take some time to see it in production.

I'm, sure that future lenses will have Image stabilizer as well as smooth stepless iris even in wide angle lenses just for the sake of video unless something else, much better, cheaper and more convinient comes up meanwhile.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Spiros, you're an optimist. Good on ya. And I agree with everything you said.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Ok i don't know that much about IS, but I am very satisfied with the stabilization on my Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS series 2. Mode 2 on that lens is some pretty sick stabilization. I think I would feel greedy to expect more. :P

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

The stabilization on the 70-200 is excellent. It does angle-only, but that's fully appropriate as it can't focus on anything closer than about five feet away. If the lens moves up/down, right/left by a tenth of an inch, you won't really notice it. On the other hand, if the lens rotates by one degree it's very noticeable.

With the 100L macro, you can shoot stuff that's inches from the lens. When doing that, a 0.1 inch movement can make a big difference. With many wide lenses, you can get up close to things to give an extreme perspective. Any time you're close to a foreground object, x-y stabilization matters, whether it's done with the lens or with grip gear.

Long, non-macro lenses can't do close focus, so angle-only stabilization is all you need.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

What about a tripod ;)

Like the previous posts, I reckon you will be struggling just because these lenses are designed for still and at at fast apertures still guys don't need IS. Will anyone develop on doubt it as cine lenses don't have IS either.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Yeah, a tripod, dolly, jib, or steadicam will do the trick, though they can be unwieldy. A beanbag is a good solution for traveling light.