Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Focal length aside, here are my 3 criteria:

1. A lens for the 7D
2. An f-stop better than f2.8
3. With image stabilization

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

I don't know for sure if a lens like this is or isn't available, but there's one major difference you need to consider between stills and video when it comes to lens design and IS:

With stills, using a faster shutter speed is one method of stabilising an image.

With a still camera, a faster lens = ability to use a faster shutter speed = IS not required.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Yeah, there is one, Canon 200L f2.0 IS http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

The longer the lens, the more the need for image stabilization--but the harder it will be to maintain focus under 2.8. While folks are hungry for that shallow look, it's more important to actually have your subject's eyes in focus. 2.8 at beyond 150mm gets into that range where your leeway is literally inches.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

with larger sensor I think it's even less than that

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

less than inches? like millimeters? or microns?!!

Obviously it depends on distance to subject.Under 10 feet on a 7D at 150mm, it does indeed drop below two inches. At f2, this happens at 12 feet. With the 200mm lens at f2, it happens at sixteen feet. Think about that for a second--sixteen feet away, your subject doesn't have room to rock forward on his toes without going out of focus. Best of luck to you with that lens.

I keep my aperture at 2.8 at an absolute minimum and generally strive to give my focus pullers a 4. Once in a blue moon I will rock the 50mm wide open for something crazy like shooting a night exterior shot, at 5000 ASA--results on that were surreal looking. But most of the time I'm far more concerned with keeping the subject in focus than soft backgrounds.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

There are several... here's canon's present line up...

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF Lens Lineup

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

You need to re-read the first post :)

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Please invent a 30mm or 50mm f1.8 with IS. :p

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

From what I'm reading in the initial post (focal length unimportant, >f2.8,IS, fits 7D) most of Canon's lineup will fit the bill.
I understood the 7D takes both EF and EF-S lenses, and any which are listed as USM are image stabilized, and there are lots below f2.8 (a 50mm and an 85mm going as far down as f1.2).
So, where is the issue - is there something about the request that I'm missing / not seeing?

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

"there are lots below f2.8 (a 50mm and an 85mm going as far down as f1.2)."

Not with image stabilization which was criteria #3.

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

USM stands for UltraSonicMotor and reffers to the AF motor. I.S. stands for Image Stabilizer.

There is only one lens that fits the bill, the EF200 f2 IS

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

"There is only one lens that fits the bill, the EF200 f2 IS"

Already stated in the thread above and that's my complaint to the companies who engineer/design/manufacture lenses for Canon SLRs.

Sorry, I don't just accept it. Of course, in reality I have to accept it, but conceptually and from a biz standpoint I see no reason why this is the case.

To reiterate my point! :P
"Please invent a 30mm or 50mm f1.8 with IS"

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

Not sure what you mean by "companies," since there's only one
engineer / designer / manufacturer of Canon EF lenses, and that's
Canon Inc. itself.

Or are you referring to third-party lens companies such as Sigma
and Tamron who offer their products with EF-compatible mounts?

Re: Does a lens like this even exist?
 

crap... I thought USM related to the IS, not the AF.

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.