I am a Canon user, and I own a 300mm F4L IS. I have used a 100-400 L IS also. Thus, I am very familiar with IS, and also it's limitations, etc.

What I want to know, is how does VR stack up to IS. I am looking for genuine input, not a flame war. Someone who is familiar with VR could answer my questions:

1. Canon's IS works on any Canon EOS body. Nikon's VR ONLY works on the 5 point AF bodies (F5, F100, F80, D1X, etc). Why is this?

2. Canon's IS works on gyros in the lens, detecting the lens movement. How have Nikon done it, if it requires something of the AF system? If it requires something of the AF system, how does it work with the shutter open? Or is it just that only those more recent bodies can operate the lens?

3. Some combinations of Canon IS lenses and teleconverters and bodies do not work, and IS is disabled. However, with newer bodies, IS is not lost with TCs, regardless of aperture, even if AF is inoperative (I think. If I'm wrong, please correct me, and point me to the information). Nikon VR is lost with TCs, with the few bodies that can use it anyway (ie Nikon's most recent ones). Why is VR sensitive to aperture in this way (ie similar to AF, going back to question 2)?

4. Why was AF-S not integrated into the lens also? Is there some problem with the mechanics or battery drain of having both systems in the lens? Or is it purely to do with the fact that AF-S is very expensive, and so is VR, so to have put both features into a lens that is too slow (at the short end at least) for the pro market, would have priced it out of the amateur market?

5. Why was VR not incorporated into the second series of AF-S super-tele lenses? As to why the original AF-S super-teles were replaced so fast is another question altogether. When canon went through the first ever (except in the case of the 400 F2.8, where it was the second) revision of the EF Great White Lenses, they took the opportunity to both include IS, and lighten the lens. Is Nikon still not convinced that VR is a worthwhile thing, because these are pretty well "money no object" lenses, so the extra cost of VR would not have deterred the market? If they're not convinced, why was the test-bed lens such an expensive one with entirely new optics? Canon's testbed was the consumer-grade 75-300, which was followed by the second generation IS lenses (Characterised by the second IS mode (300 F4L IS, 100-400L IS)), then the third (Characterised by improved IS gain (three stops as opposed to two) and the third IS mode (tripod mode, automatically switched) (300 F2.8L IS, 400 F2.8L IS, 500 F4L IS, 600 F4L IS, 70-200 F2.8L IS). If Nikon is not truly committed to VR, the choice of testbed lens is a strange one. If they are, the decision to omit it from the big glass would also seem strange.

Please give me some genuine input on this subject. My (Canon-biased) point of view is that yet again nikon have compromised a lot in order to shoe-horn this kind of technology into the F mount.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), August 03, 2001

Answers

With any marketing or technical decision, a trade-off occurs. Canon has always been a market leader in innovation (as has Minolta), where Nikon has always focused on an image of consistent high quality, compatability & ruggedness. They kept the F-mount to maintain at least limited compatability with the huge range of Nikkor lenses that were still out and being used by a LOT of pros (press photographers, sports, nature, you get it). I imagine that the idea of having to buy a slew of expensive new pro lenses to go with new pro bodies would have caused heart-attacks at many photography related companies!

Canon, on the other hand, really ticked off a lot of loyal manual focus users when they completely abandoned the old line in favor of the EOS mount. I think they made the right decision, but I'm sure that there are still a lot of people out there that disagree. Canon then had to work really hard to regain marketshare with pros who then had to decide whether to stick with Canon or Jump to Nikon for top flight gear. Nikon users didn't have to decide anything -- they could just buy new lenses to work with their older bodies, & then step up to an AF body when they felt they needed it -- and still not lose their considerable investment in glass.

You bring up some very good questions in this post, but keep in mind that Nikon is having to play catch up (& living with their original decision to stick with the F-mount), and they have just started where Canon is on to the third generation! Perhaps your questions would be better asked to a Nikon rep -- then you could post the resonse here! :-)

By the way, have you actually seen a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM? Or a comprehesive review? Canon only just officially announced the lens last week (http://www.usa.canon.com/press/080101.html)! I've been trying everywhere to find more information on it! All of the pro store reps I talked to believed that Canon had no plans to upgrade the lens (boy were they wrong)! And by the way, how does the tripod ID mode know to automatically switch?

I used both Nikon & Canon gear, and love both for their respective merits. I gave the nod to Canon when it came to buying into an AF system, and haven't regreted it. Despite all these years, the USM ring type motor is still king of focusing speed & precision. Silent operation & full time manual override is a big plus! IS is just amazing, and keeps getting better!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 06, 2001.

Oops, on the last post, second to last paragraph, ID should read IS.

How does the camera automatically know to swith to tripod mode with the latest series IS lenses?

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 06, 2001.

No, I have not seen the lens. I have read about all there is to read on it on the web (Chasseur d'Images article, canon press release, and something at a canon rumour site). I was in fact wrong in my original post, in that the 70-200 F2.8L IS is actually 4th generation, being the only 3-stop gain IS. 3rd is tripod mode, 2nd is mode 2, and first is consumer version (as in 75-300 and 28-135).

I know that the tripod mode is autoswitching, so presumably it looks for the smaller, higher-frequency vibrations that would be encountered on a tripod, and does not overcompensate for these.

-- Isaac Sibson (Isibson@hotmail.com), August 06, 2001.

My (regular) Nikon 80-200/2.8 lens suddenly stopped taking pictures the day 70-200 IS was announced, my dealer said there is no fix, I should switch to Canon or take stamp collecting as hobby. When I said I probably don't need it cause I already shoot mostly with an IS device called tripod; his reply was if image quality is my concern, I should switch to larger format or take stamp collecting as hobby. I listened him, took camera collecting as my hobby; now I buy gear, sell for less, rarely take pictures, and I am happy.

PS: Does anybody know When the 400 DO IS will be out? FS: 100-400 IS, like new.

-- umit (umyth@hotmail.com), August 07, 2001.

I've heard that the 400 DO IS is currently be field tested by a number of pros & has been spotted at numerous sporting events, etc. Of course, I'm just passing along a web rumor. :)

I've been keeping a pretty close eye on the Canon websites for more information on new lenses, & haven't seen any official postings yet.

Off subject: I have some reservations about DO. I understand the benefits to be smaller size, less weight, less expensive to manufacture super-telephoto lenses. However, we're basically talking about a set of stacked fresnel lenses (concentric circles) -- how can Canon create such a technically precise lens that would match the edge to edge image sharpness, contrast, etc. of their prime lenses? What about flare patterns, halo's, fresnel rainbow effects, etc.?

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 09, 2001.

Alright, first off let's talk about speed of USM & AFS. With the newest bodies you can get an increase of 15% focusing speed with AFS/USM over regular motors. 15% and that's it! Those that say Oh my god what a speed increase with USM/AFS must get really excited over such a small increase. Most results are less than 15% speed increase. Also those that say "Oh thank god I can manually focus and autofocus". I've never, not once needed to do that in my years of photography. I did it once, when I got my USM/AFS lens to test it out and afterward have never used that feature. Honestly, how ofen do you use that feature since you have a USM lens?

Secondly, according to tests they're right on the money with their quoted stats on IS & VR. Canon IS in a recent test has been proven yet again to hold a lens steady 2 stops faster. The Nikon repeatedly was 3 stops faster producing sharper results over Canon. I can't imagine VR working any other way besides gyro's. They're the only device that will detect movement across its axis, no matter what orientation and even in no gravity.

Panning goes to Nikon also. With the IS lenses, you need to switch to Mode 2 and out of the tests there wasn't a single sharp panned picture with the IS lens in Mode 1. VR & IS in mode 2 produced a tie, however the Nikons automatic pan detection gave it the lead. As stated, "You can take a picture of the batter swinging, take a picture panning as he runs to first, then take another picture of him sliding to base". Very difficult with the Canon.

Like you stated, Nikon hasn't gotten the teleconverters & VR's working like Canon has. I believe the statement that VR doesn't work with teleconverters only holds true to Nikon teleconverters. There are non-Nikon teleconverters that allow AF & VR to work. Can't prove it, but that's what I've been told.

Canon released IS in 1993, Nikon released VR in 1994 in a point and shoot. Nikons sales were horrible on VR, so they thought the market for VR wasn't profitable. They've reintroduced the VR. Rumor is IS is only Sony's optical steady-shot and VR is Sony's optical super- steady-shot.

Why was AFS not incorporated into the VR lens? I don't know but I heard VR uses the same connections as AFS. If that be the case, you currently can only have one or the other. I also wouldn't pay 2X more for a lens that can focus up to 15% faster! No way.

End result from tests, Nikon autopanning is far more convenient over Canons modes. Canon is 2 stops faster, and Nikons 3 exactly as they both advertise. Nikon produced sharper images hand-holding as a result. Nikons lens is compact & light, Canons has faster focusing and convenience of teleconverters & price. End result, they both have their pluses and minuses. Both produce better results than hand holding. If I took a picture and said "I took this with the Nikon VR hand holding" when in fact I took it with the Canon IS no one would know otherwise. No one is better than the other, they both have equal advantages & disadvantages.

-- Mark D (Mark@Aol.Com), September 10, 2001.

Mark-

The latest Canon IS has the same 3 stop gain that VR does, and it also has a faster settling time than VR and earlier IS. Also, IS has the tripod mode which VR does not.

As for VR using the same contacts as AF-S...that would be monunmentally foolish on Nikon's part, not to be able to use both technologies at once. Perhaps someone else could confirm/deny this? It is exactly this kind of thing I meant by saying that nikon are compromising to fit all this into the F mount.

As for USM/AF-S vs normal focus motors...I owned a Sigma 70-300mm APO macro, and the AF on that drove me to distraction. It wasn't necessarily the speed, but the noise and the amount of hunting. I've never had these problems with USM (even with cheaper micro-USM lenses). Also, I don't like having the outside of the lens extend/rotate during focusing, and with USM, it does not.

Furthermore, I believe the test on IS vs VR you're quoting is the test in pop. photo magazine. I have that issue (I bought it to read on the plane), and I'm not convinced. Yes, I am aware that mode 1 IS does blur panned subjects (it's done it to me), but what you're obviously not aware of is that mode 2 works perfectly well for stationary subjects. Therefore, an IS lens can be left in mode 2 all the time, and act like a VR lens in the panning autodetection respect. Mode 1 offers a more stable viewfinder image for static subjects. However, I don't believe in that test. That test claimed that a shot at 100mm and 1/15th with the Canon was blurred, when a shot at 400mm and 1/15th was sharp. I think the difference there was in holding technique (maybe that particular photographer found they could get a more stable stance/grip with the lens at 400mm). However, that gives a 5(!) stop gain for canon at the long end. Basically, I'd like to perform my own tests, but they'd never be fair, because I'm familiar with Canon cameras and lenses, and not familiar with Nikon, so there'd always be the "finding my way about" factor, which would discriminate unfairly against the Nikons.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 10, 2001.

Mark,

I’m curious if you could give me some reference to your sources of information. Not that I doubt you – much of what you say has the weight or tone of published reports, but I’m not familiar with most of it.

Specifically:

>With the newest bodies you can get an increase of 15% focusing speed with AFS/USM over regular motors. 15% and that's it!

By newest bodies, I assume you mean Canon EOS-3/1v on one side and Nikon F5s on the other? The Canon realizes only a 15% gain in focusing speed from a lens (comparing an otherwise identical ring- type USM vs non-USM lens? How is this possible? Are there any such models available to test?) AND Nikon also shows an identical gain in performance from their fastest autofocusing lens that utilizes the motor in the body vs the AF-S motor in an otherwise identical Nikkor? Striking coincidence!

Frankly, I’m astounded that the difference in auto-focus is so slight. I wonder at the testing program. Subjectively, my experience with internal focusing ring-type USM lenses versus other EF lenses that incorporate AFD or micro-motors is like night and day. Both in terms of speed of focus and less focus drift or “hunting.” It certainly feels like more than a mere %15 gain, which should not be very perceptible! Of course, I’ve not set up a scientific program for testing the lenses myself.

In reference to FTM, I can certainly understand that for many types of photography it would hold no advantage. However, it can be quite useful (especially with the focusing decoupled from the shutter release) in macro, portrait & nature work (branches & shrubbery can play havoc with AF!). More importantly though, is that the lenses that incorporate FTM are simply better ergonomically & mechanically designed – even if you never use FTM, the lenses are much more a joy to use in manual focus.

> VR & IS in mode 2 produced a tie, however the Nikons automatic pan detection gave it the lead. As stated, "You can take a picture of the batter swinging, take a picture panning as he runs to first, then take another picture of him sliding to base". Very difficult with the Canon.

I don’t understand this point. If VR & IS is tied (with IS in mode 2), how can the lead go to VR? As Isaac says, IS mode 2 is the same as VR’s only setting. Why is taking a picture of a stationary subject with an IS lens in mode 2 very difficult?

> Rumor is IS is only Sony's optical steady-shot and VR is Sony's optical super- steady-shot.

I don’t understand…are you saying that Sony holds the patents on the technologies that both Canon & Nikon are using? Where do you come by this information?

> I also wouldn't pay 2X more for a lens that can focus up to 15% faster! No way.

The USM technology incorporated into the more expensive lenses is only incidental the cost of the package! These lenses also incorporate more sophisticated design, better optics, and usually faster apertures as well! You don’t “just” get USM for twice the price as a micro-motor lens. The EF lenses that are marketed with micro-motor & micro-USM versions only show a small increase in price.

> End result, they both have their pluses and minuses. Both produce better results than hand holding….No one is better than the other, they both have equal advantages & disadvantages.

Ah! An opinion that I can heartily endorse! Canon & Nikon (& others) are fine makers of photographic equipment, and regardless of your choice you can be happy - if your reasons for purchase were based on your own conclusions (backed up by all these contradicting opinions, of course)! ;-)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 11, 2001.

I apologize for all the itallics (poor html coding) :-)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), September 11, 2001.

VR actually is IS technology {just like the AF-S is a USM motor} loaned from Canon to Nikon. However Nikon made a little change to the workings of VR that really pissed off Canon and that is why you will not see another VR lens for a very, very, very long time if ever. And people think that Nikon is just pokey. So to answer your question VR should be close to if not identical to IS. All that being said I was a Nikon user for 10 years and have switched to Canon. No hard feelings Canon just had more options.

-- john (nr.-n-mrs.g@att.net), December 21, 2001.

Mark wrote : "With the newest bodies you can get an increase of 15% focusing speed with AFS/USM over regular motors. 15% and that's it!"

This is absolute rubbish. Have you tried using a USM lens like the Canon 100 f/2, 85 f/1.8? The AF on these babies is almost instantaneous. Even a consumer grade lens like the Canon 28-105 USM is incredibly fast compared to older lenses like the 28-70/3.5-4.5. Have you ever compared the AF speed on a lens like the 100-300/5.6L against the 100-400 USM? There is no comparison. Where did you get the 15% figure from, and what were your testing methods? Your figures are wrong.

-- Andrew (andrew@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.

If VR and AFS are both on loan from Nikon, is there anywhere I could find more information on that?

-- carl (cgs2794@rit.edu), February 17, 2002.

I assume you mean on loan from Canon.

I'm afraid john is not quite correct on these issues. Canon's patents on USM expired, and hence nikon and Sigma have made copies (AF-S and HSM respectively).

As for VR, it appears that Nikon are about to release a 70-200 F2.8 VR. Since Nikon released VR before Canon released IS, I don't think that the technology was loaned from canon. (Nikon released a VR zoom P&S in 1994. Uptake was very slow, and the model was dropped. A year later, canon released the 75-300 IS SLR lens, and the rest, as they say, is history).

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), February 18, 2002.