IS adaptor

[Jax]

With all of the arguments about if in-body IS (like Olympus, Pentax etc) is better, worse or just different to in-lens IS (Canon, Nikon etc), I was wondering if it would be feasible to have a samll adaptor, similar in size to say a 1.4x converter, positioned between camera and lens with the function of adding IS to a non-IS lens.

Even if it were quite expensive I would expect a lot to be sold. To counter those who say it's better to have in-lens IS as it would be tailored to the needs of that lens, there could even be two versions, one for short telephotos and one for longer focal lengths, maybe 300 mm and up.

Probably just an idle thought, but I reckon there's a lot of people out there who can't afford to upgrade their lens collection, but would be very interested in one adaptor with that function.

[Canis Vulpes]

Nice idea, I believe it would be feasible. In a Nikon VR lens one element usually one near the rear is mobile and moves to compensate for vibration or small movement. An adaptor with this purpose would need to be large and perhaps wide allowing for electronics and gyros. I am unsure if it would be practical.

[blackmarlin]

My what did we do before IS/VR/

[Joe]

Great idea, in theory is perfectly good idea.

A variation along this theme are the gyro stabiliser units. They've been around for a number of years, some pre dating even Auto focus SLRs. In fact I seem to remember Minolta making a song and dance about a unit they brought out and attatched to the base of a Minolta 7000. The 35mm Handbook by Michael Freeman of the time had a picture of one.
If memory serves me correctly some were made by a company called Nova (Don't think they were anything to do with the dev' tank manufacturers).
Never used one to take pictures, so don't know how effective they were. Only handled a couple.
The units were rather large (about the size of a house brick), heavy (about the weight of a house brick), and were incredibly expensive (about the price of a house!). They had a 1/4" thead to attach to the base of a camera, or more commonly the tripod bush of a 'long tom' lens.
Haven't seen any for a while now. things move on, I guess perhaps variants seen more often now are fitted to mobile TV Cameras, popular on the sidelines of field sports. maybe there's a lot more to those units??

[miketoll]

Interesting idea. You would have to have optics of some sort in the converter and that would possibly affect the optical quality of the main lens in one way or another I would have thought? One for short lenses another for long lenses and then you would need other versions for full frame or crop frame cameras? Any optical experts out there?

[Jax]

I wouldn't see it degrading the optical quality all that much - besides it's a trade off against not getting the shot at all in the first place.

However, judging from the EF 75-300MM 1:4-5.6III USM vs the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM the IS lens is 170 g heavier and it's also wider and longer by a not inconsiderable amount (7 and 16.2 mm respectively). An adaptor giving similar quality would presumably add similarly to the bulk.

[robski]

for those who are interested pages 26 & 27 get some detail of the Canon IS system.

http://software.canon-europe.com/fil..._Book_9_EN.pdf