The Super-Telephoto Paradox
In the past thirty or so years, super-telephoto lenses have gone from an obscure lens category to one of the most produced and purchased lens types, especially sought after by wildlife photographers.
Super-telephoto lenses are widely accepted as lenses with focal lengths longer than 300mm, whether they be prime or zoom lenses. A further qualifier for all telephoto lenses is that they must be physically shorter than their (longest) focal length, thereby excluding long-focus lenses, which will be included in this post.
Every contemporary (read: not cheapo third party brand) super telephoto lens features image stabilization technology, to allow slower shutter speeds while handholding these long, and often "slow" lenses.
These lenses are almost always used for wildlife photography, to capture birds and animals far away, and often while they are moving. Shutter speeds for birds in flight, and moving animals is usually in the range of 1/800-1/2000 seconds to freeze action, where image stabilization (IBIS or IS) is oftentimes ineffective due to the high shutter speed.
And here lies the paradox; why include image stabilization on lenses where it will not or can not be used effectively? It adds weight and complexity to already large and heavy lenses, increasing cost of development and manufacturing.
Furthermore, super-telephoto lenses are large and heavy, and are oftentimes used on tripods, for wildlife, where the shutter speed limitations still apply, or for landscapes, where shutter speed can be lower, but on a tripod, IS would be turned off to prevent image blurring. On the other hand, because these lenses are so large, they often catch the wind, thus suffering from image blur anyways.
My hypothesis for the inclusion on IS on every contemporary super-telephoto lens is that most photographers who purchase the lens will be using it in challenging light conditions, and if they do not get good photos (i.e. blurry due to low shutter speed), than the lens will not be recommended, or gain a bad reputation for image quality.
I think that there is still a space in the current world for super-telephoto lenses without image stabilization to succeed, whether a major manufacturer will ever attempt this again, I highly doubt it, but it is possible.
Now is there a way to escape this paradox? Maybe. Catadioptric lenses are small and compact, especially when compared to their non-mirrored alternatives. However in order to maximize performance out of catadioptric lenses, they do get a bit larger, and heavier, so it is likely not as clear cut as one might think.
