Upload & Sell: On
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Without IS it would be pretty much an ordinary lens, regardless how much of an improvement the optical part would be. If Nikon felt necessary to put in a VR in their 16-35mm lens, it would be a major omission for Canon not to put in IS in a new 24-70mm lens, soon or later. Period.
Did Nikon put VR in their new 24-70Z? Did Sigma put OS in their new 24-70?
Maybe Canon could differentiate themselves, but Sigma is hardly taking huge number of sales from the to need to differentiate themselves. If it's as good of an improvement as the 70-200L mk II then it'll sell like hotcakes.
Nikon introduced the 24-70mm in 2007 after Canon alright but that was 4 years ago. The Nikkor 16-35mm VR was introduced in 2010, a few years later. I will refrain from commenting about any Sigma product. Yes, even without IS the lens will sell if the optical improvement justifies it but why stop there? Rather than just making a great lens, why not make an all around superb lens with all the features that make it more desireable?