The 24-70 f2.8 IS & 70-200 f2.8 IS just seems like a natural pair I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS but no body makes the 24-70 f2.8 with IS. It seems like the perfect (Duh) lens if I've ever seen one. Why do you think Canon or someone wouldn't make that. I have trimmers and need IS on all my lenses but the 17-55 f2.8 IS isn't long enough to fill the gap.
I have heard rumours of the the 24-70 f2.8L mk2 with IS. I'm guessing the mk2 of this lens will have IS and would also command a hefty price tag but no doubt it would be very worth it.
I am waiting for the 24-70L IS II: the first L lens introduced in a long while by Canon that I will not want right from the beginning. I'm looking forward to the pleasure of passing it by.
I don't think it's a gimme that the next version will have IS. For one thing Nikon is not really pushing them on that front so they don't HAVE to. I would love to see it though even though it will cost $2500 bare minimum.
Snopchenko wrote:
The 24-70 doesn't have IS because Canon wants to sell more 24-105s.
24-105 is much cheaper. They offer the 70-200 with and without. At a huge price difference. And I guess very successful. The 24-105 IS is f: 4.0 - the 24-70 f 2.8. Two different target groups. Like 70-200 L IS USM. Both, the 2.8 AND the 4.0 sell fantastic.
Unfortunately most rumors about the 24-70 mark 2 tend to say that it will NOT have IS. It's quite a shame actually. I would be willing to pay 2.5k for a 24-70 f2.8 IS. It would make a killer combo with the 70-200 f2.8 II IS. I would also be willing to deal with the fact that it would be a big and heavy lens.
How much weight do you want to hold, and how much do you want to pay? I'm sure the answers to those questions helped determine the original verison. I still love mine and prefer to have no IS and a $1300 lens, compared to IS and an $1800 lens. IS is nice, but not so critical on shorter focal lengths.
No doubt it will come. I for one can't see any new lens release (zooms at least) that won't include IS . My guess would be the next 2 L zooms to be announced would be a 24-70 2.8 IS and 17-40/4 IS . Nikon released an UWA f4 with vr so I can't see canon not doing it.
On the 24-70 it amazed me that sigma didn't put OS on teir last version of the 24-70 .
Today I would always prefere a lens with IS. Even I shoot with 50mm or below.
As far I can see IS does increase weight for 100-200 gramms, yes (based on 70-200 2.8 and 4.0 comparisment). But to get 3-4 stops more anti shaking freedom helps me as an old man very much to get much more keepers.
If the 24-70 II has IS, maybe I'll get the first version if the price falls enough...like Patrick said, "Do you really need IS at these focal lengths?"...I also don't hear rave reviews on this lens, but see it used most often for journalism.
patrick_morris wrote:
Do you really need IS at these focal lengths?
+1: Exactly! I use mine since more than 7 years now and didn't have even one blurry shot taken with the 24-70. IS is useful at focal lengths above 150 mm IMO.
retrofocus wrote:
+1: Exactly! I use mine since more than 7 years now and didn't have even one blurry shot taken with the 24-70. IS is useful at focal lengths above 150 mm IMO.
Don't know about that. The IS on the 24-105 is very nice. Why would it be less affective on the 24-70?
IS is useful at all focal lengths, IMO, particularly for longer exposures without having to use a tripod. That said I don't need IS in a 24-70, but I'd welcome it.
(and regret it with anything longer than 200mm)