Totally agree. I dont understand why people buy a FF camera then cripple it with a f/4 lens
If someone wants convenience, then get a cropper with the 15-85
Wow, I have no use for any of the new 3 lenses? I am very happy with my 24-70, sure I would think about changing if the price were close. What do I need a 24 and 28 2.8 prime with IS for?
deepbluejh wrote:
Why no IS? Price would have been my guess.
Or, as someone has suggested, they want people to buy this lens 3 times and not twice (the original 24-70, then this, then the IS version when Canon eventually releases it. If Tamron can, then Canon dang sure can. They just chose not to).
slee915 wrote:
Totally agree. I dont understand why people buy a FF camera then cripple it with a f/4 lens
If someone wants convenience, then get a cropper with the 15-85
Uhhhh, perhaps because there's a difference in IQ, even with an f/4 lens? I use a 5d with 24-105 as a P&S and it's a fantastic combination IMO, better than any cropper with a 15-85, that's for sure...
2500.00 and no IS? Uh no thanks.. I think the earthquake has shook some people at Canon a bit too much.. If weight is a problem for people then get a monopod and quit bitching, give me IS or drop the price to a more reasonable sum of something like 1500.00.. What a complete effing joke! I'm sure the guys at Nikon are laughing big time at Canon right now..
Not putting IS on this lens and the insane price is a huge mistake. I don't care how well it performs. Canon is, from what I'm constantly hearing from the elite video crews, seriously losing out because they don't have a 2.8 IS lens for the 5D2. In fact, I don't think I know anyone shooting with 5D2's anymore which was the 5D2's main reason it was so successful. 7D's rule the roost simply because of the 17-55 2.8 IS and I'm seeing more and more Panasonic GH2's due to light weight and stellar performance and good primes avail aftermarket. It'll be interesting to see how many Nikons I start seeing now.
I predict the 24-70 mark I will skyrocket in the used market similar to the 1Ds3 did once it's not avail. I also predict Canon will lower the price to $1800 pretty quickly.....which is still way too much for this lens.
slee915 wrote:
Totally agree. I dont understand why people buy a FF camera then cripple it with a f/4 lens
If someone wants convenience, then get a cropper with the 15-85
I assume they do so in order to be able to put some funny, cheap Zeiss f/2.0 or f/1.4 primes on it, in addition to their lame 24-105 used for general purpose only (yes, I say cheap Zeiss primes, because, compared to that new 24-70, it is what they are, really... right now, as I see this, I am actually wondering about their 35ZE/1.4).
DJR 17 wrote:
2500.00 and no IS? Uh no thanks.. I think the earthquake has shook some people at Canon a bit too much.. If weight is a problem for people then get a monopod and quit bitching, give me IS or drop the price to a more reasonable sum of something like 1500.00.. What a complete effing joke! I'm sure the guys at Nikon are laughing big time at Canon right now..
1500 is what the v1 of the lens is currently selling for.. so, not gonna happen.
S Dilworth wrote:
Well, I should be clear: I don't think it's possible to argue that stabilisation per se is an experimental or half-baked thing. It has worked pretty well on many lenses.
But it's certainly possible that adding stabilisation to a full-frame f/2.8 trans-standard zoom lens would require a leap of technology that would amount to a significant risk. For example, Tamron deemed it necessary to try a moving-coil stabilisation system on its new lens, a technology Tamron has never used before. What if it's a dud? For Canon (or Nikon) that would be a very big deal: loss of sales, loss of reputation, significant costs for warranty repair, etc. For Tamron, the problem might never really surface, since so many Tamron owners use their lenses only sparingly.
(I own a Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 non-VC, by the way. I think it's a clever little piece of work. But it has dog-slow focus, flimsy build (relatively speaking), and dubious compatibility with future cameras. I tried the VC version in a shop and it took at least a second for the stabilisation to settle down. What use would such a thing be to a wedding photographer, for example? This isn't technology that Canon would feel comfortable putting in a lens aimed at outright pros. It's great if you're a hobbyist taking photos of a seaside bench at dusk.)...Show more →
It's certainly possible but at least according to CR the IS prototype was ditched because it made the lens too big and too heavy.
