timbop wrote:
I reiterate: f/2.8 wide primes with IS - WTF?
You did want IS in the zoom so you do understand the need for IS at short focal lenghts.
You are concerned about cost, so you understand that a prime is cheaper than a zoom. The IS mechanism in the prime will also be smaller and cheaper than in a zoom.
This gives me IS at short focal lengths at a low weight and cost, and probably with better IQ than a zoom. What is wrong with that?
Ralph Conway wrote:
Nothing. But not adding it to the zoom is.
Agree. But it is possible that Canon will release an IS version later. And then people will be happy to have the choice. Especially when they see the difference in weight and cost between the IS and the non-IS, and the difference in image quality between non-IS version I and II.
A 24mm and 28mm with IS? WTF? Stupid, stupid, stupid. What's next - IS on the 8-15L fisheye?
Nice picture of the 24-70L, but 82mm filters are very expensive. 77mm filter prices are already high enough. They might as well add IS if they're even going to bother updating it. In either case, it's not worth upgrading my 24-70L. I love it as is.
surf monkey wrote:
The primes seem silly. Who wants one of those?
why not? maybe you want landscapes with crisp, detailed edges and you don't want 90% barrel distortion or want to spend $1700 for a 24 1.4 II? these could fit the bill and the 28 2.8 might be a decent street lens.
4x4rock wrote:
Let say Canon MKII is better than the old version, but the Tamon with VC is similar to the old one, then I'm sure it'll sell like hot cakes.
Maybe, but while the tamron 28-75 is stunningly sharp corner to corner on APS-C it does fall off a bit at the edges on FF and it also gets nasty double bokeh at the long end near the edges too. It make the 24-105 become 100% irrelevant and more, especially if this new tamron adds just a touch more contrast, but it might not do it for those who want really low distortion and truly crisp edges, maybe you still need either the 24 2.8 IS or the 24-70 II or 24 1.4 II or 24 T&S II etc for that.
But we will see, maybe it will knock it out of the park, at least by f/7.1 so good enough wide open in the center and amazing at edges stopped down? Might be interesting then.
If the rumor is true, I wouldn't be surprised seeing prices for the actual 24-70 going up...I will certainly stick to my copy! The only advantage which I see from the new lens is the larger front lens allowing more light to get in (but polarizers in 82 mm diamater size get very expensive!). I never missed IS on the 24-70, but I am surprised that it is not included in the new version.
Besides just the 82mm front element, i would bet money it has an entirely new optical formula that probably offers quite a bit of image quality improvement over the old version.
skibum5 wrote:
why not? maybe you want landscapes with crisp, detailed edges and you don't want 90% barrel distortion or want to spend $1700 for a 24 1.4 II? these could fit the bill and the 28 2.8 might be a decent street lens.
If you would have read my follow-up post, you would have seen by backtracking addition.
surf monkey wrote:
I guess there is some need for updated non-L wide primes. There have been a few threads on the subject. Shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss.
24mm IS and 28mm IS would be a great asset for VIDEO work both FF and CROP I just wish they where a bit further apart like 24mm 35mm or 20mm or 40mm. Not to mention the 2.8 prime lenses from Canon are way long in the tooth.
Still too early to tell if omitting the IS was a marketing call to introduce another zoom in a diff range like a 24-105mm replacement with IS later or simply (lets match what our competitors offers and sells like hot cakes) in the 24-70mm. Either way the 82mm filter is a killer on filter prices which add exponentially to the cost of the lens if you are a heavy ( thread on) filter user and would like to upgrade from the current version.
More choices for primes is never a bad thing. Will the 82mm Filter thread help with light falloff at 2.8 at wider angles on this new lens?
If they are putting IS on a 24mm then can we please have it on the 50mm 1.4? If they're updating the cheaper prime lens, why not? I wouldn't mind a couple of extra stops hand holding on that lens, if they make the f1.4 useable, IS as well and give real USM then I'd pay $700-$800 for it, I shoot half of every wedding with that lens...
retrofocus wrote:
I also just see that there is no IR mark on the meter display....maybe the new lens is no good to be used for IR photography?
If anything, I'd expect it to be better than its predecessor. But with a distance scale as hopelessly crammed together as this, the infrared marks would be practically on top of the infinity mark, and therefore useless.
The distance scale and window have become a vestigial feature on new Canon and Nikon zooms. Surely no-one finds these useful?
alundeb wrote:
Agree. But it is possible that Canon will release an IS version later. And then people will be happy to have the choice. Especially when they see the difference in weight and cost between the IS and the non-IS, and the difference in image quality between non-IS version I and II.
I would expect that, too. There where rumors of different lenses in tests. And Canon did it before with 70-200 4.0 L (mom IS/IS) very successfull. And yes the primes with IS are targeted to video. Those guys need IS.
