alundeb wrote:
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?
You miss the point - an f/1.x zoom is highly impractical so you need an f/2.8 with IS to compensate. If your shooting style - such as weddings requires flexibility then primes are a problem. Since you can get an f/1.4 24, 35, and 50 - a 28/2.8IS is redundant. It will be cheaper than the 1.4L, but not by a whole lot.
I'm not sure if it was posted in this thread or not but someone brought up the film group as a target market for the new IS primes--I've got to agree that these primes will be welcomed additions for those who need small, light weight high quality primes with IS. With the possibility/probability of other manufacturers like Sony entering the DSLR video market on a serious level Canon will need something to counter IBIS.
I'm going to be super disappointed if the new 27-70 is not stabilized. Maybe Canon will take a page from the 70-200 series and have an IS and non-IS eventually.
timbop wrote:
Of course the prices aren't posted, but based on the last 3 years' worth of "updates" the prices on those primes will skyrocket - and by adding IS they'll justify an even bigger hike. I exaggerate that they'll be the price of the 24L, but I guarantee they will be in the $700 to $800+ range.
I reiterate: f/2.8 wide primes with IS - WTF?
I wouldn't mind one. Loved the old EF 24 2.8 and used it for 20 years. A new design with ring-type USM, FTM and IS--what's not to like? if IQ is good and the price doesn't go too far above $600, I'd buy one. Would be a great lens for a light walkaround kit. A 24-70 2.8 IS is great for pros and buff dudes but many of us prefer primes and traveling light.
RobertLynn wrote:
It's funny, the same people saying IS on the primes is dumb, are the same people who want IS on the 24-70.
Wtf.
Right - IS is useful to get you 2 stops beyond the max zoom aperture of f/2.8. Primes already do this. You shoot weddings, can't you foresee the flexibility of a zoom at its long setting for the processional with flash, and then turning flash off to shoot a wide shot of th couple up on the altar? Most priests hate flash during ceremony, and taking time to switch lenses there in the aisle can piss them off
timbop wrote:
unbelievable if true. Thank god tammy has the sense to fill the real market - WTF idiot decided on a stabilized 24mm or 28mm f/2.8 prime that will cost as much as the 24/1.4L
I didn't get this either. A stabilized 24mm prime and no stabilization on a 24-70
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.
If you believe rumors around the net, pro's who tested multiple versions of the 24-70 said the IS version was to heavy and to bulky for a mid-range zoom lens. Don't forget the grain of salt.
And now the identity of the added hump on the barrel is confirmed, and it is what I thought it was...
From the Canon USA Web site: "A zoom lock lever locks the zoom position at the wide end for safe transporting while attached to an EOS DSLR camera over the shoulder."
SKumar25 wrote:
Looks like an excellent lens. From reading the press release it appears their priority was IQ.
and if the MTF charts are to be believed, they sure succeeded in spades in that regard, even beating canon wide L primes, and destroying the old 24-70.
). No IS...