Ian.Dobinson Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Anyone actually have and USE the 24-70/4L ? | |
Thing is Sane my man
The general consensus before the 24-70 mk2 came out was that it would have IS . And after it was announced the overwhelming chatter on here and many other forum was a shock that it DIDNT have IS and how could canon justify the price without it .
And why the thinking that having IS in such a lens (its a comment I've seen from a few on here) would have a detrimental effect on the IQ ? I just don't get that . Is the 70-200/4 with IS a worse performer than the non IS version? (hint NO) . Was the little 18-55 EFs IS worse than the old non IS (hint again NO) same goes for all the big whites , the 35/2 , 24/2.8 & 28/2.8 . . Oh add the 100 macro in that list as well
Infact the only IS lenses that can really be considered even a little bit worse than their non IS version is the 300/4 & 70-200/2.8 (mk1) .
But I think in the 300/4's case they went for a much more complex design (it has loads more elements/groups and not all the extra will be the IS) probably to get the focus much closer .
As has been said a few times before its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it . . There is always the little switch that turns it off
|