Seth Tower wrote:
So, I'm assuming you don't us autofocus, auto metering, or a camera with a single electronic circuit in it? 100% manual, no battery. You're my hero.
Of course, if you use a any one of those, you're a hypocrite.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
IS in general is a crutch for a lack of talent, IMNSHO. People got great shots back in the day w/o it, and still do. The IS fanboys seem to think it's some sort of 'required' part of a lens. I could see it on 300mm+ focal length stuff, but shorter than that, not worth it, both from a cost/weight/quality loss perspective.
IS can be a crutch I suppose, but it IMO it is just another tool. Sure, some people have difficulty with hand holding at slower shutter speeds, and IS certainly helps them. Not necessarily lack of talent, in some cases it is due to an ailment or age as another poster suggested.
However, say you are loaded with talent and are the worlds best at hand holding, then with IS you could push the envelope even further. Photos of waterfalls hand held, low light hand held, you could catch motion blur without a tripod. In my case, shooting from helicopters IS in this focal range would be a benefit for sure. I had thought about getting the 24-105mm, but I don't want to let go of my 24-70mm, and I can't really justify to the having both. (But I probably will at some point! )
My point is, try opening your mind to new possibilities rather than simply designating IS a crutch.
Ed Sawyer wrotethe 24-70 is already plenty large/complex/expensive. IS would only make it worse in those regards with little to no benefit.
I have to agree with you partly here, the 24-70mm is a big lens already, IS wouldn't help that or the price I imagine... But who knows. Any benefit would be up to the user to discover.
Helimat
Actually, Sony do. Take a look at their current lens line up, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and a 135mm f1.8. It all looks very compeptative. Why do you think Canon is more scared of Sony than nikon?
Leeuwtje wrote:
I think we should make a distinction between a technical reason or a marketing reason to upgrade a lens like the 35L.
Extreme fast prime lenses (24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L) is something other camera brands don't offer in the scale Canon does. IMHO updating something the competition hasn't got is always a good idea, because the product and your USP get in the spotlights again. It's like re-using R&D investment you did in the past by making a little update version that doesn't cost much to produce.
I don't think the 35L would be updated with IS any time soon....the lens is simply too fast and too wide for that.
However, the 24-70L seems like a good candidate for IS. That way a very capable mid range zoom would become even more capable. We also should remember that steady camera/lens holding is not only a matter of technique and skill, but also our individual physiology plays a major role in it. Especially with us older folks, we just tend to shake more than them young bucks.
Lastly, looking at the Canon's past transitions to IS lens versions, they do have the knowhow needed to preserve lens performance as well as weight in the IS-updated lenses. (I can think of only one isolated occasion where IQ-wise the IS version fell short of its non-IS predecessor : 300 f/4)
Daan B wrote:
Some may argue the 70-200 non-IS is still better in IQ than the IS version
Possibly so in a minor way. That's why that would be very difficult to prove with some reliability unless one would have several copies of each in order to to do a good sample comparison testing.
PetKal wrote:
Possibly so in a minor way. That's why that would be very difficult to prove with some reliability unless one would have several copies of each in order to to do a good sample comparison testing.
IS lenses usually have more glass elements. So they are heavier. And more elements could mean more change of a (slight) IQ degradation.
I find IS especially useful with longer lenses. I don't need it in a 35L II. The 1.4 aperture makes for acceptable shutterspeeds even in low light. I don't know about the 24-70L though. The 2.8 aperture isn't always fast enough. But if it would make the lens heavier, I would be bothered by it. It is heavy enough as it is. IQ is also just good enough on my 1Ds3. I don't want to see any degradation there also.
Daan B wrote:
IS lenses usually have more glass elements. So they are heavier. And more elements could mean more change of a (slight) IQ degradation.
Not so in the case of 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.
The IS versions are not only significantly lighter but they also have better IQ according to a general consensus.
PetKal wrote:
Not so in the case of 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4.
The IS versions are not only significantly lighter but they also have better IQ according to a general consensus.
How about 70-200 f/4 IS ?.
I will have to take your word for it - regarding the longer lenses because I don't own any of them. I do own the 70-200 f/4 IS and it has excellent IQ (and isn't very heavy also). So, it may be possible that Canon can make IS lenses with the same or better IQ than their non-IS counterparts and weighting less on top of that too. So, IF they can realize that on the 35L or 24-70L naturally I wouldn't say no to it. But I guess we will just have to wait and see IF they can pull it off with these lenses
PetKal wrote:
(I can think of only one isolated occasion where IQ-wise the IS version fell short of its non-IS predecessor : 300 f/4)
Really?
PetKal You've somewhat put me off buying that lens too now You also put me off the 35L with your comments about the 35L on Lightrules's 35L lens test page
Daan B wrote:
Some may argue the 70-200 non-IS is still better in IQ than the IS version
Thats a diplomatic way of putting it. After the semidebacle of the 50L I doubt Canon changes the optical design much at all, and I don't think there will be any IS for this lens. If they didn't put IS on the 85L then I doubt they'd put it on the 35L.
PetKal You've somewhat put me off buying that lens too now You also put me off the 35L with your comments about the 35L on Lightrules's 35L lens test page
Dawei, the 300 f/4 IS is a decent lens. The IS on it is very useful and the MFD of 1.5m is excellent.
However, if your heart is set on getting the best IQ 300mm prime for your $, then the f/4 non-IS version is it. (The 300 f/2.8 IQ is at least as good but it costs 4x as much).
Now, the 35L is an odd lens a bit. My copy is not very sharp wide open, I need to stop it down all the way to f/2.8 and beyond to get it nice and clear. However, I've seen many examples of copies which perform better. My 24L is clearly better.
Let us see if Canon will come up with 35L Mkii at PK.
PetKal wrote:
Now, the 35L is an odd lens a bit. My copy is not very sharp wide open, I need to stop it down all the way to f/2.8 and beyond to get it nice and clear. However, I've seen many examples of copies which perform better. My 24L is clearly better.
Let us see if Canon will come up with 35L Mkii at PK.
My 35L is tack sharp wide open. But only after a MA correction. When I used it on my 5D it became sharp at f/2 and tack sharp at f/2.8.
Like I said earlier, a good reason for Canon to upgrade the 35L, is because it misses the chip to correct AF by calibration software. Just like they did with the 85L II. I guess they also update the AF algorythms while they are at it. I doubt they will make big optical changes. Just like they didn't do with the 85L II.
It is probably no coincidence that many mkIII users have experienced AF problems with their 35L's. The AF is in need of an update to keep up with the latest. After all it's design dates back to the era of film shooting
gazzajagman wrote:
Actually, Sony do. Take a look at their current lens line up, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and a 135mm f1.8. It all looks very compeptative. Why do you think Canon is more scared of Sony than nikon?
Murphy's law of upgrade: an upgrade will always be announced the day after you bought a product. The mkII is gonna be a fact, but I am sure you will enjoy and have lots of EOSfun out of your 35L Congrats and happy shooting
) 
PetKal You've somewhat put me off buying that lens too now 
You also put me off the 35L with your comments about the 35L on Lightrules's 35L lens test page