patrick_morris wrote:
Do you really need IS at these focal lengths?
Depends what you shoot. I often find myself in darker places where an extra stop or two would be immensely valuable. If I'm shooting at 1/10 at 24 mm I would rather have IS than not have IS.
Boy does this get rehashed a lot. It also brings out the narrow minded "everyone should shoot the way I do and I do/don't need it so everyone else does/doesn't need it" crowd.
Do you really need f/2.8? Do you really need macro? Do you really need ring USM?
The answer to those is the same as "do you really need IS in this focal length"? The answer of course, is sometimes yes and sometimes no. The 17-55IS sells extremely well, with third party manufacturers following suit. There's even a Nikon 16-35VR, for those that pay attention. The reason canon hasn't done it yet is because they haven't felt the need to - nothing else.
As for the "added weight" argument, compare the weights of the 70-200 variants before you parrot that statement.
There are a lot of shots where IS is usefull at wide angle, especially if the available light is low. I use my 24-105 f 4 L IS quite a bit with IS on, and it gives you several stops of hand hold improvement. I also have a 24-70 f 2.8 L, and enjoy the f2.8 and the nice image quality. I especially like the f 2.8 for better seeing in low light, and better autofocus on most of my cameras that have autofocus sensors that work better at f 2.8.
It is not trivial to just throw IS into a lens that was not designed for it to begin with. It is also much harder to implement well when the aperture is larger, like in the case of f 2.8 compared to f 4 for the two lenses of similar focal length range that I mentioned above.
I do hope they come out with IS on an improved 24-70 lens, and I will likely get one if they do. But keeping good image quality while adding IS may end up too hard or expensive to implement.
My copy of this lens is very sharp and unless the IQ is improved to at least the IQ of the Nikon 24-70, I'm in no hurry to upgrade and especially not just for IS.
ggreene wrote:
I don't think it's a gimme that the next version will have IS. For one thing Nikon is not really pushing them on that front so they don't HAVE to. I would love to see it though even though it will cost $2500 bare minimum.
I very much doubt that the competition have an IS version or not is going to make that much difference. Really.
If you have a ton of Canon bodies and lenses and Nikon bring out a 24-70 VR you're going to sell all your Canon and buy Nikon just because Nikon has VR on the 24-70? I don't think so.
Dave_EP wrote:
I very much doubt that the competition have an IS version or not is going to make that much difference. Really.
If you have a ton of Canon bodies and lenses and Nikon bring out a 24-70 VR you're going to sell all your Canon and buy Nikon just because Nikon has VR on the 24-70? I don't think so.
What about new photographers that are joining this profession everyday? They have nothing invested yet. Having a full range of IS lenses ( not just their tele's ) might sway people to a particular brand.
All the big wedding videographers I know shoot with 7D's just because of the 17-55 2.8 IS lens. They all wish Canon would come out with a 2.8L IS lens in the 24-70 focal length. You really need it for video production when using DSLR's. I'd like one for photo/video myself but only if the bokeh is creamy smooth.
I think Canon would be nuts not to add IS to an updated version (provided that there is going to be one) of the 24-70. There's no question that it's possible, and there's no question that people would buy it. I disagree a bit about how much it would cost...2500 seems high. If we use the 70-200's as a baseline, the f/4 versions have around a 450 dollar price difference for IS and the 2.8 versions have a 500-900 (version 1 vs 2) price difference. I think 1700 or 1800 is more likely.
I do not see any reason that canon is going to be a trend setter do unless one of their major competitors...okay their only real competitor makes one, I don't think you'll see it.
timbop wrote:
Boy does this get rehashed a lot. It also brings out the narrow minded "everyone should shoot the way I do and I do/don't need it so everyone else does/doesn't need it" crowd.
Do you really need f/2.8? Do you really need macro? Do you really need ring USM?
The answer to those is the same as "do you really need IS in this focal length"? The answer of course, is sometimes yes and sometimes no. The 17-55IS sells extremely well, with third party manufacturers following suit. There's even a Nikon 16-35VR, for those that pay attention. The reason canon hasn't done it yet is because they haven't felt the need to - nothing else.
As for the "added weight" argument, compare the weights of the 70-200 variants before you parrot that statement....Show more →
Agreed.
I'm convinced that many of the posters who think that every lens needs IS, even wide angles, have come to that conclusion more from reading internet forums than from actual shooting experience.
The problem that their whining leads to is that even those of us who would never use IS are forced to pay for it as new Canon models replace fine old L glass.
RobertLynn wrote:
I do not see any reason that canon is going to be a trend setter do unless one of their major competitors...okay their only real competitor makes one, I don't think you'll see it.
Op search, this has been discussed ad naseum
What makes you think that? Canon has been pushing the envelope in regards to lens design and development for a while now...the 200-400+1.4xTC, 800/5.6 IS, 17 TS-E, 24-105 IS, 15-85 IS, 85/1.2, 50/1.2, MP-E 65, 100IS (hybrid IS system) and the list goes on and on. If anything I'd expect Canon to be the first to implement an IS system in such a lens.
Same topic, same answer. It's about size and weight. IS adds too much bulk to the 24-70 prototype to be considered worthwhile. As does a full internal zoom.
gadget_ wrote:
Same topic, same answer. It's about size and weight. IS adds too much bulk to the 24-70 prototype to be considered worthwhile. As does a full internal zoom.
Really? Where did you hear/see this information? Considering the 17-55 is by no means a heavy/bulky lens I have trouble believing it, even though the lens uses smaller glass elements and is designed for APS-C.
M Vers wrote:
An even better example would be the 17-55.
+1
Definitely how I feel! If it helps me have a possibilty of getting a shot at 1/15 hand held, I'm up for that! I love my G10 with its IS and short focal lengths -- I can sometimes pull off shots at 1/10 or less, if can brace into a cranny or against a wall. Normal moving subjects? No amount of IS helps when you have to go below about 1/80.
But I'm happy to have mine at reasonable cost. It's been a stellar performer since day one.
IS makes it worth an upgrade,without IS I wouldnt bother...also,weight should not be an issue since it didnt much change the 70-200 lenses much at all!
M Vers wrote:
What makes you think that? Canon has been pushing the envelope in regards to lens design and development for a while now...the 200-400+1.4xTC, 800/5.6 IS, 17 TS-E, 24-105 IS, 15-85 IS, 85/1.2, 50/1.2, MP-E 65, 100IS (hybrid IS system) and the list goes on and on. If anything I'd expect Canon to be the first to implement an IS system in such a lens.
I believe Nikon had the 200-400 before Canon (not with the tc though).
Yes, the TSE, the 24-105, 15-85 so on so forth.
I just don't see it happening until someone else forces them to. Sort of like the Camera bodies.
lol, I'm too tired to type anymore. I'm going to take a nap.
