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.
Yes, same misinformed tired answer. Now the actual facts:
There's no reason they wouldn't continue to sell the brick at $1300 even if they do release a 24-70IS at $2200, the same way you can still buy 4 variants of 70-200. And 3 variants of 1x-55 ef-s lens.
Most of the rumors say no IS for the next Canon 24-70.
I see the value of a less expensive one without IS, but how many would want to buy it without IS?
Especially those that have the current one.
I would think that adding all those buyers who also want IS into the mix makes more sense than leaving them out.
Besides wouldn't Canon want to keep selling the old non-IS version for people who don't want it and a shiny, new, more expensive IS-version for those who want it.
Given Canon's pricing model lately I think there is a lot of wishful thinking around here. I can easily see the initial price in the $2500 range. This is like the dreamers who think the 200-400 f4 is going to be in the Nikon version price range when it will push 10K.
M Vers wrote:
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.
Regarding size and weight being roadblock to IS on the next EF 24-70mm f/2.8L: I've heard the same thing recently over on Canon Rumors. Just remember: Canon has yet to release an EF lens (not EF-S) that does not reach at least 100mm. That doesn't mean they won't put it in, but at this point, it's looking very unlikely.
Of course, if they do, it'll be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, not the Mark II.
Some think it's not needed on a shorter lens. If you have trimmers, it is. Some folks need IS on every lens in their tool box, and why a 17-55 f2.8 IS it's even shorter?
Some think the 24-105 IS solves the problem but it's f4, not f2.8, big difference.
Some think it would be $2500.00. Why, when the 70-200 2.8 IS doesn't cost that much?
I have the 70-200 2.8 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS and both have their place. I'd love to have a 24-70 f2.8 IS to complete the set.
Bottom line: A full range of IS and non IS lenses would add customers and work to everyones advantage.
DJL329 wrote:
I believe that was implied, especially when dealing with Canon, which is so tight-lipped about things.
That being said, Canon Rumors was right about the 1DX.
It's when it's stated as fact, like the other poster presented it, that there is a problem. It could be true or, like 98% of everything else posted on CR, it could be just a rumor.
DJL329 wrote:
I believe that was implied, especially when dealing with Canon, which is so tight-lipped about things.
That being said, Canon Rumors was right about the 1DX.
Canon Rumors was NOT right about the 1DX. When they posted it, I had already been reading about the 1Dx on other websites. And Canon Rumors just copied that
There's no reason they wouldn't continue to sell the brick at $1300 even if they do release a 24-70IS at $2200, the same way you can still buy 4 variants of 70-200. And 3 variants of 1x-55 ef-s lens.
I'd happily pay more for IS and internal zoom. Press me to the corner and I'll be happy with IS alone. I find the IS in my 17-55/2.8 IS to work extremely well.
M Vers wrote:
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.
ISTR reading something by Canon's Chuck Westfield (I might be remembering his name wrong). He used to have a monthly column on a website - which may have been Rob Galbraith or Digital Journalist - where he answered questions. I haven't been able to find it again, sorry, but he said a 24-70 2.8 IS was out of the question as it would be too big and heavy. This was before the 24-105 f4 IS was available so maybe that lens was the answer to that question.
Some are saying it wouldn't be that heavy, look at the 70-200. But that's what I remember, and in any case they are very different lens designs. I guess it not just a question of dripping in an IS unit. You'd need to redesign the whole of the optics.
The heart of this matter is that 24-70 mm f/2.8 lenses are not yet a solved problem. The f/2.8 tele-zooms have been around for decades, and they already achieved very high optical quality in the nineties. Since then, Canon and Nikon have added optical image stabilisation and refined performance further, partly because they could and partly because stabilisation is particularly useful for longer lenses: with a narrow angle of view, the shutter speed is more often limited by handshake than subject movement.
Trans-standard zooms are harder to design and manufacture, and even the widely praised Nikkor from 2007 has significant optical defects (and mechanical defects). With cameras getting more pixels, and photographers using zooms for studio and landscape work, the manufacturers probably feel it's more important to fix the optics than add stabilisation. It's hard to disagree, especially since stabilisation is less important for a trans-standard zoom than a tele-zoom (though still a desirable feature).
Here's a to-scale comparison of some trans-standard zooms with and without stabilisation:
Note how much larger the internal elements are in the f/2.8 lenses. Stabilisation is easiest, cheapest, and lightest to add when the stabilising group can be small. And it gets worse: adding stabilisation would mean making all the elements in front of the stabilising group even larger. It may also be more difficult to implement stabilisation on a negative-lead type lens than on a positive-lead type; it's probably not a coincidence that all trans-standard zooms with stabilisation are of the positive-lead type (positive lens group at the front).
The main complaints about 24-70 mm f/2.8 lenses are:
- their excessive size and weight: users frequently report giving up on these lenses after the novelty wears off
- their high purchase price, considered in tandem with their "boring" focal length and speed
- their less than flawless optical quality, e.g. serious field curvature at 24 mm, chromatic aberrations, heavy vignetting, etc.
Adding image stabilisation would only exacerbate these key problems.
For these reasons and others, I don't expect the next Canon to have stabilisation. I do expect Canon to release a replacement lens soon, and I'd expect it to come with better optics, more refined mechanics, possibly a slight weight reduction, and definitely a large price increase.
S Dilworth wrote:
Note how much larger the internal elements are in the f/2.8 lenses.
Very interesting comparison diagrams and a very well reasoned post.
It may take Canon (or Nikon) a few iterations to get the design right and add IS.
On the other hand, why don't they just make a big one with IS first, then work the size down in future iterations? I am sure someone will buy it. They can keep the non-IS and IS in the lineup at the same time.
M Vers wrote:
It's when it's stated as fact, like the other poster presented it, that there is a problem. It could be true or, like 98% of everything else posted on CR, it could be just a rumor.
How could *anything* that *anyone* posts here be taken as *fact* without an official press release from Canon?!? It's *all* speculation!
I am sure someone will buy it. They can keep the non-IS and IS in the lineup at the same time.
It's *all* speculation!