Good point. I will buy it .... but I will not hesitate to return it if it falls short in IQ. It has to be at least as good as the 70-200 II or it goes back.
EB-1 wrote:
How many people that pre-order will actually buy the lens? What is the first allocation, 5K, 10K?
135L, 85L doesnt have IS, yet they're very sharp or extremely sharp.. Sharper than my 70-200II (i dont have 135 but seen its sample) So, IS isnt that important, especially at short range.
It seems that with the ver II of Canon lenses they are also factoring in its use for video capture. That may explain the lack of IS that most people expected to be added to a 24-70 upgrade.
Jim Victory wrote:
I'm sorry but I wouldn't pay $2300 for this lens with IS must less without. It shouldn't be more then $1500 tops.
Jim
They will nail the 'gotta have it' consumers first with a ridiculous price tag and then, after the surge, the price should stabilize at a lower figure. I'd guess into the $1800 range based on competitor pricing. I'd be absolutely shocked/delighted if it went any lower than $1700.
RAF09 wrote:
It seems that with the ver II of Canon lenses they are also factoring in its use for video capture. That may explain the lack of IS that most people expected to be added to a 24-70 upgrade.
vuilang wrote:
135L, 85L doesnt have IS, yet they're very sharp or extremely sharp.. Sharper than my 70-200II (i dont have 135 but seen its sample) So, IS isnt that important, especially at short range.
But it is with the new Canon 24 and 28 primes?! You're missing the point -- Canon is putting IS on things we don't want/need it and not putting on lenses that would really help low-light zoom pics (2.8 isn't THAT great for low-light work, IS would be a big help) -- and still charging a boatload.
You're also completely forgetting video. IS really helps a video shot -- that's what my 24-105 is primarily for. A lot of video shooters were looking forward to a stabilized low-light zoom. Here's hoping the Tamron 24-70 VC will have good IQ...
atroester wrote:
But it is with the new Canon 24 and 28 primes?! You're missing the point -- Canon is putting IS on things we don't want/need it and not putting on lenses that would really help low-light zoom pics (2.8 isn't THAT great for low-light work, IS would be a big help) -- and still charging a boatload.
You're also completely forgetting video. IS really helps a video shot -- that's what my 24-105 is primarily for. A lot of video shooters were looking forward to a stabilized low-light zoom. Here's hoping the Tamron 24-70 VC will have good IQ...
atroester wrote: You're also completely forgetting video. IS really helps a video shot -- that's what my 24-105 is primarily for. A lot of video shooters were looking forward to a stabilized low-light zoom. Here's hoping the Tamron 24-70 VC will have good IQ...
Does the IS help on the steadicam? when it is constantly "flying"?
rogie wrote: . And all that talk about the next version of this lens having IS.
Although if you looked at the rumors, many kept saying that many pro-types had no IS and many said that IS was much less likely than not. I think people just didn't want to believe all of those rumors.
atroester wrote:
But it is with the new Canon 24 and 28 primes?! You're missing the point -- Canon is putting IS on things we don't want/need it and not putting on lenses that would really help low-light zoom pics (2.8 isn't THAT great for low-light work, IS would be a big help) -- and still charging a boatload.
You're also completely forgetting video. IS really helps a video shot -- that's what my 24-105 is primarily for. A lot of video shooters were looking forward to a stabilized low-light zoom. Here's hoping the Tamron 24-70 VC will have good IQ...
As videos are invariably of moving subjects how does IS help unless IS II comes into it's own during the panning process. Maybe I'm being a bit dense here especially as I do not use movie mode.
) don't forget to post some images from it. I'll be getting one a year from now 
