Tony B wrote:
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.
shake, shake, shake, tilts, turn, shake, dizzy, dizzy, dizzy, sick, vomit, i hate your movie
(3) The Pipe had a better IQ than 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. 4) 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS had better IQ than 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI. (5) 200 f/2.0 IS lost 1/3 of a stop w.r.t. 200 f/1.8. (7) 20-35L had better IQ than 17-35L (10) I believe that 100 f/2.8 USM Macro had a better build than 100L macro.
So very true Peter, had two copies of the 70-200 non and 3 copies of the 70/200 IS before going back to the pipe and finally on the the 70/200 IS 2. Regret selling the 20/35 five years ago and am finaly happy with 16/35 2. Also, to my eyes the Canon 100 micros have incredibly similar overall iq. The 200 1.8, a truly 'magically articstic' lens.
So very true Peter, had two copies of the 70-200 non and 3 copies of the 70/200 IS before going back to the pipe and finally on the the 70/200 IS 2. Regret selling the 20/35 five years ago and am finaly happy with 16/35 2. Also, to my eyes the Canon 100 micros have incredibly similar overall iq. The 200 1.8, a truly 'magically articstic' lens.
Tom, I am glad to hear that your experience there matches mine.
jcbenner wrote:
Really? Look at the US $, the GBP, and the Euro vs. the Yen over the last 5 years...
1 Does the 24-70L (old one) cost 1.5x what it cost 5 years ago?
2 According to that graph a 24-70 should be 2x in the UK what it was back then. In fact it has gone up from about £800 to £950 and that includes a 2.5% increase in the VAT rate.
3 The exchange rate doesn't seem to affect bodies and non-L lenses.
4 Nikon seems to manage with much smaller price increases.
5 This is the listing price we're talking about so it doesn't count that much.
Not saying the new lens isn't worth it but let's not forget Canon's one and only concern is making money. Anyway...
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.
Whether a lens is intrinsically sharp, and whether or not you can hand hold the lens at slower shutter speeds, are two completely different questions. I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II far more often than the 135L, even though the 135 is a terrific lens, because the IS in the zoom lets me handhold slower than 1/125th consistently.
Just tonight I'm working through a batch of photos in Lightroom made with the 24-70 at 1/125, f/4. I was photographing a group of musicians on stage, from the side. I would have very much preferred to lower the shutter speed to gain another stop worth of depth of field - my subjects weren't moving all that much - but I had to keep up the shutter speed up to counteract my own shake. I'm really disappointed the new version of the 24-70 doesn't have stabilization. It's frustrating when I can use the 70-200/2.8 at slower shutter speeds than I can the 24-70.
The files from the 70-200 definitely look sharper than those from my 24-70, even after I had it serviced at Canon. If the new 24-70 gets close to the 70-200 in that regard, I'll probably dig deep into my pocket and buy it. With IS, it would have been a no-brainer.
The risk of cannibalizing their primes increases with improvements in the corresponding zooms. Maybe, just maybe, that was part of their thinking in excluding IS in the new 24-70. They had to know that the IS was highly desired. I imagine there was considerable discussion on how the IS would have impacted the price point as well.
But I agree, this indecision by Canon is quite disappointing. It puts me on the fence instead of in the pre-order group.
DocsPics wrote:
The risk of cannibalizing their primes increases with improvements in the corresponding zooms. Maybe, just maybe, that was part of their thinking in excluding IS in the new 24-70. They had to know that the IS was highly desired. I imagine there was considerable discussion on how the IS would have impacted the price point as well.
But I agree, this indecision by Canon is quite disappointing. It puts me on the fence instead of in the pre-order group.
My impression is that Canon chose top optical quality over IS. I imagine that implementing IS in the optimal lens configuration was very difficult and that is why they did not do it. Until a week ago nobody made a 24-70 2.8 IS.
It will be very interesting how good is the new Tamron.
I personally prefer optical quality over inclusion of IS in this range. Although I also would like to have both.
With today's use of high ISO - resulting in an ability to use a high shutter speed -do you think we really need IS in such a lens? A long lens, sure, but on a wide lens, I think not. I got along quite well for decades with manual everything cameras and slow film. Nowadays I'm having a blast with this new equipment and technology. Sharp and fast trumps all else for me. Your "mileage" may vary, of course.
I am a hypocrite. After saying I was waiting, I pre-ordered this lens a few days back. Been very impressed with my new 70/200 and hope this lens lives up to the specs. $2300 is very high for a mid-range zoom. I will find out in a few months, if it was worth the wait and the cash.
Feb 13, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I'm thinking about it. I am actually considering selling my 24-105 IS, a couple 50mm primes that have been mostly made redudant to fund it.
I am also considering selling my 70-200 f4IS and 85L to fund the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I like the 85L a lot when shooting events, but I don't like having to switch it with other primes with that rear element.
Well, if I read the MFT chart correctly - and it is true to life - this lens should have absolutely superb sharpness in the corners stopped down to F8 on the wide end:
If that is the case, it would be great for both landscapes (24 mm), street/event (35 mm) and some portrait (70mm). Maybe, just maybe, it could turn into a killer lens once the price goes down somewhat.
Stoffer wrote:
Well, if I read the MFT chart correctly - and it is true to life - this lens should have absolutely superb sharpness in the corners stopped down to F8 on the wide end:
If that is the case, it would be great for both landscapes (24 mm), street/event (35 mm) and some portrait (70mm). Maybe, just maybe, it could turn into a killer lens once the price goes down somewhat.
I hope they kit it for a big discount with the new 5D3/3D/Whatever (and that the new body is worth it and not something the D800 will make look sad).
better have some Dramamine 
