Didn't say Nikon does make a 24-70, but I can see how you would think that. I meant the 70-200 lens, so I'll elaborate more.
If Canon makes a 24-70 f/2.8IS lens, I hope they continue to make a 24-70 f/2.8 non-is lens, Ala the way Nikon does the 70-200 VR and 80-200 no Vr, or the way Canon does with the 70-200 series of lenses.
RobertLynn wrote:
Didn't say Nikon does make a 24-70, but I can see how you would think that. I meant the 70-200 lens, so I'll elaborate more.
If Canon makes a 24-70 f/2.8IS lens, I hope they continue to make a 24-70 f/2.8 non-is lens, Ala the way Nikon does the 70-200 VR and 80-200 no Vr, or the way Canon does with the 70-200 series of lenses.
So why do you hope Canon does what Nikon does? The 80-200 and 70-200VR are two different lenses. If anything you want Canon to do what Canon does--not what Nikon does. Either way, what does it matter if they carry on the 24-70 (non-IS)? You own one and it'll still be covered under Canon repairs for quite a while after...not to mention the used market. It is one of Canon's most popular lenses, I doubt it'll be hard to find if Canon discontinues it's production. Besides if Canon drops the non-IS version it should, in theory, set the price point for an IS version lower.
A 24-70 IS would make me sell my 24-105. I had the 24-70. I did love my shots from it but I don't make my living from shooting. I just found it a bit too heavy and stopped putting it in my bag.
That aside, I find F4 not to my liking. I use my 50L and 16-35II more than the 24-105, but I do like IS.
M Vers wrote:
So why do you hope Canon does what Nikon does? The 80-200 and 70-200VR are two different lenses. If anything you want Canon to do what Canon does--not what Nikon does. Either way, what does it matter if they carry on the 24-70 (non-IS)? You own one and it'll still be covered under Canon repairs for quite a while after...not to mention the used market. It is one of Canon's most popular lenses, I doubt it'll be hard to find if Canon discontinues it's production. Besides if Canon drops the non-IS version it should, in theory, set the price point for an IS version lower....Show more →
Firstly, I can like what Nikon does, and still like Canon. Yes, I understand that the 80-200 2.8non VR and the 70-200 VR are different lenses...much the same as in the 4 70-200's offered by Canon....
There's quite a few reasons that I'd like Canon to offer both. Lastly on the list being resale value, but that's still a point. If they release a 24-70 IS for the price of the current 24-70, I could see the value of the 17-55 and the 24-70 both dropping considerably.
I understand that Canon will still service my lens, if it needs service. However, service doesn't replace stolen. Yeah, I could buy used or I could buy new. That's a subjective opinion.
EyeBrock wrote:
A 24-70 IS would make me sell my 24-105. I had the 24-70. I did love my shots from it but I don't make my living from shooting. I just found it a bit too heavy and stopped putting it in my bag.
That aside, I find F4 not to my liking. I use my 50L and 16-35II more than the 24-105, but I do like IS.
So the 24-70 was too heavy, so you quit using it and bought the 24-105. But then if they released a 24-70IS, you would sell the 105, to buy the 24-70...brick...lens again?
RobertLynn wrote:
Firstly, I can like what Nikon does, and still like Canon. Yes, I understand that the 80-200 2.8non VR and the 70-200 VR are different lenses...much the same as in the 4 70-200's offered by Canon....
There's quite a few reasons that I'd like Canon to offer both. Lastly on the list being resale value, but that's still a point. If they release a 24-70 IS for the price of the current 24-70, I could see the value of the 17-55 and the 24-70 both dropping considerably.
I understand that Canon will still service my lens, if it needs service. However, service doesn't replace stolen. Yeah, I could buy used or I could buy new. That's a subjective opinion....Show more →
Rob, you can like what Nikon does all you'd like, but your reasoning is off line. Nikon does not offer VR and non-VR versions of their lenses, unlike Canon. To say you like Nikon based on that doesn't make any sense. I was just pointing that out. About purchasing used, yeah it depends on the user but if you like the lens as much as you do it shouldn't matter--especially since the resale value would be so low.
BTW the 70-200/4 and f/4IS are similar in that they both have identical aperture and FR. Physical size and design are negligible in this case.
RobertLynn wrote:
So the 24-70 was too heavy, so you quit using it and bought the 24-105. But then if they released a 24-70IS, you would sell the 105, to buy the 24-70...brick...lens again?
I really like the IS but I'm not a fan of F4. The 24-70 just sat on the shelf all the time so I sold it to put the cash towards a 70-200 F4 IS.
The 105 does a lot of jobs well but it 'aint 2.8. If there was a 2.8 IS, I'd get it. It's not a difficult concept. Heavy but with IS = in the bag.
Oct 04, 2009 at 02:37 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
This thread has probably sold a bunch of 24-70s. Some first-rate photography here. Maybe the IS version that's got to be coming will be a bit lighter than the current tank.
My hubby just gave me an awesome early christmas present (canon 24-70) the pictures in this post gave justice to this lens and I can't wait to use it for the upcoming events and see for myself what can this lens can do for me. EXCELLENT PHOTOS by the way
He, he , Lide, I am very glad you like them.