I've been lurking these forums for months. But I registered just now to tell the OP that he sounds ridiculous.
Seriously. I'm a former Nikon shooter (that still prefers a number of things about Nikons) and you
sound like an impatient, petulant child.
First of all, there isn't a professional on this planet that actually thinks the 24-70 needs IS. In fact,
it's easy to sort out the professionals from amateurs based solely on how they feel about there being
no IS on the 24-70. It's a simple test actually. Do you think that the new lens is overpriced because
it has no IS? Congratulations, you're an amateur/hobbyist photographer. Nothing wrong with that, let's
just not confuse terms here.
If you want a barely useful (let alone necessary) gimmick like IS on wide focal lengths, then go buy the
24-105 for less than half the price. A 24-70 focal range lens, especially on a full frame where most
pros will use it, renders IS almost completely useless. Just about every situation (very few) in which IS would
be useful can be covered using proper technique and/or a 100 dollar monopod. Longer focal lengths, sure, IS
makes sense, and is quite useful. But you cannot look at the MTF chart of the newest 24-70, which looks like it
might even blow away some primes in its focal range, and go "oh that's overpriced". It shows your ignorance.
It's a professional lens. A professional tool. The added durability and sealing alone make it worth it for a pro,
they make it back with one or two photo shoots.
And come on. Complaining about Canon not having an answer for the D800? It's been out for like
72 hours. Really? I mean, really? Now you're going to whine like the kid who's upset that the
neighbor boy got a new hot wheels toy and you have to wait 'til Christmas? Come on. Ridiculous.
Settle down. Obviously Canon is releasing something soon. Wait to see what the specs are.
And stop worrying about unimportant things like IS on a wide angle, and huge megapixels on a 35mm.
normally I would Ignore a post like this but I'll bite this time, firstly for the most part I agree, MOST Proffessional photographers would not need IS in that focal range for most things they shoot, at a wedding agreed IS dont need it shooting a performance in low light dont need it. However I shoot alot of stuff in operating mine and processing plant enviroments. Now since I dont expect you to have ever shot in this environment but there is a hell of a lot of constant vibration and noise. in so much as you cannot brace yourself against any structure to get better stabilityl because it makes it worse due to the structure vibrating. The Only way is to set a wide stable stance with a slight bend in the knees to soak up some vibrateion tuck you grip of the camera in close to your chest, and to use IS to take the rest of the vibration out. I use the 24-105 f4L IS solely for these shoots I would LOVE to be able to shoot at f2.8 because the environement can often have low, bad or seriously contrasty light granted its a very specific type of shooting condition but one where the only solution to the problem is IS.
So I would suggest that since you are new perhaps you should take the arrogant tone down a little and behave more like the professional you are
And i wasnt being sarcastic I really think that you made the statement because you have never had to shoot in an environment in that focal range where IS is critical and I hope that explanation of a specific shooting condition where IS is critical makes the point that IS is usefull.
as I have said before my dream lens is a 24-105 f2.8L IS but I would have settled for a 24-70 f2.8L IS
I may still get the 24-70 mk2 for wedding use if it lives up to the hype but for that other stuff the trusty old 24-105 is gonna keep its job, plus I dont feel so bad when the relatively cheap 24-105 gets covered in mud and all sorts of stuff