November 24, 2014, 10:20:29 AM

Author Topic: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]  (Read 22177 times)

kirillica

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
    • LinnikVisuals
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2012, 01:51:56 PM »
how MP are connected to SS? :)

MPs are not really connected, but pixel size is, and in general, more MP means smaller pixels.  A given amount of shake means a specific amount of movement in terms of arc-seconds.  With smaller pixels, a given amount of movement covers more pixels on the sensor, which translates to more blur.  So, smaller pixels means you need an even faster shutter speed to compensate for camera shake.  1/FL is a film rule.  Even 1/1.6xFL is not enough on a high MP, small pixel sensor.
Well, it's true and false in the same time. on 1:1 imagination - true. the smaller pixel you have, the more details you can capture. and details mean movements as well.

but

up to A4 prints, I guess, no one really mentions it :) so downscaling, let's say 24Mp to 8Mp gives the same result as originally captured image with 8Mp.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2012, 01:51:56 PM »

brianleighty

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
    • Leighty Photography
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2012, 01:55:13 PM »

MPs are not really connected, but pixel size is, and in general, more MP means smaller pixels.  A given amount of shake means a specific amount of movement in terms of arc-seconds.  With smaller pixels, a given amount of movement covers more pixels on the sensor, which translates to more blur.  So, smaller pixels means you need an even faster shutter speed to compensate for camera shake.  1/FL is a film rule.  Even 1/1.6xFL is not enough on a high MP, small pixel sensor.

Thanks for that explanation neuro. I'd always noticed on my crop bodies the 1/1.6 photos were still a little blurry. I just always assumed that maybe I have more shaky hands than other photographers. But your explanation makes me feel better about me being more normal :)
Canon 5D Mark II, 50D, XSi, 24-105L IS, Sigma 35 1.4, Canon 40 2.8, Canon 35 2.0, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Canon 50 1.8, 580 EXII, 430 EXII

stewy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2012, 01:58:43 PM »
I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.
What does 1/40 have to do with IS? Do you know what IS is used for? Do you never shoot anything with a slower shutter speed?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 02:05:01 PM by stewy »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4274
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2012, 02:29:47 PM »
I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.
What does 1/40 have to do with IS? Do you know what IS is used for? Do you never shoot anything with a slower shutter speed?

I'm shooting with 5D III + 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II - you think I don't know what IS does?

« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 02:33:09 PM by Dylan777 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

VanWeddings

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
    • VanWeddings: Vancouver Wedding Photographer, Vancouver Wedding Videos
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2012, 02:34:41 PM »
I would bet that if Canon does release this the IQ will not be as good as the mkII but will rival the Tammy at a similar price to the mk1.

well there's already this lens that exceeds mk1 IQ, costs about the same, has IS, and is available now. it's the tamron 24-70 VC  :)

Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2012, 03:15:31 PM »
If it's true, i don't think it's pressure from Tamron since the Tammy IQ isn't as good as the 24-70LII

I would bet that if Canon does release this the IQ will not be as good as the mkII but will rival the Tammy at a similar price to the mk1.
Why? Because if the IQ is on par with the mk2 and with IS included, then those who bought the mk2 would be kinda disappointed and this will be prices too ridiculously high.

If they released it with the mk1 IQ but with IS, then at least for people who have IQ in mind, they buy the mk2, for those who want to do video and need IS, they buy this…

Most reviews show the Tamron and Canon produce the same level of IQ, each having advantages and disadvantages over the other. Check out http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

Canon's lens is great, but at a $1000 less, the Tamron is the winner.

Etienne

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
    • Photography by Steve Brule
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2012, 03:18:24 PM »

If I would work for Canon I would package it in white boxes and advertise it as a special lens that makes your photos special in a special way.. that at the end you will feel especially special too :)

Aahhhh, you mean like Apple does!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2012, 03:18:24 PM »

zim

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2012, 03:51:30 PM »
Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

DzPhotography

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2012, 04:03:15 PM »
I already want one now  :-\
EOS 550D | EOS 7D | EOS 6D | EOS 1Dx | EF-S 15-85 | EF 28f2.8 | EF 30f2.0 | EF 40f2.8 | EF 50f1.8II | EF 16-35f2.8L MkII | EF 24-105 f4L | EF 24-70f2.8L | EF 70-200f2.8L MkII | Sigma 10f2.8 Fisheye | Sigma 50f1.4 | Tamron 17-50f2.8VC | Tokina 11-16f2.8 | 430EXII | 580EXII

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3522
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2012, 04:06:13 PM »
Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

That would be a M00t lens because of the 24-105L.

zim

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2012, 04:22:41 PM »
Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

That would be a M00t lens because of the 24-105L.

ah true true

DB

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2012, 05:20:13 PM »
Perhaps Canon had always intended to market a 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS, but just were not ready yet or they wished to maximize their revenue with early-adopters first with the non-IS mkII version? Who knows. But what I do know is that IS lenses are very different to their non-IS counterparts, not just in terms of additional weight (the f4L IS is 55g heavier than the non-IS and the mk1 70-200 f2.8 IS USM is 160g or 10oz more than the non-IS version), but also the internal workings have to be completely redesigned to accommodate the Image Stabilization mechanism - thus you end up with a different lens in terms of groups/elements etc.

Do people think that the adoption of a wider diameter (82mm instead of 77mm) on the new 24-70mm f2.8L mkII has anything to do with plans afoot that Canon Inc. has to launch an IS version? In other words, did they increase the width of the lens because they had planned all along to incorporate IS at a later date and wish to utilize common parts across the assembly of both products.

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2012, 05:24:08 PM »
I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

Do you prefer ISO 6400 at 1/40th or ISO 1600 at 1/10th?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2012, 05:24:08 PM »

Lee Jay

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2012, 05:27:21 PM »

MPs are not really connected, but pixel size is, and in general, more MP means smaller pixels.  A given amount of shake means a specific amount of movement in terms of arc-seconds.  With smaller pixels, a given amount of movement covers more pixels on the sensor, which translates to more blur.  So, smaller pixels means you need an even faster shutter speed to compensate for camera shake.  1/FL is a film rule.  Even 1/1.6xFL is not enough on a high MP, small pixel sensor.

Thanks for that explanation neuro. I'd always noticed on my crop bodies the 1/1.6 photos were still a little blurry. I just always assumed that maybe I have more shaky hands than other photographers. But your explanation makes me feel better about me being more normal :)

I am sorry but that explanation, with the greatest respect, does not make sense, here is why. If you move during the exposure by, say, 1/100mm, it doesn't matter if that movement is across 10 or 100 pixels, for the same enlargement that 1/100mm blur will be enlarged the same and look the same, just the same as diffraction blur, and we all know for that more pixels is never worse it is just better resolved, the diffraction blur (and movement blur) is the same regardless of pixel size for the same reproduction size.

True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop.  The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC.  Both require less blur to be effective.

SebSic

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2012, 06:09:07 PM »
Do you really think Canon will release shortly a 24 70 II IS ?
I am not shure at all.
If so the IS versin wil have sale IQ en be heavier. IMO

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2012, 06:09:07 PM »