Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

[kirillica]

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.

[brianleighty]

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

[stewy]

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?

[Dylan777]

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?

[VanWeddings]

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]

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]

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!

[zim]

Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

[DzPhotography]

I already want one now 

[RLPhoto]

Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

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

[zim]

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]

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]

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?

[Lee Jay]

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]

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