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

[RGomezPhotos]

OMG...  This lens is going to cost $3k....  I mean, I know the newer Canon lenses are sharp...  But the price is getting quite ridiculous..  I had a similar discussion with a Nikon friend who was wondering if spending double the money for the 1.4 85mm was worth it over the 1.8 85mm.  I look at him and say 'Dude, the images with the 1.8mm are PLENTY sharp and great...  Why?'

I guess if you need the latest and greatest and most expensive gear to improve your photography, then so be it.  Sell me your old gear!

[Razor2012]

Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

I'd prefer IS with a 2.8 rather than with a F4.

[wickidwombat]

If IS is important for video, then maybe a stepper motor, too?

Egad, no. I'll take nice, fast ring USM, thanks...   

yeah just try a 40mm pancake side by side with the old 24-70 mk1 STM is ok but AF is not spectacular

[neuroanatomist]

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.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

I suspect most people (I'm sure there are exceptions) don't judge critical focus based on their intended final output. Rather, they view the image at 100% (most likely with a loupe tool).  Therefore, comparing two images shot on different bodies with differently-sized pixels, with the subject projected onto the image plane at the same physical size, the image from the higher resolution/smaller pixel sensor will appear larger, and thus more subject to the perception of blur.

[Dylan777]

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?

at 1/10 you better pray your subject(s) stand still as building. Answer to your question, I'll take 6400 over 1600 on 5D III or 1D X.

[neuroanatomist]

@privatebydesign - thanks for the correction...and the freebie 

[marekjoz]

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.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

I suspect most people (I'm sure there are exceptions) don't judge critical focus based on their intended final output. Rather, they view the image at 100% (most likely with a loupe tool).  Therefore, comparing two images shot on different bodies with differently-sized pixels, with the subject projected onto the image plane at the same physical size, the image from the higher resolution/smaller pixel sensor will appear larger, and thus more subject to the perception of blur.

I still think, and as I understand what happens there on the surface of the sensor, that the size of the pixels doesn't play such an important role here, as the resolution. Assuming, that:
1. on the current sensors, geometry of particular subpixels makes them evenly spread across the surface
2. three or (even rather as for now) four of subpixels create a real pixel
3. information from subpixels (creating a pixel) distant from each other is interpolated in terms of luminosity
4. there are microlenses decreasing the infuence of the real geometry of subpixels

I would rather say, that if we want to observe the difference in contrast between the final pixels to catch the motion blur, then
1. if 4 subpixels act as one pixel
2. and those subpixels are evenly spread across the surface
then only the final resolution of final pixels (and not subpixels) determines this matrix'es capability to catch the motion blur caused either by the camera shake or the subject's move.

This can change somehow, if detection is on photo's WB or one of clear RGB components area. In the latter case it  can happen, that the other subpixels remain "blind" no matter if the real move has occured or not, but such a case I'd say is rather rare.

Looking at the real sensor's geometry and it's ability to detect motion blur, I think, that the resolution determines it's real pixel size as area limited by subpixels (but not in terms of it's light capturing capablities) so the bigger the resolution, the smaller the real pixels (even if empty somehow in the middle), so the bigger the ability to detect blur. At smaller resolutions, subpixels acting here as a bigger pixel interpolate the move on the bigger sensor's surface, so their sensivity to "detect" the move is smaller.

Does it make sense?

[sanj]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

For me IS comes in handy at 1/40.

[shinjuku-thief]

For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS.  To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.

As a response to this I can only think of a famous remark once made by the eminent John McEnroe Jnr. whilst cordially discussing the call made on the previous point with the central umpire.

[sanj]

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?

True!

[wickidwombat]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

For me IS comes in handy at 1/40.

IS is super usefull for me on the 24-105 since i mostly shoot
static things (industrial plant) with this lens on the 1D
however very often the platfrom from which i am shooting is vibrating or
swaying in some way therefore in this shooting situation IS is essential
and i can reliably shoot down to 1/20th second. in this scenario a faster aperture does nothing
also i shoot mostly at f8 in these things and only open up the lens when lighting is very bad
ah I still dream of a 24-105 f2.8 IS

[Lee Jay]

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.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

Yeah, that's true, but the larger pixel counts enable you to alter the CoC criteria (down) through any of these methods more before getting into pixel-blur territory, so it's sort of an enabler rather than a cause on its own.

[PackLight]

It is true, there are IS prototype 24x70's. They were left over from the RD of the new 24x70's.

[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?

at 1/10 you better pray your subject(s) stand still as building. Answer to your question, I'll take 6400 over 1600 on 5D III or 1D X.

But sometimes your objects are still (and you need some DOF), even if they once went over Mach 3.

ISO 400, 45mm, 1/5th:  http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/5D_13386.jpg

I can't handhold 45mm at 1/5th without IS, so that would have been at least ISO 3200 and 1/40th without it.

[vuilang]

$3000 for a standardized Lense?
if so, will $1800 justified by lillte different in IQ,sharpness from Tamron?