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

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Same with the 135mm f2 that is an excellent lens and IMO is not the most urgent need.

On the other end, they still have a few very lousy old lenses (20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2.5 macro, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus  ), the wide angle zooms are not that good (both 17-40mm and 16-35mm), the TS-E 45mm and 90mm NEED the new design with separate controls, the 100-400mm could use a mechanical update, the 400mm 5.6 cries for an IS, there is no excellent wide angle between 14mm and 24mm (the 17mm TS-E is too specialized and expensive for normal use) and so on....

Instead of refining the 4th version of their tele-converters, maybe they should have a COMPLETE range of modern lenses to start with.

I understand they put a lot of emphasis on the big whites since this is big money, but what is honestly the percentage of photographers who can afford a 13,000$ 600mm f4 (aside from some full time specialized pros) ?

Mr. Canon, we have had a lot of refreshes lately, maybe it would be time to surprise us a bit with something really new....

I 2nd that.

[symmar22]

Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.

But then Canon should design bodies again.

I wonder if anyone ever designed a stabilized converter ?
One could thing about a 1.2x that would convert any lens into IS with minimum loss in IQ, angle of view and speed.
It would of course not be ideal for WA lenses, but could be a useful accessory.
But maybe this is not technically possible (or marketing wise) ?

[marekjoz]

Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.

But then Canon should design bodies again.

I wonder if anyone ever designed a stabilized converter ?
One could thing about a 1.2x that would convert any lens into IS with minimum loss in IQ, angle of view and speed.
It would of course not be ideal for WA lenses, but could be a useful accessory.
But maybe this is not technically possible (or marketing wise) ?

The best would be oversampled sensor signal readout and intelligent merge of subimages, but not yet
BTW - this is also a solution for DR increase

[sb]

sigh, IS would be sooo great for video...

I never understood this need... IS is not a replacement for monopod/shoulder rig/steadicam/slider/tripod,  what kind of video production would require handholding anyway?

[marekjoz]

sigh, IS would be sooo great for video...

I never understood this need... IS is not a replacement for monopod/shoulder rig/steadicam/slider/tripod,  what kind of video production would require handholding anyway?

If Andrzej Sekuła would have C300 or 1Dx with nice IS lenses , he could use them instead of Panavision in Pulp Fiction in a scene where Bruce Willis (aka Butch) crosses the backyard going for his watch

[Jesse]

"what kind of video production would require handholding anyway?"

......................

[Jesse]

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.

[Marsu42]

Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.

USING CAPS doesn't mean digital in-cam IS can suddenly stabilize an optical viewfinder...

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.

... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-(

[RLPhoto]

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.

... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-(

+1. Good, Bad and the Ugly has some of the most powerful static shots of any movie. I Have a strong dis-like of the "organic" camera-shake in modern film. 

[drjlo]

While I certainly don't regret upgrading to the 24-70 f2.8 II as it a super lens, AND I do hope Canon releases an IS version, I will be just a little piqued that after spend the extra increase for the non-IS version, that I will have to consider what to do on the IS one.   If both had been released simultaneously, would have just spent the extra for the IS.

Judging by the recent price drops of 5D III, it seems Canon strategy is to launch with as high a price as possible, then drop the price some months later.  If 24-70 IS is launched, I suspect it will sport a price similar to $2300 the 24-70 non-IS sports currently, but the non-IS then likely will drop in price around that time to say $2000. 

[Jesse]

"... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-("

Someone's never seen a Cuaron film.

[PackLight]

6 pages of miss informed rumor thread. It is actually an f/4 lens.

[Lee Jay]

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind.  I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105.  It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic.  The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?

One on every camera, but I don't rely on flash for anything but fill.  When I need speed because of dark conditions, I break out the primes - f/2.8 is too slow.

[Dylan777]

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind.  I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105.  It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic.  The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?

One on every camera, but I don't rely on flash for anything but fill.  When I need speed because of dark conditions, I break out the primes - f/2.8 is too slow.

I wonder...what kinda shots do you shoot at 1/5 or 1/10 at wedding and at what f-stop???

[wickidwombat]

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind.  I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105.  It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic.  The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?

One on every camera, but I don't rely on flash for anything but fill.  When I need speed because of dark conditions, I break out the primes - f/2.8 is too slow.

I wonder...what kinda shots do you shoot at 1/5 or 1/10 at wedding and at what f-stop???

with flash and second curtain sync 1/5 or 1/10 is just fine and the IS takes care of camera shake
especially if they are posed shots where the subjects are not moving