EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

[RLPhoto]

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

I like the 35 f/2 IS. The old 35mm f/2 was absolute garbage and wouldn't mind this lens if sigma didn't release a 35mm 1.4 for the same price.

[Marsu42]

perfectsavage, I agree entirely with your take on it.  however, while you are correct in terms of ACTUAL needs, I think others are also correct in terms of PERCEIVED needs.

+1 ... next to that, a part in a lens like IS that you don't need or seldom use can still break and invoke high repair costs. Btw that doesn't prevent me to think that €2200 for a 24-70 w/o IS is Canon-like overpriced.

The hard part of finding out if you need a feature or not is that few people shoulder the workload a scientific approach requires - shooting the same scenes with and without feature x and then blind-testing the results. And since IS only raises the keeper-rate, it's even more tricky. The most prominent example for this is if IS helps for 1:1 macro shots on the 100L or not.

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

Except for dedicated event lenses, many or most people would welcome IS even on primes - it's just about 35/1.4 vs 35/2is or $500 35/2 vs $900 35/2is, and this means that IS is not a free present but comes at a price of more $$$ or less open aperture.

[crasher8]

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?

The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?

[ahsanford]

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?

The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?

@PVS -- Re: IS being useful and worth paying for on wide lenses -- we are a minority indeed.

The notion that F/1.4 trumps F/2 with IS makes me shrug.

Sure, the F/1.4 glass can pull off some DOF tricks that you can't at F/2, but for the other 95% of the time you are using an F/1.4 lens, you will have to stop down and crank the ISO higher than an F/2 IS to get a useable shutter speed in low light.  Not a good bargain for this low-light handheld shooter.  (Again, it's about how/what you shoot.)

As such, until the 35L II arrives (where the sharpness is presumed to beat this new lens), the 35 IS is the lens to get, IMHO.  One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS?  Yes, please.

[Marsu42]

One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS?  Yes, please.

Um, just one comment: I for one seem to have very shaky hands because I am not able to get more than 2 stops usually and *reliably* from my 70-300L or 100L IS system - that means getting the same quality like w/o IS and higher shutter speed, and not some so-so ok shot that doesn't appear to be blurred when downsized.

So if it's essentially a 2-stop IS eating up 1 stop of real light it really depends on the usage what I'd choose - because 1 stop more real light means 100% of the time and no motion blur, unlike IS which is more about statistically improving the keeper rate.

[kubelik]

One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS?  Yes, please.

Um, just one comment: I for one seem to have very shaky hands because I am not able to get more than 2 stops usually and *reliably* from my 70-300L or 100L IS system - that means getting the same quality like w/o IS and higher shutter speed, and not some so-so ok shot that doesn't appear to be blurred when downsized.

So if it's essentially a 2-stop IS eating up 1 stop of real light it really depends on the usage what I'd choose - because 1 stop more real light means 100% of the time and no motion blur, unlike IS which is more about statistically improving the keeper rate.

from my experience with the new IS systems, within 2-stops it nails it pretty much every time.  by 4-stops it can still give you keepers where you really couldn't before, it's just not a 99% guarantee anymore.  it probably drops to 33% or so.

[ahsanford]

That's true about the IS -- but it's getting better all the time.  From Bryan Carnathan's site:

"Sharing the honors with its sibling 24mm f/2.8 IS Lens, the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first Canon prime lens wider than 100mm to have image stabilization. The combination of an f/2.8 aperture, 28mm focal length and 4-stop IS makes the 28 IS, at review time, arguably the second most low-light-handholdable full frame format Canon lens available (just behind the 24 f/2.8 IS). And perhaps the second most handholdable Canon lens available.
 
Lenses being introduced with image stabilization far outnumber those coming without it. Image stabilization has matured nicely since it was first introduced, and the IS system in the 28 f/2.8 IS is example of this maturity.
 
The IS sound from this lens is barely audible. I have to put my ear to the lens to hear the light IS shhhhhhh that is mixed with light clicks when the lens is moved. The viewfinder shows no evidence of image stabilization going into effect (jumping/shaking/etc.) - aside from the stabilized view in the viewfinder.
 
With good technique and a stable, standing shooting position, I am getting a very good percentage of sharp shots at 1/5 - 1/4 second. Beyond 1/4 sec, the keeper rate drops off gradually with sharp images still obtainable at close to 1 sec exposures. The IS assistance I experience is about 3 stops."

Okay -- three stops in this case.  But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses.  IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

[Marsu42]

But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses.  IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

I'm not so sure where the technical barriers for new IS systems are (does anyone know?), imho much more likely iso capability of newer cameras will solve the problem.

But since you're quoting the review of the prime with IS and this thread is about the 24-70/4, too: The hybrid IS system is much louder and in certain angles produces frightening noises - at least on the (or my) 100L.

[ahsanford]

But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses.  IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

I'm not so sure where the technical barriers for new IS systems are (does anyone know?), imho much more likely iso capability of newer cameras will solve the problem.

But since you're quoting the review of the prime with IS and this thread is about the 24-70/4, too: The hybrid IS system is much louder and in certain angles produces frightening noises - at least on the (or my) 100L.

Agree.  I tried out the 70-200 F/4 IS and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II side by side.  The F/4's IS makes a similar sound to the 100L's whirring noise when the shutter is half pressed.  Frightening might not be my word, but it's noticeable.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is inaudible for all intents and purposes (thought I never shoot video to be fair).  You have to put your ear next to it during focusing to hear it.  The new 28 IS is similar.

[PVS]

When you compare MTF charts for 35L and 35IS published on canon website this new lens seems even more desirable.
Ditto for 4  stops of IS vs. 1 f/stop.

[tron]

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

[Zlatko]

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900.  And the introductory price most likely won't last.  The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a much more reasonable price. 

So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900.  The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls.  That seems about right.

I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy.  I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L.  A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a fantastic lens.

[ahsanford]

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900.  And the introductory price most likely won't last.  The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a much more reasonable price. 

So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900.  The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls.  That seems about right.

I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy.  I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L.  A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a fantastic lens.

+ much.  I agree with everything you said.

Not only compact size, but also the compact 'noticeability' that comes along with it.  I've recently moved to a large city, so street shooting is now easily within my reach.  The new IS wide angles are great in that they are quite unassuming for that task.  Most L glass, in contrast, looks like serious gear and is more likely to wind up people I may be shooting.

[Denisas Pupka]

Short presentation from France (10:15):

http://youtu.be/vh1dzcRZ_Rs
	Small | Large

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens?

Probably wrote it a hundred times - I shoot bands (read: people playing music, hence moving) in low light. Four stops better than 1/30 is 1/2. I'll admit up front some motion blur is useful in that context, but not that much motion blur, and I'll certainly not pay a 175% premium for it.