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

[Zv]

Question - when you need a fast SS to freeze action is it better to switch IS off? Does it get in the way? I usually just leave my IS on all the time, should i switch it off if my SS is 1/focal length, crop factor adjusted?

Say you were to shoot a landscape at 1/200s at 24mm (obviously don't need IS) but is is there any reason why I should switch it off? Assume I have no tripod.

At what point does IS have a noticeable effect? what is the threshold?

[Marsu42]

Question - when you need fast SS to freeze action is it better to switch IS off? Does it get in the way? I usually just leave my IS on all the time, should i switch it off if my SS is 1/focal length, crop factor adjusted?

Say you were to shoot a landscape at 1/200s at 24mm (obviously don't need IS) but is is there any reason why I should switch it off? Assume I have no tripod.

At what point does IS have a noticeable effect? Like what is the threshold?

Good questions - I asked the same one some time ago and no one came up with a conclusive answer. My 2 cents for handheld (for tripod turn IS off and mlu on esp. for longer exposure times):

At very high shutter speeds turn IS off because the vibration might decrease iq (also see here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10781.0). For other higher shutter speeds turn it off unless you require the stabilized viewfinder to track an object or set the af point just where you want it. Another reason for turning off IS when it's not really required is simply that it doesn't wear down that way - Canon doesn't give us a 6 year warranty like Tamron :-o

Personally I think IS is unnecessary @ 1-2 stops faster than 1/(focal lenght * crop factor).

[Zv]

Thanks Marsu, I guess the only way to find out is to experiment!
 

[caruser]

The more I think about the 24-70 f/4 L IS USM the more I like it.

Why?

Disregarding image quality the main features for a comparison are focal length, aperture, maximum magnification, and stabilisation.

The 24-70 f/4 is worse than the 24-105 f/4 for focal length, but better for maximum magnification. Now here's my take:

In practice, when not using the macro, I am often MM limited or focal-length limited, the difference is that an MM of 0.7 could often be enough, whereas in situations where 70mm aren't enough I often need more than 105mm, too, so the 24-105 is of no real advantage.

I actually have the 24-70 f/2.8 I now, which I got over the 24-105 for the larger aperture, but since I've got a couple of fast primes this isn't half as important as it used to be.

[lukemike]

Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera. 

Closer to a 56mm f3.2.

OK, yes fair point - I was only thinking in terms of same light per unit sensor area.  Still, for the kind of walk around photography I tend to do I don't think a slightly longer depth of field is necessarily always a bad thing for a standard lens.

Maybe a bit off topic but can somebody please explain how a f/2.0 lens becomes f/3.5 on 1.6 crop. I understand a focal lenght 'change' but never heard of an aperture change. Thank you.

[insanitybeard]

Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera. 

Closer to a 56mm f3.2.

OK, yes fair point - I was only thinking in terms of same light per unit sensor area.  Still, for the kind of walk around photography I tend to do I don't think a slightly longer depth of field is necessarily always a bad thing for a standard lens.

Maybe a bit off topic but can somebody please explain how a f/2.0 lens becomes f/3.5 on 1.6 crop. I understand a focal lenght 'change' but never heard of an aperture change. Thank you.

It is referring only to the 'equivalent depth of field', not the light gathering ability of the lens. If you used the same lens and aperture on a full frame and a crop sensor camera to compose the same image, you would be further away from the subject with the crop sensor camera- this results in greater depth of field for the crop sensor image. I am sure others here can explain this better than myself. Thus, for the same composed image, your fast prime will always give you a shallower depth of field on a full frame sensor than a crop sensor.

[K-amps]

Equivalent to a 56mm f/2.0 prime with 4 stops of image stabalization on a full frame camera. 

Closer to a 56mm f3.2.

OK, yes fair point - I was only thinking in terms of same light per unit sensor area.  Still, for the kind of walk around photography I tend to do I don't think a slightly longer depth of field is necessarily always a bad thing for a standard lens.

Maybe a bit off topic but can somebody please explain how a f/2.0 lens becomes f/3.5 on 1.6 crop. I understand a focal lenght 'change' but never heard of an aperture change. Thank you.

Refers to the Depth of field primarily.  In other words the amount of background blur is more with FF for "same" framing of the subject. On the other hand if you have 2 cameras in the same plane (forget framing) then the crop has more OOF blur, but since with the FF you need to move closer to the subject, that gives you more OOF blur compared to the crop.

Also refers to the use of available light for a given level of noise: The FF will have less noise, thus you can push ISO more compared to the crop for the same noise, thus can do with a smaller aperture lens.

[andy]

24-70 f4 and 6D is available at Camera Canada with January delivery for $3299.00. 

[KyleSTL]

Maybe a bit off topic but can somebody please explain how a f/2.0 lens becomes f/3.5 on 1.6 crop. I understand a focal lenght 'change' but never heard of an aperture change. Thank you.

This is exactly the reason I try to fight the 'equivalent aperture' that so many people online insert.  It just confuses people that don't understand it.

24-70 f4 and 6D is available at Camera Canada with January delivery for $3299.00. 

$1200 for the kit lens, ouch.  The Nikon D600 + 24-85 VR is going to kill this combo.  It'll drop $500 in 6 months or less to be competitive.  You heard it here first.  Canon cannot afford to lose on price AND marketing specs and expect comparable sales.

[verysimplejason]

$1200 for the kit lens, ouch.  The Nikon D600 + 24-85 VR is going to kill this combo.  It'll drop $500 in 6 months or less to be competitive.  You heard it here first.  Canon cannot afford to lose on price AND marketing specs and expect comparable sales.

Nothing new... Introductory price is always only for early adopters suckers.  Canon always exploits that. 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked:  Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC!  If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass.  The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact).  Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime.  Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?

I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations.  Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever?  Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS.  I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.

[wickidwombat]

I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked:  Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC!  If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass.  The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact).  Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime.  Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?

I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations.  Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever?  Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS.  I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.

Ditto, Any idea when the 35 F2 IS is coming out? I've been told early december for the siggy I suspect i'm gonna by the first one i get my hands on, prices should be about equal

[AvTvM]

I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked:  Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC!  If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass.  The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact).  Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime.  Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?

I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations.  Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever?  Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS.  I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.

well, IF Canon wants to CHARGE more for slow fixed focals than many current L zooms cost, then they better DELIVER L lenses, without any deficiencies, except the red ring! they can keep that one, as far as I am concerned.
 
At this price level, I find it ridiculous, that the lenses are not FULLY weathersealed. A couple of O-rings cost close to nothing.

[insanitybeard]

I think in the discussion about IS on the new 35mm something is being overlooked:  Canon's new primes have seemed very expensive (and they are), but reviewers have universally agreed that they are also FANTASTIC!  If they had a red ring and a rubber gasket on them, they would be called very reasonable new "L" glass.  The 24 and 28 IS primes are as sharp a lens as the majority of the "L" line, and early reports put the new 35 f/2 in similar (if not better) optical quality territory (exceeding the 35L, in fact).  Furthermore, Canon is including a lens hood and bag with this new lens (35 f/2), which indicates to me that this lens is a cut above the typical non L prime.  Considering that the 35L is NOT weathersealed, what would we think of the price of the new 35 f/2 if it was an "L" class lens?

I am one of the (apparent) few that liked the old 35mm f/2 despite it's limitations.  Canon seems to have addressed all of those issues (and some) and built what now qualifies as the most hand-holdable lens...ever?  Unlike the 24 and 28, it is a full stop faster and with Hybrid IS.  I will probably wait until this lens is under $800, but the only way it doesn't go into my bag is if the new Sigma 35 f/1.4 blows it out of the water.

+1

I agree the new primes are expensive (at the moment, but given time prices will drop- and have already started to), but by all accounts perform very well- at least for the 28 IS, the Photozone review shows it to perform similarly to the 24L at equivalent apertures (I realise they are not the same focal length, but photozone has yet to test the 24 IS). They are considerably cheaper than the L primes, and of course they should be, being slower, not weathersealed etc. So being that ultra large aperture is not a deal breaker for me, being that landscape and walkaround are my main uses, the compact lightweight lens is ideal. And considering optically they look to be very close to the L primes at lesser cost, I am very interested in these lenses.

[insanitybeard]

well, IF Canon wants to CHARGE as more than many current L lenses cost, then they better DELIVER L lenses, without any deficiencies, except the red ring, they can keep that one, as far as I am concerned.
 
At this price level, I find it ridiculous, that the lenses are not FULLY weathersealed. A couple of O-rings cost close to nothing.

Which L lenses Canon makes cost less? Not many- with the exception of the 100 L macro and the 200 2.8 which is an old design. As for the zooms- 17-40 and 70-200 F4 non-IS, which has also been around a long time. And remember, we are talking about the release price- not the street price that these lenses will be once they've been out a while. The cheaper L lenses you speak of have been out for years. As for weathersealing, when did Canon ever make a non-L weathersealed?

I don't dispute the new primes are expensive, but that's why I shall wait a while until the street price drops. And if optically these lenses perform as well as some reviews sugest, then the price is worth it IMO.