EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

[Viggo]

IS not needed? It's like the brakes on my car.. Yeah, i drive so fast i don't need them..

Well, what if you don't dragrace but decline a mountain? Do you need them then? Not everybody shoots action. And you shoot everything, like a journalist, having fast aperture and IS is a complete lens that can do pretty much anything...

The same goes for my 85, yes it has the fastest aperture available, but I don't only use it for motion stopping, why would I? So when shooting in dark surroundings i could shoot at 3200 is instead of 51200 with a 4 stop IS, tell me that doesn't matter? I could also shoot much much freely with aperture selection, 1.2 isn't always ideal dof...

[lastcoyote]

wonder how heavy it'll be?

[tomscott]

Thing is IS isnt a necessity, but a really nice useful feature. For a lot of people it means a lot more keepers and the lens can be stretched to its limits with conditions.

With the price tag I would expect to have it. It would be a force to be reckoned with in the market if it did have it. Question is why make 3 incarnations of the same lens! One F2.8 is more then enough, I think it would have made more sense to make a homologation of the 24-105mm with the macro ability.  This lens would have appealed to more people.

[pwp]

With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video.... 

Well maybe that's true for the way you shoot, but it's possible yours is not the only shooting style on the planet. Throw someone creative a new tool like IS on a 24-70 and chances are they'll start delivering shots that were not possible to achieve without it. Every new option delivers potential for new creative possibilities.

From the day that film cameras stopped being mainstream, we have had a rapid, almost endless succession of new and exciting developments in what is still a very young, though rapidly maturing industry. I'm talking about the digital revolution and it HAS been a revolution, now maturing into brisk evolution.

24-70 with IS? Bring it on. Also bring on all the developments still in R&D and also those not yet invented. We live in exciting times.

-PW

[infared]

With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video.... 

Well maybe that's true for the way you shoot, but it's possible yours is not the only shooting style on the planet. Throw someone creative a new tool like IS on a 24-70 and chances are they'll start delivering shots that were not possible to achieve without it. Every new option delivers potential for new creative possibilities.

From the day that film cameras stopped being mainstream, we have had a rapid, almost endless succession of new and exciting developments in what is still a very young, though rapidly maturing industry. I'm talking about the digital revolution and it HAS been a revolution, now maturing into brisk evolution.

24-70 with IS? Bring it on. Also bring on all the developments still in R&D and also those not yet invented. We live in exciting times.

-PW

+++100!!!!!!!!!  (Hint...when I really need to hand-hold and shoot in the "dark" ..this photographer grabs his Olympus OMD with incredible IBIS...it shoot circles around my 5D III for non-action image situations) Normal-range, FF, fast zoom from Canon with IS with pro resolution will be a good seller....and a no-brainier....

[infared]

I feel sorry for the early adopters.

Similar with the early adopters for the 5DMKIII with it now less than a year later at less than £1000 cheaper!

With this in mind anyone would be mad to be an early adopter, loosing 400-500 or even £1000!!!! Within a year. MENTAL.

Canon needs to sort their structure out, or they will loose custom.

Don't cry for me, Argentina!  I am shooting great sharp FF images with an incredible AF system on an improved sensor in low-light RIGHT NOW with a 5DIII and 24-70mm II!!!!!! 
One thing I have done to assuage my 5D III financial wound is to realize that when I bought my full-price 5D III I was able to sell my 5D II for $2100. ...now if I sold the 5D II I would be lucky to get $1200... So it kinda evens the pain out a little!

[sanj]

IS not needed? It's like the brakes on my car.. Yeah, i drive so fast i don't need them..

Well, what if you don't dragrace but decline a mountain? Do you need them then? Not everybody shoots action. And you shoot everything, like a journalist, having fast aperture and IS is a complete lens that can do pretty much anything...

The same goes for my 85, yes it has the fastest aperture available, but I don't only use it for motion stopping, why would I? So when shooting in dark surroundings i could shoot at 3200 is instead of 51200 with a 4 stop IS, tell me that doesn't matter? I could also shoot much much freely with aperture selection, 1.2 isn't always ideal dof...

Agree. Agree. Agree.

[Lee Jay]

IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length

The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.

I've handheld my 24-105 at 24mm and 2 seconds.  I routinely hand hold it at 1/5th or so.  Here.  This is 1/5th at 45mm and ISO 400.  Would you have preferred 1/40th and ISO 3200 without IS?

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/5D_13386.jpg

[Scott911]

time to buy stock in third party lenses?

When I was in photo school in late 80's, early 90's, the general thought was that the third party lenses were almost canon quality, the main reason you'd pay canon money was to retain strong re-sale value.

Although I have yet to buy a non canon lense in all these years - it seems like one has to strongly consider tamron / sigma options after looking at these canon prices.

What is the profit margin on these things?

[iso79]

Looking forward to get the non-IS version when it drops in price when the IS version comes out. I've been shooting for 15 years and have never had a need for IS.

[gmrza]

With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video.... 

Well maybe that's true for the way you shoot, but it's possible yours is not the only shooting style on the planet. Throw someone creative a new tool like IS on a 24-70 and chances are they'll start delivering shots that were not possible to achieve without it. Every new option delivers potential for new creative possibilities.

From the day that film cameras stopped being mainstream, we have had a rapid, almost endless succession of new and exciting developments in what is still a very young, though rapidly maturing industry. I'm talking about the digital revolution and it HAS been a revolution, now maturing into brisk evolution.

24-70 with IS? Bring it on. Also bring on all the developments still in R&D and also those not yet invented. We live in exciting times.

-PW

I think this is a case that there is probably market demand for both IS and non-IS versions of a 24-70 f/2.8.  For some the additional weight of the IS will not be worth it - there are a lot of people who can't afford to shoot at less than 1/60s or 1/80s, especially where people form part of the subject.
IS is very useful for cases where you can't, for some reason, use a tripod.  I think video users will also be very keen on an IS version of this lens.

[ashmadux]

IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length

The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.

I really dont get what you IS=meh guys are smoking. Anything that helps you get the shot is important.

[wickidwombat]

With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video.... 

Well maybe that's true for the way you shoot, but it's possible yours is not the only shooting style on the planet. Throw someone creative a new tool like IS on a 24-70 and chances are they'll start delivering shots that were not possible to achieve without it. Every new option delivers potential for new creative possibilities.

From the day that film cameras stopped being mainstream, we have had a rapid, almost endless succession of new and exciting developments in what is still a very young, though rapidly maturing industry. I'm talking about the digital revolution and it HAS been a revolution, now maturing into brisk evolution.

24-70 with IS? Bring it on. Also bring on all the developments still in R&D and also those not yet invented. We live in exciting times.

-PW

I think this is a case that there is probably market demand for both IS and non-IS versions of a 24-70 f/2.8.  For some the additional weight of the IS will not be worth it - there are a lot of people who can't afford to shoot at less than 1/60s or 1/80s, especially where people form part of the subject.
IS is very useful for cases where you can't, for some reason, use a tripod.  I think video users will also be very keen on an IS version of this lens.

where IS helps bigtime on a lens shooting people in low light with flash is when you drag the shutter and shoot at say 1/10th second, lower iso get nice background exposure that is still sharp balance the flash to ambient and still get super sharp people

many people overllok this possibility perhaps they just dont shoot like this?

[marinien]

wonder how heavy it'll be?

Want some Internet wisdom? Well ... the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC weighs 825g 

[spdntrxi]

maybe I'll buy the f4 IS to tie my over..  or just use my Contax 35-70 F3.4 but it's more "work"