Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?

[neuroanatomist]

It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes

Out of curiuosity, can you provide links to patents or pics of a prototype 24-70/2.8 IS lens?

[Marsu42]

ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size

I just got the business idea of dslr tuning - make it appear more impressive by adding false elements to the front, dummy buttons to the back for a more difficult pro-look, a *double* red ring as a chick magnet ... just like car tuning with spoilers, lower chassis and broader tires (that actually slow you down) :->

[neuroanatomist]

ditto, it would be a badass looking lens with the 95mm filter size

I just got the business idea of dslr tuning - make it appear more impressive by adding false elements to the front, dummy buttons to the back for a more difficult pro-look, a *double* red ring as a chick magnet ... just like car tuning with spoilers, lower chassis and broader tires (that actually slow you down) :->

Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!

[Rat]

I just got the business idea of dslr tuning

I like Also, facts or not, I like the word 'thickle' and most of all I like the info about 82mm filters fitting all my 77mm lenses. Thanks, Marsu42! Ordered a step-up-ring for starters, this would be great for filters I only want to buy once, such as a cpl. Not everyone has the purchasing power of a small country (I'm looking at you, neuro ) and budget constraints are important to me.

Mind you, if I could shell out the 3K+ for a 24-70/2.8IS, I would *not* skimp on the filters - a 95mm B+W MRC would be less than 200 bucks and that's not double the highest I've ever paid. However, a lens with a 95mm front element might get drop-in filters. I know there are even 105mm filters, but I don't know of any lens that would take 'em.

[Marsu42]

Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!

Oh no, don't give Canon any ideas, they'll reissue the 50/1.8 with this design and add a zero at the end of the price :-p

[brad-man]

The Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO uses a 105mm. The soon to be released updated version might be a nice companion for the Canon 24-70 IS...

[7enderbender]

It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes and confirmation by Canon reps themselves that Canon did not release their frontrunning 24-70mm f/2.8 IS prototype because they thought people would resist the 95mm filter size. I really don't understand this at all.

Is filter size really that big a deal to you guys? It seems like many people would trade their left kidney for this lens, but god forbid you have to buy new UV filters and polarizers. The Nikon 14-24mm, Canon 14mm f/2.8 II & the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, and sigma 50-500mm, along with many of the supertelephoto lenses either don't use filters or use huge ones and people love those lenses.

Is Canon right in thinking such a lens was had a front element that was too big, are photographers really that thickle? People complained hugely about the 82mm filter size of the 24-70mm f/2.8 II alone so I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm not sure what you're evidence for that is but I doubt that this is the only reason. A 90-some filter size would also mean a lot more glass, weight - well and cost. The extra cost for filters would likely be a drop in the bucket at that point.

I'm sure it's more a marketing decision as to what they can really sell and for how much. I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.

The regular 24-70 type zooms have been plenty good for decades and I don't see how the weight/cost/size trade-off for IS would be valuable for those people who rely on them every day. Canon strikes me as one of those companies that is really good at analyzing their markets (despite the occasional clunker).

[RMC33]

It's well known, based on patents, photographs of prototypes

Out of curiuosity, can you provide links to patents or pics of a prototype 24-70/2.8 IS lens?

USPTO and google return lots of patents related to the 24-70 f/4 IS and the 24-70 f/2.8 but zero patents to a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS~

[Rat]

I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.

I think it'd mostly be for videographers, but it helps in journalistic photography as well - you don't always have time to mind your balance and occasionally you might even want to make a running shot. Sometimes you just need to shoot and hope for the best, and IS will help you improve the odds in such cases.

[FatDaddyJones]

Indeed! The sheer size would have totally made me want to get it!!! I love feeling beast when walking around with huge lenses... Mainly my 300 2.8, so... I need a huge walkaround lens to help!!!

lol... Me too. That would be a awesome looking lens! The bigger the better! I think the decision to not release the IS version was about the price point rather than filter size. The 24-70 IS could be the new number one lens used by pros, but $3000+ would send most people running to Tamron or other cheaper alternatives.

[preppyak]

Actually, if the 24-70 f/2.8 IS had a front element that large, wouldn't Canon just make it work with their drop-in filters? Seems silly to imagine they would even allow a 95mm front filter ring when they have another system already designed to solve the problem. And, it brings more filter customers (where a 95mm filter would mean cash for B+W, etc).

But, I agree that the premise is crap. All the lenses where they have non-IS and IS versions usually have the same filter size (70-200's for example). And they can do 24 f/2.8 IS with a 58mm filter size. So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?

[FatDaddyJones]

So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?

I'm not a Canon engineer, but I was thinking the same thing. Tamron did it with an 82mm filter. Why can't Canon?

[RS2021]

Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!

LOL... winter is awful and lasts way too long and with lenses that aren't weather sealed, I have used strips of stretch parafilm at the lens/mount-joint or the whole lens if it is internally focusing.

Granted, it doesn't look as clean as the pimped out nifty-fifty you posted.
It looks like ghetto bandaid holding up the lens and falls off more often than not.

[Marsu42]

I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.

I think it'd mostly be for videographers, but it helps in journalistic photography as well

This of course has been discussed n times - and even wedding photogs who shoot posed candids would profit from the IS, though it's not strictly necessary for events because of subject movement and IS lock in time.

So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?

I'm not a Canon engineer, but I was thinking the same thing. Tamron did it with an 82mm filter. Why can't Canon?

Probably Canon marketing thought impressive glass size to be necessary to make the €3500 price tag appear more justified :-p

[bvukich]

This thread is just silly.  There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.