1Ds Mark IV & 24-70 II in 2 Weeks?

[svetljo]

Shooting people & it wasn't a cave, just resembled one!  Using flash which wouldn't reach far enough, and then I got the dreaded non functioning main selector dial, which locks the camera, and won't allow adjustment of shutter speed in Manual mode, aperture in Av, Iso or anything else the wheel controls.  It's caused by the second control dial on the battery grip getting stuck between notches (though I didn't know that at the time) you can replicate this if you try.  The camera was locked at 1/60th in manual and f/5.6 in Av.  It freed itself after about 20 minutes much to my relief, if anyone else gets this, you now know what it is!

tripod buddy, the solution to all your problems

tripods are forbidden here and there, and not always available
thats one of the reasons i picked 24-105 f4 IS over 24-70 (no IS)

[Tarrum]

I've been to places where you can't use a flash. Never got told I mustn't bring a tripod lol

Anyways, I think it's safe to assume that the 1Ds Mark IV is coming soon and Nikon's rumors say two models will be coming. Judging by the past when we got D300 and D3 on the same day in August, I think we're getting a D4 with D400, and of course Canon has to announce a competitor to the D4 sooner or later. Maybe we'll get both, 1D Mark V and 1Ds Mark IV, because the 7D Mark II that could compete with the D400 is really to early to be released.

And 24-70mm seems like an excellent lens to announce with a high body. Can't wait, just a few more days/weeks and we'll see new stuff. My bet is late August (such as 22nd, 23th) and September (around 15th).

[neuroanatomist]

I've been to places where you can't use a flash. Never got told I mustn't bring a tripod lol

Museums, concerts, etc...  Lots of places forbid tripods - it's a liability thing, the legs stick out, and another patron could trip and sue the venue. 

[DJL329]

Just remember, folks, that there are no EF lenses (not EF-S!) with IS that don't reach at least 100mm.  So for the EF 24-70mm Mark II, don't get your hopes up too high.

(Of course, now that I've mentioned that, who knows...  )

[neuroanatomist]

Just remember, folks, that there are no EF lenses (not EF-S!) with IS that don't reach at least 100mm.  So for the EF 24-70mm Mark II, don't get your hopes up too high.

But there's at least one Nikon FX lens that has VR and doesn't come anywhere close to 100mm.  Gotta keep up with the Jonses...

[Bokehmon]

Just remember, folks, that there are no EF lenses (not EF-S!) with IS that don't reach at least 100mm.  So for the EF 24-70mm Mark II, don't get your hopes up too high.

(Of course, now that I've mentioned that, who knows...  )

Good point, but personally I don't need the IS, as long as it's sharp enough to cut my eyes...

[LetTheRightLensIn]

* Digital makes it easier to fix things which couldn't be fixed in film, making a different set of trade-offs in lens design more attractive. As example, it's easy to fix distortions (barrel, pincushion, etc, all up to a point) with a computer, so making a lens with less chromatic aberation and more distortions makes sense.

OTOH, a little CA fixes up pretty well with digital processing while fixing distortion can require a lot more shifting things around and can lead to a loss of FOV and more detail than some well-behaved CA fixing. If you look at 14mm it seems like Samyang went for low CA and more distortion while Canon did the opposite.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've been to places where you can't use a flash. Never got told I mustn't bring a tripod lol

Museums, concerts, etc...  Lots of places forbid tripods - it's a liability thing, the legs stick out, and another patron could trip and sue the venue.

true, although thought it was a sad sign of our sue happy nation. I mean they even ban monopods. Is that really gonna trip you anymore than someone would end up tripping over someone else's legs? Monopods I suspect might be banned more since they seem more club-like and they prob don't want that at sporting venues/clubs/concerts/etc.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Chromatic aberration is also relatively easy to fix. As is vignetting. Really the priority of lenses now is a flat field and as sharp as possible.

Lateral CA, yes.  Axial, not so much.

And axial requires designs that they still mostly don't seem to be touching other than up in the super-tele range, where the old ones were already pretty much free of it to begin with.

[EYEONE]

IS is useful sure but if Canon announced a 24-70mm f2.8 II without IS I'd be ok with that. I know people will disagree and probably call me rude things but I have never been shooting with the 24-70 and felt I needed IS.

But I guess I don't go shooting in caves or whatever. I suppose when you are shooting people more IS becomes less useful because your really need is faster shutter.

But, I would be very surprised if it doens't have IS.

[gferdinandsen]

1Ds4 vs D4 should be interesting.... 24-70 II is long overdue.

why is a second addition lens long overdue?  I remember there use to be a time when people would buy a lens and never dream on needing an "updated" version.  Don't you think this might just be consumerism and something that really is not needed.  The only reason why I am on the bandwagon on waiting for an "updated" camera is because current dSLRs still lack the quality of film.  They are getting close and on that day it is comparable, I think I will just have to run that camera into the ground.

I guess my point of what I am saying is I have known quite a few successful photographers who just shoot with one lens or just one old S___ty camera and still produce great results or have a incredible style.  I guess I am just having a tough time understanding the importance an extra little gidget or gadget will make over the long run  ;o)

I have to agree with you that current DSLR's do not have thje resolution of film...but many people seem consinved of the opposite.  They frequently say that the sensore has more resolution than the lens is capable of.

But me, I still shoot my old 28-80 f2.8L; the only reason I'll upgrade is IS, and the extra 4mm will be nice.

[bornshooter]

i have had my 24-70 for over a month now got it on a special deal for £900 which is a bargain and let me tell you is is not required and people complaining of sharpness and bad copes is rubbish yeah there will be some bad copes out there but thats true for every lens on the market and sharpness for me is superb but I'm not a pixel peeper so hey ho lol what matters to me is how the final image will look in print and there superb.

[sarangiman]

Keep in mind that IS is extremely useful for hand-held video. So, though I don't find it necessary in most scenarios when shooting photos with my 24-70, I'd love it for shooting video.

I'd like IS even more on lighter lenses like the 85/1.8 or the Sigma 85/1.4. Those lenses have a long enough focal length to amplify hand motions & are light enough to not dampen them.

[Jimlevitt]

i have had my 24-70 for over a month now got it on a special deal for £900 which is a bargain and let me tell you is is not required and people complaining of sharpness and bad copes is rubbish yeah there will be some bad copes out there but thats true for every lens on the market and sharpness for me is superb but I'm not a pixel peeper so hey ho lol what matters to me is how the final image will look in print and there superb.

I've had  my 24-70 for several years, and I'm far from alone is saying that it's soft wide open, and it can be a bit unreliable in focusing. Read this recent post by well-known photographer and instructor Zach Arias documenting his switch to Canon despite his extremely low opinion of the 24-70/2.8:
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/headline-i-switched-to-canon-world-still-turns/#more-2583

I've also had occasion to use the more modern Nikon 24-70/2.8. It's far superior to the Canon version, especially in the f/2.8 to f/4 range. Canon definitely needs to update this lens.

As to not needing IS on a new version of the 24-70? Do not assume your needs are the same as other photographers. I just finished covering a weeklong jazz workshop, for the fourth time. Many of the classroom venues have terrible light: 1/80 at f/2.8 or f/3.2 was the norm, usually at iso 1600, sometimes at iso 3200. There were plenty of times where I needed to drop the shutter speed slower than that, and still had to push the file in post to compensate for some underexposure. Tripods/monopods/flash were not appropriate given the need to minimize disturbance or because of crowded conditions. There are two variables at work. One is subject motion. The other is photographer motion (camera shake). 1/60th or 1/80th was sufficient to freeze subject motion most of the time, but camera shake is a different issue, especially when squatting, sitting on knees, or holding the camera overhead. IS can also permit you to use a smaller aperture, for more depth of field, something I often need in the 24-70mm range. There's IS on the 17-55 for crop cameras, and it's extremely helpful for this sort of work. If the 7D did as well at high-iso as does the 5D2 or 1D4, I'd use 7D's just to be able to take advantage of image stabilization in such a critical focal length range.

It's possible to use the 70-200/2.8 IS to get better images at 70mm than it is to use the 24-70 at the same focal length, or shorter. Why should that be? I look forward to a newer, sharper version of the 24-70. If it includes IS, I'll be extremely happy.

[J. McCabe]

* Digital makes it easier to fix things which couldn't be fixed in film, making a different set of trade-offs in lens design more attractive. As example, it's easy to fix distortions (barrel, pincushion, etc, all up to a point) with a computer, so making a lens with less chromatic aberation and more distortions makes sense.

OTOH, a little CA fixes up pretty well with digital processing while fixing distortion can require a lot more shifting things around and can lead to a loss of FOV and more detail than some well-behaved CA fixing. If you look at 14mm it seems like Samyang went for low CA and more distortion while Canon did the opposite.

I agree there's only that much distortion that can be fixed without hurting other things, such as FOV.