The IS has nothing to do with stills. Looks like another "video lens." Oh well, if it's better than all the current 50's, I'll get it.
IS also is very applicable for still photography.
A number of us have written that in our posts on this thread (pls read page 1).
While I've taken thousands of photos on tripods, I've taken hundreds of thousands of photos without a tripod, and believe me - in many situations using, bringing or even having a tripod (or monopod) just isn't practical (or allowed in some scenarios).
Many professional photographers use IS to get shots they otherwise couldn't have. I'm not a pro, (though plenty of my photographs have been sold) - and my photographic technique does at times benefit from IS.
Sighhhhhhhhhh. No, I meant that that's WHY Canon made this lens.
Same thing for the 24-70 f/4 IS lens. Clearly aimed toward video more so than stills photographers.
f4? Seriously... wide max aperture is best for video, generally shutter would be at 1/50th, so the more flexible the lens can be the better as you effectively have one less paramater to play with.
Would you have paid the money Canon would have charged for a 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens? Didn't think so.
Nope. Nor will I pay the money for an f4 for a focal length that makes no sense on aps-c or s35.
The full frame users, perhaps those video shooters most concerned with shallow dof aren't going to flock to an f4 either.
Just a thought.
Well I'm glad both Pauls (me and Paul Walnut) are on the same page and seem to understand each other.
bdunbar79, I've appreciated a number of your posts in CR for some time - but it seems here you do not appreciate that the style of photography of some people is different to yours, and some people (like me) are hugely benefitted by IS in certain situations.
While you might not use it in stills photography and think that optical stabilisation is mainly, or purely for video - while even that is debatable, read chosenbydestiny's post, for example - the truth is that many pros and many non-pros use IS with great effect in certain photography scenarios. Not in all situations, but in some!
There are just SO many scenarios that I have shot in, and I have been alongside professional photographers too - where you just can not take or use a tripod (even a $1000 lightweight, compact carbon fibre one).
Consider just these 2 applications A and B.
I have shot with the 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8, and even at ISO3200, shots were at the limit of shake. Being able to take a photo at 50mm in low light situations without risk of image shake, is of HUGE advantage.
Just 2 egs:
1) Christmas tree decorations being lit up by other fairy lights (tripod wouldn't fit on any side of the tree) as it was in a small apartment, near a bed and wall, and I wanted to get the shot without disturbing others who were sitting nearby
2) children relaxing by a campfire at a hike that I've been a leader at (fancy being 1 of a few adult leaders trekking 10 days, already carrying all the necessary gear eg food, tents, first-aid, cooking utensils, clothing, etc - and then also taking along a cumbersome tripod and setting it up while caring for a dozen children?) No?? I didn't think so either!IS is great!
I could easily provide a much longer list....
Yes I do use my good tripod often, but I use IS more. And I also do use my IS lenses with IS turned off in situations too! (eg HDR, panning, some sports, BIF, etc)
Then, secondly there is another application- as I have already described previously - photos taken at smaller apertures, eg f/4 to f/11 (to obtain greater depth of field) ... and having IS helps to steady the shot (saying 'just use a larger aperture', as this would ruin the shot, ie in some situations I do not want a super narrow dof eg f/1.4-f/2.
I could easily provide a long list of examples here, but I trust one's imagination and photographic experience help here, realising that one can't always take a tripod along, or the time to set one up and compose with a tripod (which even on the quickest set/ release types - is far from as quick as 'purely in one's hand').
This 2nd application is why some users (including some pros) of FF have skipped the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 v1 and v2 and instead gone to Canon's 24-105 f/4 IS or Canon's 24-70mm f/4 IS, OR to Tamron's 24-70mm f/2.8 VR. I know many pros and non-pros who own both larger aperture non-IS lenses and also a mix of IS lenses (often covering the same focal length).
So, if your photographic style doesn't need IS, fine... don't use it (or turn it off).
I know some people think IS adds lots of money to each lens, though it's not as much as many people think. Most of the cost is not IS, it's optics (to obtain high IQ), solid build, and focusing mechanisms, etc. eg a version of Canon's 24-70 f/4 without IS wouldn't cost $500, as compared to the current higher price with IS. A Canon 24/70 f/4 without IS would cost a few hundred dollars less than the IS version. I'm willing to pay that for IS.
Same for any new 50mm prime.
While I genuinely feel it's a pity for folks who don't need IS (or don't think they ever need IS) - to pay that extra amount, please don't say IS is useless - when for many people it's actually both very useful or even necessary!
I hope my post is helpful in highlighting the value of IS, and also exposing what a lot of people don't realise about IS.