July 22, 2014, 12:26:18 PM

Author Topic: 24-70 II with IS  (Read 6701 times)

takesome1

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2013, 02:36:15 PM »
When Canon launched the 24-70 II didn't they state that the lens doesn't have IS in order to optimise IQ.

If I'm right and they did state this is there any truth in it ?

Yes I believe they did state this, but then do you believe everything a salesman tells you?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2013, 02:36:15 PM »

brad-man

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2013, 04:19:09 PM »
I see people arguing for IS even on wide angle lenses. I enjoy IS from the 70-200 and upwards. Below that it has never been an issue. Maybe it´s because I didn´t have IS for the first 25 years I was doing this.
If I shoot dead subjects, in very poor light, I normally use a tripod. If not, something is moving and there is a limit to how slow the shutter speed can be. I have not shown any Parkinson symptoms yet, so hopefully I can carry on like this for a few more years.
It seems I am always shooting something in low light. It seems that shooting in the late evening or inside without a flash is something I am always doing. Sure motion blur and such is a problem but I could see a use for IS.

As long as the only real penalty for including IS is the cost of the lens (and not reduced IQ), I think it's totally worth it.  Most of the time, I shoot people and have a minimum shutter speed of 1/125 s when using my 24-70/2.8L II.  But occasionally, I want to take a low light shot of a static scene, and 4 stops of IS would mean the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 - that's worth the price of admission, to me.  I'd rather have it and not need it, then not have it when it would come in handy.

Exactly. Image stabilization is always welcome at any focal length whether it's needed or not. I won't part with my Tamron SP24-70 until Canon or Sigma can whomp it!
Folks that disagree can hang out in the Ken Rockwell "tripods are no longer needed" camp :)
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 04:28:23 PM by brad-man »

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1346
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2013, 04:46:39 PM »
I see people arguing for IS even on wide angle lenses. I enjoy IS from the 70-200 and upwards. Below that it has never been an issue. Maybe it´s because I didn´t have IS for the first 25 years I was doing this.
If I shoot dead subjects, in very poor light, I normally use a tripod. If not, something is moving and there is a limit to how slow the shutter speed can be. I have not shown any Parkinson symptoms yet, so hopefully I can carry on like this for a few more years.
It seems I am always shooting something in low light. It seems that shooting in the late evening or inside without a flash is something I am always doing. Sure motion blur and such is a problem but I could see a use for IS.

As long as the only real penalty for including IS is the cost of the lens (and not reduced IQ), I think it's totally worth it.  Most of the time, I shoot people and have a minimum shutter speed of 1/125 s when using my 24-70/2.8L II.  But occasionally, I want to take a low light shot of a static scene, and 4 stops of IS would mean the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 - that's worth the price of admission, to me.  I'd rather have it and not need it, then not have it when it would come in handy.

Exactly. Image stabilization is always welcome at any focal length whether it's needed or not. I won't part with my Tamron SP24-70 until Canon or Sigma can whomp it!
Folks that disagree can hang out in the Ken Rockwell "tripods are no longer needed" camp :)
Eeehh ... In that case we should be in the "we need a tripod camp" should we not?? Since we´re trying to cope without IS ... ;)
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 04:48:10 PM by Eldar »
2x5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L II, 70-300/4-5.6L, 200-400/4L 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Sigma 50/1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L II

brad-man

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2013, 05:19:41 PM »

Eeehh ... In that case we should be in the "we need a tripod camp" should we not?? Since we´re trying to cope without IS ... ;)
[/quote]

I am in that camp. I have six of the damn things :P

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1461
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2013, 11:37:21 PM »

Eeehh ... In that case we should be in the "we need a tripod camp" should we not?? Since we´re trying to cope without IS ... ;)

I am in that camp. I have six of the damn things :P
[/quote]

Whoops, I have four and I thought that was a bit much. IS is welcome though!
Light is language!

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4417
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2013, 11:43:50 PM »
It is coming.
Canon wanted to see if you would buy a Non IS version for $2200 before they release a $3500 IS version.
It would have been hard to go from a $1400 version 1 to a $3500 version II IS. Much easier now that they have you prepared.
If the price tag of the Canon 24-70mm IS is 3500, Sigma and Tamron will really appreciate Canon to help their business.
Especially when sigma bust out the 24-70 f2 OS
APS-H Fanboy

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2013, 04:51:20 AM »
I also shoot in low light often.  Many CR people may be PROs, so they always get light sources most of time.  I only take pictures for family, friends and some events, IS is really useful for me.
While I don't especially miss IS on my 24-70 f/2.8II, there are times when it would deliver a higher percentage of keepers. More keepers the better. As someone who shoots for my living, I certainly don't necessarily have perfect light all the time...the shooting environments vary enormously depending on the project.

Some people have very steady hands and IS is less of a tangible advantage. My (obviously) non-IS 135 f/2 gets very little use and will be sold soon, the 70-200 f/2.8isII does all the work in this range. If my 16-35 f/2.8II had IS, I'd be attempting different, currently no-go shots.

It may not be right at the top of everyone's wish-list, but I'll tick the box for IS every time; why deny yourself any potential creative or business advantage?

-pw

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2013, 04:51:20 AM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1461
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2013, 05:00:38 AM »
I also shoot in low light often.  Many CR people may be PROs, so they always get light sources most of time.  I only take pictures for family, friends and some events, IS is really useful for me.
While I don't especially miss IS on my 24-70 f/2.8II, there are times when it would deliver a higher percentage of keepers. More keepers the better. As someone who shoots for my living, I certainly don't necessarily have perfect light all the time...the shooting environments vary enormously depending on the project.

Some people have very steady hands and IS is less of a tangible advantage. My (obviously) non-IS 135 f/2 gets very little use and will be sold soon, the 70-200 f/2.8isII does all the work in this range. If my 16-35 f/2.8II had IS, I'd be attempting different, currently no-go shots.

It may not be right at the top of everyone's wish-list, but I'll tick the box for IS every time; why deny yourself any potential creative or business advantage?

-pw

I would guess IS is needed more by the Pro Photographers who are shooting for long durations. I would not imagine myself not yearning for IS if I were shooting 5-6 hours straight. Being a hobbyist though, I can take it easy  :)
Light is language!

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2013, 05:40:42 AM »
I would guess IS is needed more by the Pro Photographers who are shooting for long durations. I would not imagine myself not yearning for IS if I were shooting 5-6 hours straight. Being a hobbyist though, I can take it easy  :)
Whether you will benefit from IS or not has nothing at all to do with the duration of a project, it's 100% about the type of project and the style of images you want or your client requires.

IS is just another handy tool. The value of IS has no divide between professional or hobbyist, at the right moment it can just help smooth the way.

-pw

Ellen Schmidtee

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 441
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2013, 05:54:23 AM »
My 2c:

A. Canon has an EF 24-70mm f/4 and - as noted above - equivalent focal range EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS. This means Canon thinks IS on that focal range useful, possibly for some photographers' need, definitely it's bottom line.

B. Canon has four 70-200mm lenses, 2 w/ IS & w/o, which means both Canon and it's customers find it useful to have a choice. In this case, the differentiating factor is price. Why not do the same with 24-70mm lenses, with the differentiating factor being IQ?

As Tamron is already selling a 24-70mm f/2.8 vc, stealing sales Canon could make by releasing a similar lens, my guess is Canon thinks that between it's f/4 IS, f/2.8 IS-less, and Tamron f/2.8 vc, it can't make a profit from turning it's prototype into a selling lens.

That could be due to characteristics of the lens (say price/performance point too low to compete with the Tamron), lack of available manufacturing resources, or whatever, but if Canon was confident it could release one soon, I would expect a development announcement to keep some photographers from buying the Tamron. Not seeing such announcement, I don't expect to see an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS anytime soon.

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1461
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2013, 06:01:24 AM »
I would guess IS is needed more by the Pro Photographers who are shooting for long durations. I would not imagine myself not yearning for IS if I were shooting 5-6 hours straight. Being a hobbyist though, I can take it easy  :)
Whether you will benefit from IS or not has nothing at all to do with the duration of a project, it's 100% about the type of project and the style of images you want or your client requires.

IS is just another handy tool. The value of IS has no divide between professional or hobbyist, at the right moment it can just help smooth the way.

-pw

I was actually thinking of wedding shooters. Long shoots, tired arms and fading light  :)
Light is language!

TexasBadger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2013, 06:34:24 AM »
When the 70-200 f/2.8 L came out the non IS version was sharper than the IS version.  I would suspect this will always be true no matter what focal length.
5DC, 5D3, Elan7, G12, 28 1.8, 50 1.8 II, 85 1.8 USM, 135 2.0 L, 24-70 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 L, 560 EX, 580 EX II (2) --- all Canon.

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1772
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2013, 08:31:38 AM »
When the 70-200 f/2.8 L came out the non IS version was sharper than the IS version.  I would suspect this will always be true no matter what focal length.
I am with you on that ... partially!

Canon introduced the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which corrected this!

However, it has done this by almost doubling the cost (compared to the non-IS lens)

By the way the 70-200 2.8 L (which I used to have until it was stolen) was the first zoom I used with fixed lens quality (judging from large B&W prints back in the 90s).

For now, your comment applies to the 300mm f/4 series lenses too.

The f/4 non-IS lens is reported sharper than the IS version. Although I do not have the IS version
I have compared 300mm f/4L non-IS lens with EF1.4XII extender and found it sharper that the 100-400 L lens. This implies a very sharp 300mm f/4L non-IS lens. Now, if Canon introduce a 300mm f/4L IS II things will change again...
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 05:06:17 AM by tron »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2013, 08:31:38 AM »

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1677
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2013, 08:46:55 AM »
When Canon launched the 24-70 II didn't they state that the lens doesn't have IS in order to optimise IQ.

If I'm right and they did state this is there any truth in it ?

Yes I believe they did state this, but then do you believe everything a salesman tells you?

Unhelpful.

But despite the apparent high level of technical expertise on CR no one seems to have a better answer.

takesome1

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2013, 08:32:15 PM »
When Canon launched the 24-70 II didn't they state that the lens doesn't have IS in order to optimise IQ.

If I'm right and they did state this is there any truth in it ?

Yes I believe they did state this, but then do you believe everything a salesman tells you?

Unhelpful.

But despite the apparent high level of technical expertise on CR no one seems to have a better answer.

When it was released everyone was crying because it didn't have IS. (as was heavily rumored)
I think Canon just threw this out stop some of the complaints.

I am not sure you can relate sales strategy and technical expertise.

This is what Bryan at TDP said in his review;

"Canon omitted image stabilization to achieve the absolute ultimate image quality possible with the least-complex design."

I do remember reading Canon releases that said the same.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24-70 II with IS
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2013, 08:32:15 PM »