A pair of 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lenses coming in 2019? [CR2]

[Hector1970]

I think this is the future fate of EF lens. Nothing new that's not already well into the pipeline will be delivered. IS will be added where its missing and perhaps new coatings but no fundamentally new lens. They will slowly fade away. In time there will probably be great second hand bargains. I couldn't see the current EF gear holding its value with the new mount.

 

[tron]

Card slot on the lens? Intriguing.

Add a sensor too and we don't need a camera

 

[Aaron D]

Card slot on the lens? Intriguing.

I know, I know…. I should also ask for a neck strap.

 

[FramerMCB]

Auto focus over the Zeiss, for one.

And quite a bit cheaper for another...

 

[jeffa4444]

I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.

They are not.

 

[Michael Clark]

IBIS gives IS to every lens. Is it really that hard to understand?

The same amount of sensor movement that gives four stops of IS to a 50mm lens only gives one stop of IS to a 200mm lens, and only one-half stop to a 400mm lens. Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[Etienne]

The same amount of sensor movement that gives four stops of IS to a 50mm lens only gives one stop of IS to a 200mm lens, and only one-half stop to a 400mm lens. Is it really that hard to understand?

A camera with IBIS can still use lenses with IS. Apparently not everyone can understand that, so I had to spell it out for you.

 

[Michael Clark]

A camera with IBIS can still use lenses with IS. Apparently not everyone can understand that, so I had to spell it out for you.

If the lens based IS is being used and the camera based IS is disabled, then the cost of the camera based IS is useless and an unnecessary expense for the user who only uses telephoto lenses on a particular camera body. For IBIS and LBIS to work together requires another level of software development that also adds considerable cost to the system. Even Sony hasn't got there yet, and they rush everything to market before it's been tested properly.

No one is saying IBIS is not useful. We're only saying that sometimes it may be better than LBIS, but sometimes, though, it is not.

 

[Etienne]

If the lens based IS is being used and the camera based IS is disabled, then the cost of the camera based IS is useless and an unnecessary expense for the user who only uses telephoto lenses on a particular camera body. For IBIS and LBIS to work together requires another level of software development that also adds considerable cost to the system. Even Sony hasn't got there yet, and they rush everything to market before it's been tested properly.

No one is saying IBIS is not useful. We're only saying that sometimes it may be better than LBIS, but sometimes, though, it is not.

Some of us want both options. There are already plenty of cameras without IBIS, but very few with. I would gladly pay extra for IBIS, and when, or if, needed, just turn it off.