Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

[Marsu42]

Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.

USING CAPS doesn't mean digital in-cam IS can suddenly stabilize an optical viewfinder...

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.

... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-(

 

[RLPhoto]

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.

... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-(

+1. Good, Bad and the Ugly has some of the most powerful static shots of any movie. I Have a strong dis-like of the "organic" camera-shake in modern film.

 

[drjlo]

While I certainly don't regret upgrading to the 24-70 f2.8 II as it a super lens, AND I do hope Canon releases an IS version, I will be just a little piqued that after spend the extra increase for the non-IS version, that I will have to consider what to do on the IS one. If both had been released simultaneously, would have just spent the extra for the IS.

Judging by the recent price drops of 5D III, it seems Canon strategy is to launch with as high a price as possible, then drop the price some months later. If 24-70 IS is launched, I suspect it will sport a price similar to $2300 the 24-70 non-IS sports currently, but the non-IS then likely will drop in price around that time to say $2000.

 

[Jesse]

"... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-("

Someone's never seen a Cuaron film.

 

[PackLight]

6 pages of miss informed rumor thread. It is actually an f/4 lens.

 

[Lee Jay]

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105. It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic. The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?

One on every camera, but I don't rely on flash for anything but fill. When I need speed because of dark conditions, I break out the primes - f/2.8 is too slow.

 

[Dylan777]

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105. It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic. The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?

One on every camera, but I don't rely on flash for anything but fill. When I need speed because of dark conditions, I break out the primes - f/2.8 is too slow.

I wonder...what kinda shots do you shoot at 1/5 or 1/10 at wedding and at what f-stop???

 

[wickidwombat]

Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.

I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105. It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic. The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.

If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?

One on every camera, but I don't rely on flash for anything but fill. When I need speed because of dark conditions, I break out the primes - f/2.8 is too slow.

I wonder...what kinda shots do you shoot at 1/5 or 1/10 at wedding and at what f-stop???

with flash and second curtain sync 1/5 or 1/10 is just fine and the IS takes care of camera shake
especially if they are posed shots where the subjects are not moving

 

[sb]

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.

Sure, and that style is most often achieved by using a shoulder rig and not by actually hand-holding...

 

[marekjoz]

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.

Sure, and that style is most often achieved by using a shoulder rig and not by actually hand-holding...

They can also add shake in PP

 

[Bosman]

Why post? Just why?

 

[marekjoz]

Why post? Just why?

Just for fun

 

[Bosman]

Well theres that

 

[sanj]

I'm not sure most people understand this but it is much much much much harder to make a normal zoom than a telephoto zoom. You can make extremely good telephoto zooms day and night for cheap, as evidence by every manufacturers and all the third party telephoto zooms being great lenses.

Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.

I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.

Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.

So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.
[/quote]

Really? Hmmm. This does not go down at all with me. Naaa...

 

[Marsu42]

Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is.

I was under the impression Canon didn't choose the 24-70/2.8IS prototype because of weight and bulk issues, and not because it's very difficult to add IS to any lens?

 

[wickidwombat]

Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is.

I was under the impression Canon didn't choose the 24-70/2.8IS prototype because of weight and bulk issues, and not because it's very difficult to add IS to any lens?

i could care less about the weight and bulk they should just release it to
god knows how expensive it would be thought.... $3500?

 

[Marsu42]

i could care less about the weight and bulk

But since this lens is aimed at the pro market, less weight should be really better if shooting all day. The one thing I find strange though is that people who recommend the much heavier 70-200/2.8is all the time now say that the 100g weight loss on the 24-70ii is important to them :-o

 

[wickidwombat]

i could care less about the weight and bulk

But since this lens is aimed at the pro market, less weight should be really better if shooting all day. The one thing I find strange though is that people who recommend the much heavier 70-200/2.8is all the time now say that the 100g weight loss on the 24-70ii is important to them :-o

i'd rather the heavier bulkier lens on a 5Dmk3 than the smaller lighter lens on the bulk of the 1DX