Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS Still in Testing [CR2]

[Berowne]

Next up a 16-35 f/2.8 with IS!

Yes, because that's what everyone is screaming at Canon for: another UWA L zoom. :

Off the top of my head, besides the lens this thread is all about, I can think of 10 lenses we need more in Canon's portfolio than an UWA f/2.8 IS zoom:

...
6) An update to the 400 f/5.6L to give it IS
...
- A

I agree with you on points 7 and 1, the rest are a bit meh...
The 100-400 LIS II is easily the better lens than the 400m f5.6 L and makes it completely redundant in most measurable areas except cost.

Example: 7DII+100-400 II+1.4 Ext. III = nearly 1000mm FF-Aequivalent. Not enough for 4000€? (no croping, developed in LR 5.7 with some standard-presets and slightly adjusting brightness)

Sorry, mistake, the Eagle was done with 6D, added a Detail of the same Pic and here is a Flower with the above combination.

 

[Jopa]

Example: 7DII+100-400 II+1.4 Ext. III = nearly 1000mm FF-Aequivalent. Not enough for 4000€? (no croping, developed in LR 5.7 with some standard-presets and slightly adjusting brightness)

Sorry, mistake, the Eagle was done with 6D, added a Detail of the same Pic and here is a Flower with the above combination.

Very cool shots.

 

[Talys]

Berowne, very nice eagle shot! Beautiful eye focus.

 

[Neutron_K]

I too find 24-70 L II magnificent enough. Yet I travel with my camera a lot and need to go indoors. IS will be on for 50% of my shots. I appreciate this update a lot.

 

[dolina]

I have the original 24-70/2.8 and would be keen to upgrade to a 24-70/2.8 with IS.

It is a mystery to me that Tamron, Sigma & Nikon have one already while Canon doesnt.

 

[MYB]

Off the top of my head, besides the lens this thread is all about, I can think of 10 lenses we need more in Canon's portfolio than an UWA f/2.8 IS zoom:

1) A workhorse all-battlefield 50 prime with a flat plane of focus and some form of USM
2) Some way to shoot with first party AF longer than 400mm FF without using a teleconverter or spending $9k
3) A proper astro lens
4) Better EF-M lenses, particularly ones with USM focusing
5) Either refresh the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or as least offer 7D2/80D users a constant f/4 USM standard zoom
6) An update to the 400 f/5.6L to give it IS
7) 135 f/2L refresh, surely with IS
8.) 85 f/1.8 USM refresh, likely with IS
9) Wider FL 1:1 macro for FF
10) More pancakes (especially a wider one for FF)

- A

+1

 

[traveller]

I have the original 24-70/2.8 and would be keen to upgrade to a 24-70/2.8 with IS.

It is a mystery to me that Tamron, Sigma & Nikon have one already while Canon doesnt.

Probably because at the moment the choice is between large size (Nikon) and compromised optics (Sigma and Tamron). Canon has stated that they aren’t willing to accept either.

 

[Ozarker]

Don't need it, but want it if it is as good optically as the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Realistically, I have not felt a need for IS at those focal lengths yet, but I am not getting any younger. Shaking comes with age, sometimes. :'(

 

[Random Orbits]

Don't need it, but want it if it is as good optically as the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Realistically, I have not felt a need for IS at those focal lengths yet, but I am not getting any younger. Shaking comes with age, sometimes. :'(

I have a love-dislike relationship with IS. It's nice at the longer focal lengths and makes framing easier, but it's not unusual for me to have some blurry shots as IS is being spooled up after switching targets (i.e. sports) and I'm trying to take a shot as soon as possible. For shorter focal lengths where it doesn't help for framing all that much, I'd probably leave it off unless I'm specifically targeting still-life with a slow shutter speed.

 

[Hector1970]

The 24-70 2.8 II is a stunningly sharp lens.
I don't miss IS on it at all.
IS is useful if you are not a careful photographer or suffer from a high degree of shake.
I think sometimes knowing you don't have IS makes you consider shutter speed and technique which leads to better photographs.

 

[Lee Jay]

IS is useful if you are not a careful photographer or suffer from a high degree of shake.

Which do you think has better IQ on a stationary subject, ISO 800 0.4s or ISO 12,800 1/25s?

 

[ahsanford]

IS is useful if you are not a careful photographer or suffer from a high degree of shake.

Which do you think has better IQ on a stationary subject, ISO 800 0.4s or ISO 12,800 1/25s?

+1. All day.

How many times do we need to cover this? If you can't bring enough light or stabilization to the party and the subject isn't moving, IS is good for everything. Walk your ISO down from the stratosphere to something with a lot more DR/color depth, etc. or keep the ISO the same as the non-IS lens and stop it down for DOF/composition or sharpness reasons.

In a sense, with stationary subjects in light that base ISO can't cover exposure-wise, IS is like having a built-in 3-4 stops better-than-your-hands s---ty tripod when you don't have a tripod or are not allowed to bring/use a tripod. It is super useful.

Whether you need it or if you want to assert that 'some folks lack the chops to have still hands' or 'I never needed it' is irrelevant. Some of us have different needs, and IS helps us address those needs. Sensors are getting better but not to the point that we should be happy that 'hey, with some face-melting NR and pushing things in post, this ISO 12800 shot isn't bad.' It would look much better at 1600.

Now whether you want to pay for the added cost / weight of IS we can debate, but the notion that it's useless for wider angles, only needed for people with poor grip/technique, etc. is tantamount to putting fingers in your ears to other photographers' needs.

- A

 

[GoldWing]

I look forward to the lens being priced at $1,9999 - My old 1DX cost about 7,000 / My new 1DXMKII cost less.... If Canon keeps the price low.... Every photographer will upgrade their kit.....

 

[risto0]

Canon 24-70 2.8 II is fantastic lens - great picture quality and sharpness. But I do miss IS as...
...sometimes the light is even so low that pumping up ISO to tolerable level still leads to exposure 1/20 which means visible handshake on larger images
...sometimes I really would like to reduce exposure time in purpose to capture a motion of.. fore example a passing vehicle
...I am not into video recording (because of lacking video editing skills and necessary high-performing pc) but sometimes I try it for fun. Lacking IS is clearly visible on videos if not using any additional stabilizing equipment. I believe IS would produce much smoother footages.

So yes, I would need IS and probably go for the IS version of 2.8 lens when it comes out. At the moment I switch to 16-35 f4 for video.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

IS is useful if you are not a careful photographer or suffer from a high degree of shake.

Which do you think has better IQ on a stationary subject, ISO 800 0.4s or ISO 12,800 1/25s?

+1. All day.

How many times do we need to cover this? If you can't bring enough light or stabilization to the party and the subject isn't moving, IS is good for everything. Walk your ISO down from the stratosphere to something with a lot more DR/color depth, etc. or keep the ISO the same as the non-IS lens and stop it down for DOF/composition or sharpness reasons.

In a sense, with stationary subjects in light that base ISO can't cover exposure-wise, IS is like having a built-in 3-4 stops better-than-your-hands s---ty tripod when you don't have a tripod or are not allowed to bring/use a tripod. It is super useful.

Whether you need it or if you want to assert that 'some folks lack the chops to have still hands' or 'I never needed it' is irrelevant. Some of us have different needs, and IS helps us address those needs. Sensors are getting better but not to the point that we should be happy that 'hey, with some face-melting NR and pushing things in post, this ISO 12800 shot isn't bad.' It would look much better at 1600.

Now whether you want to pay for the added cost / weight of IS we can debate, but the notion that it's useless for wider angles, only needed for people with poor grip/technique, etc. is tantamount to putting fingers in your ears to other photographers' needs.

- A

Good point and, frankly, I do not know the answer for you. For me it is quite simple.

I use Canon IS (and non IS) lenses from 16 to 800mm (+ a bit more with extenders) yet I find IS to be the most useless feature on any of my lenses. If I turn IS on then it is even worse! I have had whole days of photography mucked up until I discovered the "OFF" switch.

Admittedly this was primarily on moving subjects, but I found that static subjects (such as medieval church interiors) also benefited from using the "OFF" button.

A few of months ago I was describing this to a Canon Rep at a local photography show and, frankly he thought I was mental - but he was very polite. Unfortunately we didn't have a really long lens available so we had to make do with a Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 and a 5D4. Let's just say that he was a little puzzled as to how his shots at 1/160 sec at F8 were sharper when the IS was turned off (hand held) compared to IS on. Unfortunately I hadn't brought along my Canon 800mm so we couldn't really see how steady he was. But, for me, with arms like matchsticks 800mm and 1/160 sec is simply not an issue. I wonder what that translates to on a 24-70?

I have the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 and love it! One of the factors in my decision to buy it was the lack of IS. Unfortunately I didn't have that option with most of my other lenses. I have asked Canon UK if it is possible (at my expense) to remove IS from my other lenses but they don't want to do it! Not happy.

P.S. I am happy to demonstrate if you can get to South Wales - you may be surprised, I was!

 

[Lee Jay]

A few of months ago I was describing this to a Canon Rep at a local photography show and, frankly he thought I was mental - but he was very polite.

I'm with him.

I've tested this extensively and shots I can't get *at all* without IS often become tack-sharp with IS.

I only have one demo handy, but here you go.

 

[tron]

I took advantage of the IS even on the older 24-105 f4L (version 1).

That way I was able to shoot with lower speeds and bring the ISO to more realistic numbers.

I am talking about static subjects (museums and churches interiors).

So I definitely prefer IS. Also my 500 4L IS II works excellently with IS set to ON.
I also observed IS on my 70-200 lenses (2.8L IS II and 4L IS) The advantages were very obvious.

I would love to have a 24-70 2.8L IS with IQ similar to my 24-70 2.8 II.

There only one different case where the absence of IS was beneficial but I am talking about something completely different now: NOT an IS lens with IS set to OFF but a version of a lens without IS vs the same with IS.

I am referring to the very old EF 300mm f 4L (NON IS as I said previously). That lens is reported as being better than its IS counterpart.

I don't/didn't have both lenses to make comparisons but I have made the following comparisons using tripod and live view manual focusing:

1. 300mm f/4 L NON IS + 1.4X II
2. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS (version 1)

The test case 1 result was a little better. Should the lens was a 300 f/4L IS the results would be the oposite as had been reported consistently by many sources in the past.

So I can safely assume that the non IS model is sharper.

The above of course refers to the past and to a case where the lens does not include IS vs to a lens with IS set to off.

Now back on topic a question for the 2.8 II users: Should an EF24-70 2.8L IS come to existence would you sell your beloved copy?

 

[Deleted member 91053]

A few of months ago I was describing this to a Canon Rep at a local photography show and, frankly he thought I was mental - but he was very polite.

I'm with him.

I've tested this extensively and shots I can't get *at all* without IS often become tack-sharp with IS.

I only have one demo handy, but here you go.

So that means that you agree with me - after all he (the Canon Rep) did! Much to his surprise

 

[yeahright]

A few of months ago I was describing this to a Canon Rep at a local photography show and, frankly he thought I was mental - but he was very polite.

I'm with him.

I've tested this extensively and shots I can't get *at all* without IS often become tack-sharp with IS.

I only have one demo handy, but here you go.

So that means that you agree with me - after all he (the Canon Rep) did! Much to his surprise

From how I read this post it does NOT back your argument, on the contrary. You brought up the example of 800mm and 1/160 s earlier. Maybe in this example you are right, if you have a steady hand. But are you seriously saying IS would not help you for stationary subjects in dim lighting handheld at 1/4 s or 1/2 s? Or would you say: "Under such conditions I wouldn't take the photo anyway, because even if it may turn out better with IS than without (possibly even significantly), it will still never reach my high standards of tack sharp images."

 

[tron]

I believe it is safe to assume that in these times the modern Canon lenses are not degraded by the mere presense of IS elements. So it is better to have IS and its ON/OFF switch rather than not.