24-70 II with IS

[James Munney]

Sorry, List, but I can't remember the discussion(s) regarding the inclusion of IS on the next iteration of this lens. Is it going to happen, and if so, what would be your best guess as to when.
Thank you.
Regards,
James

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The conclusion is that no one knows, but its very unlikely to happen. Canon tested IS and decided that they would go without it. I have the lens, and IS certainly is not needed.

 

[Ruined]

A patent has been filed for it officially, and there was a rumor one was in prototype testing with the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II.

Personally, I believe it will definitely arrive and not too far in the future. I think its just part of Canon's marketing strategy to sell people the 24-70 II without IS first for a couple of years, then sell them the IS version again when they are ready. There is nothing magical about the 24-70 range that makes it impractical to do IS on, but there is a financial benefit to releasing as many iterations as possible and have people continually upgrade.

Here is the patent for the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L IS:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-21

Releasing innovative lenses when the time is right is what will keep Canon on top. 24-70 IS is an example of that. If you have something else that works I would hold off for the IS version, because image stabilization is *always* useful to have unless you carry a tripod/monopod with you everywhere. Necessary, no, but useful heck yeah.

 

[Dylan777]

A patent has been filed for it officially, and there was a rumor one was in prototype testing with the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II.

Personally, I believe it will definitely arrive and not too far in the future. I think its just part of Canon's marketing strategy to sell people the 24-70 II without IS first for a couple of years, then sell them the IS version again when they are ready. There is nothing magical about the 24-70 range that makes it impractical to do IS on, but there is a financial benefit to releasing as many iterations as possible and have people continually upgrade.

Here is the patent for the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L IS:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-21

Releasing innovative lenses when the time is right is what will keep Canon on top. 24-70 IS is an example of that. If you have something else that works I would hold off for the IS version, because image stabilization is *always* useful to have unless you carry a tripod/monopod with you everywhere. Necessary, no, but useful heck yeah.

I agree

The "IS" version is currently in Canon treasure box.

 

[TrabimanUK]

A patent has been filed for it officially, and there was a rumor one was in prototype testing with the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II.

Personally, I believe it will definitely arrive and not too far in the future. I think its just part of Canon's marketing strategy to sell people the 24-70 II without IS first for a couple of years, then sell them the IS version again when they are ready. There is nothing magical about the 24-70 range that makes it impractical to do IS on, but there is a financial benefit to releasing as many iterations as possible and have people continually upgrade.

Here is the patent for the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L IS:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-21

Releasing innovative lenses when the time is right is what will keep Canon on top. 24-70 IS is an example of that. If you have something else that works I would hold off for the IS version, because image stabilization is *always* useful to have unless you carry a tripod/monopod with you everywhere. Necessary, no, but useful heck yeah.

I agree.

Probably within the next 5 years or whenever Sigma release one that trumps the current Canon 24-70L II, as they seem to be on course for at the moment, wichever is the soonest.

Don't forget that there was a was a 10 year gap between the MK1 and MK2 canon lenses!

Grant

 

[takesome1]

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.

 

[TrabimanUK]

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.

Cynical, but accurate methinks

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Canon does estimate the selling cost, and includes it when deciding which version to produce. They also have pro's evaluate the prototypes and see which one they prefer. While a IS version might be preferable on a consumer grade crop body, its not necessary on a FF body. The 17-55mm IS is the equivalent crop lens.
I've used mine now for thousands of shots and never missed IS at all. Only when I get to about 200-300mm does IS really become a help. I don't see any need for it on my 135mm L either.

However, if IS sells, it will happen eventually, but not soon, since Canon is not pushing out new products because of the economy. The 70D is a good body, but its not selling, people are hanging on to their pocketbook.

 

[J.R.]

Oh yes ... this lens is on the way ... exactly like the 100-400 II

 

[Eldar]

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.

Canon does estimate the selling cost, and includes it when deciding which version to produce. They also have pro's evaluate the prototypes and see which one they prefer. While a IS version might be preferable on a consumer grade crop body, its not necessary on a FF body. The 17-55mm IS is the equivalent crop lens.
I've used mine now for thousands of shots and never missed IS at all. Only when I get to about 200-300mm does IS really become a help. I don't see any need for it on my 135mm L either.

However, if IS sells, it will happen eventually, but not soon, since Canon is not pushing out new products because of the economy. The 70D is a good body, but its not selling, people are hanging on to their pocketbook.

I totally agree. 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.

 

[takesome1]

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.

Canon does estimate the selling cost, and includes it when deciding which version to produce. They also have pro's evaluate the prototypes and see which one they prefer. While a IS version might be preferable on a consumer grade crop body, its not necessary on a FF body. The 17-55mm IS is the equivalent crop lens.
I've used mine now for thousands of shots and never missed IS at all. Only when I get to about 200-300mm does IS really become a help. I don't see any need for it on my 135mm L either.

However, if IS sells, it will happen eventually, but not soon, since Canon is not pushing out new products because of the economy. The 70D is a good body, but its not selling, people are hanging on to their pocketbook.

I totally agree. 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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[cliffwang]

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.

 

[cliffwang]

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.

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.

 

[Sporgon]

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 ?

 

[takesome1]

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?

 

[brad-man]

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

 

[Eldar]

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 ...

 

[brad-man]

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

 

[J.R.]

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
[/quote]

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