24-70 II with IS

[wickidwombat]

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

 

[pwp]

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

 

[J.R.]

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

 

[pwp]

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]

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.]

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

 

[TexasBadger]

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.

 

[tron]

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...

 

[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 ?

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]

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.

 

[Ruined]

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 ?

Personally I think that is baloney and was marketing aimed at people on the fence to help them justify spending the money for the non-IS version. The Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, and it also has one of the most advanced IS systems! The 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is also razor sharp and has IS, too.

 

[TommyLee]

as good as the Canon 24-70 II is... a nice lens

the missing I.S. ...is covered by 'errors and omissions...' clause in their insurance.

I bought and returned the 24-70 II ...almost sharp enough @ 70... not quite... for the price
BUT the missing I.S. just killed it for me.....
it would be used RIGHT WHERE the I.S. needs to kick-in.... so I get that shot....
silly not to have this available..

I will wait..
and that may include a new Sigma 24-70-ish range too.......the 35 f1.4 wiped my (sold) 35L ....
Sigma knows how to please...

I believe Canon issued the non-I.S. first because it wouldn't sell...later
when the one with I.S. was available

just my thought

TOM

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I believe Canon issued the non-I.S. first because it wouldn't sell...later
when the one with I.S. was available

I'm really hoping this is the case. I've been thinking about trading in my fairly new 24-105 5D3 kit lens towards a 24-70 II, but considering the hit I'll take on the trade-in, I feel compelled to keep using it in the hopes that a 24-70 II with IS is in the nearish future. The "ish" after "near" is a concern though.

 

[tron]

I believe Canon issued the non-I.S. first because it wouldn't sell...later
when the one with I.S. was available

I'm really hoping this is the case. I've been thinking about trading in my fairly new 24-105 5D3 kit lens towards a 24-70 II, but considering the hit I'll take on the trade-in, I feel compelled to keep using it in the hopes that a 24-70 II with IS is in the nearish future. The "ish" after "near" is a concern though.

I wouldn't worry. It will take less that 10 years... probably ;D