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

[zim]

Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

That would be a M00t lens because of the 24-105L.

ah true true

 

[DB]

Perhaps Canon had always intended to market a 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS, but just were not ready yet or they wished to maximize their revenue with early-adopters first with the non-IS mkII version? Who knows. But what I do know is that IS lenses are very different to their non-IS counterparts, not just in terms of additional weight (the f4L IS is 55g heavier than the non-IS and the mk1 70-200 f2.8 IS USM is 160g or 10oz more than the non-IS version), but also the internal workings have to be completely redesigned to accommodate the Image Stabilization mechanism - thus you end up with a different lens in terms of groups/elements etc.

Do people think that the adoption of a wider diameter (82mm instead of 77mm) on the new 24-70mm f2.8L mkII has anything to do with plans afoot that Canon Inc. has to launch an IS version? In other words, did they increase the width of the lens because they had planned all along to incorporate IS at a later date and wish to utilize common parts across the assembly of both products.

 

[Lee Jay]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

Do you prefer ISO 6400 at 1/40th or ISO 1600 at 1/10th?

 

[Lee Jay]

MPs are not really connected, but pixel size is, and in general, more MP means smaller pixels. A given amount of shake means a specific amount of movement in terms of arc-seconds. With smaller pixels, a given amount of movement covers more pixels on the sensor, which translates to more blur. So, smaller pixels means you need an even faster shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. 1/FL is a film rule. Even 1/1.6xFL is not enough on a high MP, small pixel sensor.

Thanks for that explanation neuro. I'd always noticed on my crop bodies the 1/1.6 photos were still a little blurry. I just always assumed that maybe I have more shaky hands than other photographers. But your explanation makes me feel better about me being more normal

I am sorry but that explanation, with the greatest respect, does not make sense, here is why. If you move during the exposure by, say, 1/100mm, it doesn't matter if that movement is across 10 or 100 pixels, for the same enlargement that 1/100mm blur will be enlarged the same and look the same, just the same as diffraction blur, and we all know for that more pixels is never worse it is just better resolved, the diffraction blur (and movement blur) is the same regardless of pixel size for the same reproduction size.

True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop. The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC. Both require less blur to be effective.

 

[SebSic]

Do you really think Canon will release shortly a 24 70 II IS ?
I am not shure at all.
If so the IS versin wil have sale IQ en be heavier. IMO

 

[RGomezPhotos]

OMG... This lens is going to cost $3k.... I mean, I know the newer Canon lenses are sharp... But the price is getting quite ridiculous.. I had a similar discussion with a Nikon friend who was wondering if spending double the money for the 1.4 85mm was worth it over the 1.8 85mm. I look at him and say 'Dude, the images with the 1.8mm are PLENTY sharp and great... Why?'

I guess if you need the latest and greatest and most expensive gear to improve your photography, then so be it. Sell me your old gear!

 

[Razor2012]

Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?

I'd prefer IS with a 2.8 rather than with a F4.

 

[wickidwombat]

If IS is important for video, then maybe a stepper motor, too?

Egad, no. I'll take nice, fast ring USM, thanks...

yeah just try a 40mm pancake side by side with the old 24-70 mk1 STM is ok but AF is not spectacular

 

[Loswr]

True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop. The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC. Both require less blur to be effective.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

I suspect most people (I'm sure there are exceptions) don't judge critical focus based on their intended final output. Rather, they view the image at 100% (most likely with a loupe tool). Therefore, comparing two images shot on different bodies with differently-sized pixels, with the subject projected onto the image plane at the same physical size, the image from the higher resolution/smaller pixel sensor will appear larger, and thus more subject to the perception of blur.

 

[Dylan777]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

Do you prefer ISO 6400 at 1/40th or ISO 1600 at 1/10th?

at 1/10 you better pray your subject(s) stand still as building. Answer to your question, I'll take 6400 over 1600 on 5D III or 1D X.

 

[Loswr]

@privatebydesign - thanks for the correction...and the freebie

 

[marekjoz]

True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop. The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC. Both require less blur to be effective.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

I suspect most people (I'm sure there are exceptions) don't judge critical focus based on their intended final output. Rather, they view the image at 100% (most likely with a loupe tool). Therefore, comparing two images shot on different bodies with differently-sized pixels, with the subject projected onto the image plane at the same physical size, the image from the higher resolution/smaller pixel sensor will appear larger, and thus more subject to the perception of blur.

I still think, and as I understand what happens there on the surface of the sensor, that the size of the pixels doesn't play such an important role here, as the resolution. Assuming, that:
1. on the current sensors, geometry of particular subpixels makes them evenly spread across the surface
2. three or (even rather as for now) four of subpixels create a real pixel
3. information from subpixels (creating a pixel) distant from each other is interpolated in terms of luminosity
4. there are microlenses decreasing the infuence of the real geometry of subpixels

I would rather say, that if we want to observe the difference in contrast between the final pixels to catch the motion blur, then
1. if 4 subpixels act as one pixel
2. and those subpixels are evenly spread across the surface
then only the final resolution of final pixels (and not subpixels) determines this matrix'es capability to catch the motion blur caused either by the camera shake or the subject's move.

This can change somehow, if detection is on photo's WB or one of clear RGB components area. In the latter case it can happen, that the other subpixels remain "blind" no matter if the real move has occured or not, but such a case I'd say is rather rare.

Looking at the real sensor's geometry and it's ability to detect motion blur, I think, that the resolution determines it's real pixel size as area limited by subpixels (but not in terms of it's light capturing capablities) so the bigger the resolution, the smaller the real pixels (even if empty somehow in the middle), so the bigger the ability to detect blur. At smaller resolutions, subpixels acting here as a bigger pixel interpolate the move on the bigger sensor's surface, so their sensivity to "detect" the move is smaller.

Does it make sense?

 

[sanj]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

For me IS comes in handy at 1/40.

 

[shinjuku-thief]

For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.

As a response to this I can only think of a famous remark once made by the eminent John McEnroe Jnr. whilst cordially discussing the call made on the previous point with the central umpire.

 

[sanj]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

Do you prefer ISO 6400 at 1/40th or ISO 1600 at 1/10th?

True!

 

[wickidwombat]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

For me IS comes in handy at 1/40.

IS is super usefull for me on the 24-105 since i mostly shoot
static things (industrial plant) with this lens on the 1D
however very often the platfrom from which i am shooting is vibrating or
swaying in some way therefore in this shooting situation IS is essential
and i can reliably shoot down to 1/20th second. in this scenario a faster aperture does nothing
also i shoot mostly at f8 in these things and only open up the lens when lighting is very bad
ah I still dream of a 24-105 f2.8 IS

 

[Lee Jay]

True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop. The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC. Both require less blur to be effective.

If you choose to change the enlargement criteria, by making a bigger prints and reducing viewing distances or cropping etc, then obviously you need to change the coc criteria and acceptable blur amounts, but that doesn't alter the fact that pixel size is irrelevant with respect to motion blur (or diffraction) for the same sized image.

Yeah, that's true, but the larger pixel counts enable you to alter the CoC criteria (down) through any of these methods more before getting into pixel-blur territory, so it's sort of an enabler rather than a cause on its own.

 

[PackLight]

It is true, there are IS prototype 24x70's. They were left over from the RD of the new 24x70's.

 

[Lee Jay]

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.

Do you prefer ISO 6400 at 1/40th or ISO 1600 at 1/10th?

at 1/10 you better pray your subject(s) stand still as building. Answer to your question, I'll take 6400 over 1600 on 5D III or 1D X.

But sometimes your objects are still (and you need some DOF), even if they once went over Mach 3.

ISO 400, 45mm, 1/5th: http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/5D_13386.jpg

I can't handhold 45mm at 1/5th without IS, so that would have been at least ISO 3200 and 1/40th without it.

 

[vuilang]

$3000 for a standardized Lense?
if so, will $1800 justified by lillte different in IQ,sharpness from Tamron?