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

[Deleted member 91053]

Whilst I wouldn't pretend to be able to hand hold most (if any) of my lenses at 1/2 sec I do not encounter the need to do this. Whilst I do like interior shots of Norman churches I have yet to find the need for IS.

My main gripe with IS is the way that it mucks up AF (especially tracking) and that the IS elements never seem to settle back in the same place when IS is off - can't be a good thing. Additionally it is of little (any) help on static subjects with long lenses and, so far, has no use on short lenses that I have (yet) found.

So I don't want to pay for a "Feature" that makes my lenses larger, heavier, more expensive and makes it more difficult to get the shots that I want - I am a bit funny that way

I don't do "People" photography but I do dabble with most genres (my main interest is wildlife) and in the last 3 years and 11 months I have found no need for IS and have benefited from a higher (very much higher on wildlife) keeper rate. Best upgrade I ever made to my photography and it was free!

Agree or disagree - it is of little concern to me however if you ever visit the South Wales area I am happy, in the spirit of helping others, to demonstrate the advantages of the Off switch.

All the best.

 

[ahsanford]

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 it's ON/OFF switch rather than not.

I agree in principle (I also love IS and generally am not a skeptic) but don't we lack the apples to apples comparison to make that statement?

What I mean is: IS and non-IS lenses rarely come out simultaneously, so they often are slightly different optically as time goes on.

For instance, look at the 70-200 lenses -- the closest IS vs. non-IS physical constructs that I know of:

70-200 f/4L = 1999
70-200 f/4L IS = 2006

70-200 f/2.8L = 1995
70-200 f/2.8L IS = 2001
70-200 f/2.8L IS II = 2010

What I don't know is if these two families of lenses are identical from an optical design standpoint or if they are different. If they are different, we can't really use them as the basis of stating IS has no effect, correct?

Help me out gang, are there any IS and non-IS lenses that are identical otherwise out there?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Just checked at TDP -- both families above have different numbers of elements/groups from each other, so those two families are out for a 'clean' IS vs. no IS comparison.

- A

 

[tron]

I believe there is no identical pair. So the only possible comparison is an apple to oranges one.

300mm f/4L > 300mm f/4L IS

70-200 f/2.8L IS II > 70-200 2.8L > 70-200 2.8L IS

70-200 4L IS > 70-200 4L

Quite apple to oranges so I put the above merely for fun.

The closest comparison is the one with the switch ON and OFF on the same lens.

 

[tron]

As far the interior of churches and museums I have found IS to be of great help especially at normal and at above normal focal lengths (50mm-105mm)...

 

[Sharlin]

You can't really use the same optical design for IS and non-IS because you need the IS group... Can't just take a non-IS lens and add IS to one of the groups. Not in general anyway.