EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

[ksinton]

When people say photos are soft, they typically mean that focus was not achieved. That might be because the camera and lens are not properly matched, it picked the wrong thing to focus on or something else but...

Focus not being achieved is different to blur as a result of either the camera or the subject. IS only helps deal with blur because of camera motion.

At 50mm, you should be using the 1.2L or 1.4, which would give you a much faster shutter speed than the 2.8 for the same light.

Yeah I was shooting with the 50mm f1.4 but it's not always practical to shoot at f1.4 as I often need more depth of field than that. There are only certain shoots you can shoot wide open like that.

My shots where focused correctly... the slight softness was due to motion blur.

I have shot with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS on a crop camera and gotten crisp shots at 1/20th of second.

 

[Duncandim]

just curious. WHY do you think that the 55-250 will only be 55-200?

...maybe because of what is written in the patent :

Focal distance f=55.60 – 203.11mm

Anybody knows the specs for the 24-70L I? What is/are the difference(s) between the two versions? Thanks.

excellent question

OH I KNOW I KNOW!!! It has finally arrived!!!! The in-body IS is coming with the new 5D so why bother having IS on the new lenses....... (please Canon make the dream come true)

 

[Loswr]

So? I've taken sharp shots with the 50/1.4 at even slower shutter speeds of static subjects, hand held.

Anyway, you seem to have convinced yourself that you need IS on whatever lens you use, so good luck.

The problem is that at f/1.4, shallow DoF may be a problem for many shots, depending on the subject. I've gotten crisp handheld shots with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS out to 0.5 s (although the keeper rate is pretty low). The 24-105mm f/4L with 3-stop IS delivers the equivalent of f/1.4 in terms of 'handholdability' for static subjects.

Photographers lived without IS for many, many years. So...need? Well, no. But humans lived without electricity and refrigeration for many, many years, too... All things considered, I'd rather be able to light a room with the flick of a switch and enjoy a glass of chilled wine...and have IS available at every focal length.

 

[Admin US West]

IS Certainly makes possible some hand held images that I could not get without it.

This image was with my 7D and 17-55mm EF-s at 1/4 sec. I had just received the camera, and for some unknown reason I had the ISO set to 800, which pushed the aperture way high (f22), so there is a lot of diffraction, and there is just a bit of shake. Ultimately, I was disappointed at the 7D noise, even at ISO 800. I re-edited the raw file this morning in Lightroom 3, and it does a much better job of processing the image and removing noise, but its still quite visible at 1:1.

On a dark dreary morning, I looked out my back window, and saw our baby goats playing king of the mountain on our horse. I knew the horse loves goats, but he would not submit for long, so I grabbed my 1D MK III which always has my 100-400mm on it and snapped a shot at 400mm thru the doublepane glass. I did not stop to setup the camera, so I got the settings as they were, and a 1/25 sec exposure at 400mm. I was lucky to get the photo at all, the horse rolled seconds later.

Even though the image is not particularly sharp due to shake, my wife likes to show it to her friends.

Without IS, I would not have had time to setup a tripod, or adjust ISO even higher (already at 800).

 

[Mousepotato]

Why wouldn't you want IS? If you don't want to use it, you can always turn it off.

 

[Admin US West]

Why wouldn't you want IS? If you don't want to use it, you can always turn it off.

Who are you replying to?

Tip-- Use the quote feature for the post you are answering, and then we will have the context of your reply.

BTW -- Welcome to Canon rumors!

 

[epsiloneri]

Why wouldn't you want IS?

Pricier, potentially bulkier/heavier, battery hog if used, and compromised optical quality... could be disadvantages. In reality it's mostly price.

Haha, love that goats pic, scaleusa... ;D

 

[Mousepotato]

Why wouldn't you want IS?

Pricier, potentially bulkier/heavier, battery hog if used, and compromised optical quality... could be disadvantages. In reality it's mostly price.

Heh, Canon has never been modest about their prices. I expect to pay an arm and a leg, IS or not

 

[Mousepotato]

Who are you replying to?

Tip-- Use the quote feature for the post you are answering, and then we will have the context of your reply.

BTW -- Welcome to Canon rumors!

Woops, I think that was in response to dilbert's message. I guess it was ripe for a "PMFJI", so I'd like to take this time to use my PMFJI retroactively

And thanks!

 

[NXT1000]

what? no 24-70f2.8 IS II? why no IS. i will be so angry.

 

[Loswr]

what? no 24-70f2.8 IS II? why no IS. i will be so angry.

It would be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS or (or maybe and?) a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, since there's no current/MkI version of that lens with IS. I, for one, would prefer IS to go along with improved coatings and optics.

 

[NXT1000]

It would be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS or (or maybe and?) a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, since there's no current/MkI version of that lens with IS. I, for one, would prefer IS to go along with improved coatings and optics.
[/quote]

the whole world is waiting for 24-70 f2.8L IS. seriously. not 24-70 f2.8L II - what is that? there will zero people going to buy that just to get a little improvement in IQ. 24-70 f2.8L already a fantastic lens.

 

[bycostello]

i want, maybe even need a 24-70 with IS... that's what i'd wanna see on the mk2

 

[gmrza]

what? no 24-70f2.8 IS II? why no IS. i will be so angry.

It would be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS or (or maybe and?) a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, since there's no current/MkI version of that lens with IS. I, for one, would prefer IS to go along with improved coatings and optics.

A reason that I can see why Canon might not build an IS version is that one of the main uses of the 24-70 f/2.8 is event photography - a lot of wedding photographers use it. To a large degree they need to take into account motion blur from subjects moving around - while not action photography, a lot of the time there is a need to shoot at shutter speeds where IS will not be of benefit on a 70mm lens. (This is rather different from the 24-105mm f/4 which is more of a general purpose lens.) The requirement for IS is rather different with the 70-200mm f/2.8, where it is often desirable to shoot at shutter speeds where IS is a necessity - therefor pros are happy to shell out the extra money for the IS version.

 

[Crackson]

I've been holding off for the MK2 version of this lens and the wait is killing me. IS or non-IS I'm getting the lens.
Hopefully they'll release both but I don't think someone would need IS at 70mm. It would just add way more weight to beautiful glass.

Either way it'll be a great lens IS or non

 

[shoutout33]

The Mark I of this lens is so good, I don't see why they are releasing a MarkII without IS. With video being a big focus with DSLR, I think IS is becoming a requirement at this focal length in a zoom...

If they plan to match and beat Nikon's 24-70, they need IS and internal zoom/focus. I'd even prefer having internal zooming and focusing before IS. But that's just me.

 

[DavidM]

is the new 24/70mm f/2.8 going to be IS?