EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A

While I don't doubt that IS will eventually make its way down to more lenses in the future, what you suggest would not work for those shooting action. IS elements would also have to be larger to accomodate more travel to counteract lower frequency jitter/shake, which is a sizing issue.

Agree 100% -- fast glass isn't going away for DOF, event, sports needs. It will always be needed.

I'm just arguing that IS technological advancements aren't creating other problems like speeding up zoom lenses might (i.e. back pain from a pickle jar of a lens). Prime example -- compare the 200mm F/2.8L vs. the 200mm F/2L IS: 6-7x the cost and 4x the weight for one stop and IS.

So if I'm Canon, there is a bigger return on investment (and more potential for improvement) in developing 5-, 6-, 7-stop IS technology for all lenses rather than building a 5 lb. F/2 standard zoom. You get more stops for more lenses (I'm presuming that any IS tech breakthroughs are transferable to other designs) rather than chasing a one-off holy grail lens for the 1% of most discriminating users to be sold for weaponized plutonium prices.

So it makes more 'useability' sense that we're seeing IS getting stapled onto modest aperture glass.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a cake-and-eat-it-too F/2.8 standard zoom with IS. 8)

 

[PerfectSavage]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

both lenses are completely off the mark.

35/2.0 is in need of a successor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.

+1

24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ.
Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.

+1
I agree on both. Canon is missing the obvious.

I beg to differ, Canon is following the money -> HD video DSLR + Lens sales. Just wait and see, the 6D will easily outsell the 1DX + 5D3 combined (obviously cheaper camera aimed at the masses), but Canon have done their homework on this, travel photographers like to shoot full-HD video to show to the folks back home, as well as taking stills. Moms + Dads love to shoot HD video of their kids playing sports etc. as well as taking photos, which explains why Canon have included similar AF-tracking in the 6D as the new 5D3. How many CR contributors justify expensive kit on the grounds that they can shoot their kids as well? (Just look at how many 50 1.2L shots are of Photogs progeny)

Canon has pandered too long to the specialist stills photographers, how about the hundreds of thousands of Amateur & Indie videographers who purchased the 5D mk II and made it the success story that it is, plus the millions of buyers who continue to flock to Rebel T2i/T3i/T4i and so on, so they can shoot 1080p @ 24 frames per second and post their cinematic style offerings on YouTube or Vimeo.

Canon is finally moving in the right direction - Video. Let Nikon slash prices and lose profits on high-MP DSLR bodies that have always lagged Canon in the video stakes (remember the Nikon D300s with 720p video vs Canon 7D with 1080p, then the Nikon D7000 had 1080p movie recording but no dedicated Movie button like the 7D). Canon is not just following video/still photography trends, they're shaping them.

Videographers need IS not ISO 25,600

Sorry, but your post is about two years late in terms of Canon's "direction" with video. PROFESSIONAL DSLR video is pretty much DONE with the 5D3/1Dx in terms of video feature advancement. When you have guys who were 5D2 video pioneers like Vince LaForet saying "...hate to say it, but the future is Cinema EOS (Black Magic, etc) for video...no longer HDSLRs," we should listen to them. For amateurs there are a lot of Canon Vixia camcorders that are much better, lighter and many cheaper for HD videos of your kids and travel than a bulky DSLR. Those people aren't buying DSLRs nearly as much anymore. They're buying mirrorless or advanced P&S cameras that shoot HD video (EOS M - hottest camera in Japan right now bar none, G series, Powershot etc) Enter Cinema EOS and the C100, C300, C500 for indies, HD commercial and 4K feature production respectively. Canon's "direction" with professional video is there as well as the 1Dc (as a B/C cam for feature film production alongside the C500 (~4K 'RAW')).

The new primes with IS are definitely a great video choice however the 24-70 f/4 (or ANY lens with a maximum aperture smaller than f/2.8 ) are not in any shape or form targeted at video and that is the lens amongst these two that people seem to be most irritated over. But since you mention "needing" IS; how many great commercials, and short films, let alone feature films, used IS lenses? Shane Hurlbut's 'Act of Valor' grossed over $80 million USD and Drake Doremus' 'Like Crazy' which wasn't even shot FF - it was shot 100% on a Canon 7D - got $4 million USD from Paramount at Sundance for the distribution rights. Neither production used IS lenses. (Yeah, I get it, amateurs and indies don't have access to $10,000 stabilization rigs and motion control cranes etc. to hold their CinePrimes, Cooke and Arri glass) ...but my point is amateurs have been making some nice music videos, commercials and short films for four years on the 5D2 without "needing" IS...and with the new noise performance of the 5D3 sensor, ISO is DEFINITELY a more welcome feature. ISO 6,400 on the 5D3 is as clean if not cleaner video than ISO 800 on the 5D2...which means more shots, less lighting (if any needed at all fot the shot), less assistants, much more creative options - especially for the indie on a budget. Families with kids and travelers have a lot better video options for "showing the people back home" in camcorders with much better IS capabilities than DSLRs.

There will be a 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS soon, just as there are four versions of the 70-200 L (f/2.8 II IS, f/2.8 (non-IS), f/4 (non-IS), f/4 IS), there will be at least three if not four versions of the 24-70 L...and prices will drop (as they always do) and the 24-70 f/2.8 II will drop when the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out. Canon didn't "miss any boat", they didn't "ruin the future of the known Milky Way Galaxy"...they introduced a new lens, part of a whole new offering rolling out with optics that will make you wonder why you ever compared this lens to your 24-105 L kit lens. If you haven't shot with the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II or the 24-70 f/2.8 II, go rent one. You'll be wowed by the difference in IQ and AF compared to the previous versions. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp or sharper than any of the EF primes in that focal range with better overall IQ...IMO. I'm taking a deductive guess that the 24-70 f/4 will similarly blow away the 17-40 f/4 (IMO the sharpest L wide zoom) and 24-105 f/4 in their respective overlap focal lengths. If you love your 24-105 or your current 24-70, then why bother worrying about how much this lens is anyway? It's a down economic market and Canon's infrastructure still isn't back to pre-earthquake capability (nor is Nikon's), Canon is focusing on lower production volumes with products that can give them higher margins. It's that simple. There is a market, it may not be you and most likely isn't you...and that's OK. They will make more lens options available that ARE.

 

[Zv]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Well said!

 

[kubelik]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

perfectsavage, I agree entirely with your take on it. however, while you are correct in terms of ACTUAL needs, I think others are also correct in terms of PERCEIVED needs. there are a ton of people on the market for lenses (both amateurs, and prosumers) who talk themselves into thinking that they need IS, whether they do or not. I find that it's typically the folks who really, really shoot seriously for a living that can cut through the crud and say, look, that's just not a feature that makes sense to me for what I'm doing. for everyone else, it tends to be "more letters! more features!"

 

[PVS]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

 

[RLPhoto]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

I like the 35 f/2 IS. The old 35mm f/2 was absolute garbage and wouldn't mind this lens if sigma didn't release a 35mm 1.4 for the same price.

 

[Marsu42]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

perfectsavage, I agree entirely with your take on it. however, while you are correct in terms of ACTUAL needs, I think others are also correct in terms of PERCEIVED needs.

+1 ... next to that, a part in a lens like IS that you don't need or seldom use can still break and invoke high repair costs. Btw that doesn't prevent me to think that €2200 for a 24-70 w/o IS is Canon-like overpriced.

The hard part of finding out if you need a feature or not is that few people shoulder the workload a scientific approach requires - shooting the same scenes with and without feature x and then blind-testing the results. And since IS only raises the keeper-rate, it's even more tricky. The most prominent example for this is if IS helps for 1:1 macro shots on the 100L or not.

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

Except for dedicated event lenses, many or most people would welcome IS even on primes - it's just about 35/1.4 vs 35/2is or $500 35/2 vs $900 35/2is, and this means that IS is not a free present but comes at a price of more $$$ or less open aperture.

 

[crasher8]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?

The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens? Up until these IS lenses (24, 28, 35) being released, what was the best low light prime from Canon? And with the exception of motion blur issues, will the ability to stop down 4 stops of shutter speed really make these lenses a low key shooters wet dream?

The next lens for me will be a wide prime…..which one?

@PVS -- Re: IS being useful and worth paying for on wide lenses -- we are a minority indeed.

The notion that F/1.4 trumps F/2 with IS makes me shrug.

Sure, the F/1.4 glass can pull off some DOF tricks that you can't at F/2, but for the other 95% of the time you are using an F/1.4 lens, you will have to stop down and crank the ISO higher than an F/2 IS to get a useable shutter speed in low light. Not a good bargain for this low-light handheld shooter. (Again, it's about how/what you shoot.)

As such, until the 35L II arrives (where the sharpness is presumed to beat this new lens), the 35 IS is the lens to get, IMHO. One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS? Yes, please.

 

[Marsu42]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS? Yes, please.

Um, just one comment: I for one seem to have very shaky hands because I am not able to get more than 2 stops usually and *reliably* from my 70-300L or 100L IS system - that means getting the same quality like w/o IS and higher shutter speed, and not some so-so ok shot that doesn't appear to be blurred when downsized.

So if it's essentially a 2-stop IS eating up 1 stop of real light it really depends on the usage what I'd choose - because 1 stop more real light means 100% of the time and no motion blur, unlike IS which is more about statistically improving the keeper rate.

 

[kubelik]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

One stop slower in return for 4 stops of IS? Yes, please.

Um, just one comment: I for one seem to have very shaky hands because I am not able to get more than 2 stops usually and *reliably* from my 70-300L or 100L IS system - that means getting the same quality like w/o IS and higher shutter speed, and not some so-so ok shot that doesn't appear to be blurred when downsized.

So if it's essentially a 2-stop IS eating up 1 stop of real light it really depends on the usage what I'd choose - because 1 stop more real light means 100% of the time and no motion blur, unlike IS which is more about statistically improving the keeper rate.

from my experience with the new IS systems, within 2-stops it nails it pretty much every time. by 4-stops it can still give you keepers where you really couldn't before, it's just not a 99% guarantee anymore. it probably drops to 33% or so.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS


That's true about the IS -- but it's getting better all the time. From Bryan Carnathan's site:

"Sharing the honors with its sibling 24mm f/2.8 IS Lens, the Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first Canon prime lens wider than 100mm to have image stabilization. The combination of an f/2.8 aperture, 28mm focal length and 4-stop IS makes the 28 IS, at review time, arguably the second most low-light-handholdable full frame format Canon lens available (just behind the 24 f/2.8 IS). And perhaps the second most handholdable Canon lens available.

Lenses being introduced with image stabilization far outnumber those coming without it. Image stabilization has matured nicely since it was first introduced, and the IS system in the 28 f/2.8 IS is example of this maturity.

The IS sound from this lens is barely audible. I have to put my ear to the lens to hear the light IS shhhhhhh that is mixed with light clicks when the lens is moved. The viewfinder shows no evidence of image stabilization going into effect (jumping/shaking/etc.) - aside from the stabilized view in the viewfinder.

With good technique and a stable, standing shooting position, I am getting a very good percentage of sharp shots at 1/5 - 1/4 second. Beyond 1/4 sec, the keeper rate drops off gradually with sharp images still obtainable at close to 1 sec exposures. The IS assistance I experience is about 3 stops."

Okay -- three stops in this case. But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses. IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

 

[Marsu42]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses. IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

I'm not so sure where the technical barriers for new IS systems are (does anyone know?), imho much more likely iso capability of newer cameras will solve the problem.

But since you're quoting the review of the prime with IS and this thread is about the 24-70/4, too: The hybrid IS system is much louder and in certain angles produces frightening noises - at least on the (or my) 100L.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

But this conversation will become 4, 5, and 6 stop IS much faster than Canon can develop, say, F/1.0 lenses. IS will become a bigger and bigger part of the low light conversation, along with the body's ability to process higher and higher ISO.

I'm not so sure where the technical barriers for new IS systems are (does anyone know?), imho much more likely iso capability of newer cameras will solve the problem.

But since you're quoting the review of the prime with IS and this thread is about the 24-70/4, too: The hybrid IS system is much louder and in certain angles produces frightening noises - at least on the (or my) 100L.

Agree. I tried out the 70-200 F/4 IS and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II side by side. The F/4's IS makes a similar sound to the 100L's whirring noise when the shutter is half pressed. Frightening might not be my word, but it's noticeable.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is inaudible for all intents and purposes (thought I never shoot video to be fair). You have to put your ear next to it during focusing to hear it. The new 28 IS is similar.

 

[PVS]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

When you compare MTF charts for 35L and 35IS published on canon website this new lens seems even more desirable.
Ditto for 4 stops of IS vs. 1 f/stop.

 

[tron]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

 

[Zlatko]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900. And the introductory price most likely won't last. The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a much more reasonable price.

So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900. The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls. That seems about right.

I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy. I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L. A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a fantastic lens.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900. And the introductory price most likely won't last. The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a much more reasonable price.

So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900. The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls. That seems about right.

I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy. I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L. A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a fantastic lens.

+ much. I agree with everything you said.

Not only compact size, but also the compact 'noticeability' that comes along with it. I've recently moved to a large city, so street shooting is now easily within my reach. The new IS wide angles are great in that they are quite unassuming for that task. Most L glass, in contrast, looks like serious gear and is more likely to wind up people I may be shooting.

 

[Denisas Pupka]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Short presentation from France (10:15):

http://youtu.be/vh1dzcRZ_Rs

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

Doesn't it make sense that people would pay a premium for a much more handholdable low light lens?

Probably wrote it a hundred times - I shoot bands (read: people playing music, hence moving) in low light. Four stops better than 1/30 is 1/2. I'll admit up front some motion blur is useful in that context, but not that much motion blur, and I'll certainly not pay a 175% premium for it.