EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

[Loswr]

I'll take one of each...

I bought my 35L nearly a year ago, and it's a great lens. But I'd like weather sealing, and slightly sharper corners wouldn't hurt.

I've been sorely tempted in recent days by the low price of the 24-70mm. I've resisted mainly because my funds are earmarked for the 1D X (and sufficient for that and accessories like an L-bracket, but that's it). Buying the 1D X will set up the dominoes - sell 5DII and 35L, which should come close to covering the 24-70L II and the 35L II.

There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time! Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens. In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm

Yep - that'll work just great with moving subjects in dim light. Often, that very stop from f/4 to f/2.8 makes the difference in shutter speed necessary to stop subject motion, for which IS is of no help.

A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.

 

[briansquibb]

A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.

In which case IS probably wont be needed then ...

 

[Loswr]

A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.

In which case IS probably wont be needed then ...

Exactly. If it's in there, great - IS is nice to have at any focal length. But if not, that's ok, too.

 

[niccyboy]

I haven't used 35mm primes in the past... and i have just bought the Fuji x100 (with the fixed focal length of 35mm equiv)... and i must admit i find it a little awkward so far.

As for IS on the 24-70, i think that would be extremely handy for video, but personally i find the extra stop of light and the sharpness of the mk1 version over my 24-105 IS. (although i've mentioned in other posts i got a bit of a lemon)..

From what i've read on this forum and others is that Canon has to make a commercial decision between increasing costs (due to complexity and technology changes inside the lens) and providing an improved lens at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Neither will produce 100% happy customers as people will whinge about cost or lack of IS no matter what they produce.... but i think that they will sell more $1500 mk2's than $3000 IS's...

 

[gmrza]

I haven't used 35mm primes in the past... and i have just bought the Fuji x100 (with the fixed focal length of 35mm equiv)... and i must admit i find it a little awkward so far.

As for IS on the 24-70, i think that would be extremely handy for video, but personally i find the extra stop of light and the sharpness of the mk1 version over my 24-105 IS. (although i've mentioned in other posts i got a bit of a lemon)..

From what i've read on this forum and others is that Canon has to make a commercial decision between increasing costs (due to complexity and technology changes inside the lens) and providing an improved lens at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Neither will produce 100% happy customers as people will whinge about cost or lack of IS no matter what they produce.... but i think that they will sell more $1500 mk2's than $3000 IS's...

Two of the main markets for the 24-70mm are press and wedding shooters. Since both of these groups are typically shooting people, they need to maintain shutter speeds at which, on a full frame camera, IS is not really relevant with a 24-70mm lens. Thus, these two groups mostly could not really care about IS on a 24-70mm lens.

Aside from that, you are probably spot on that Canon will sell many more $1500 lenses than $3000 lenses.

My main wish for the 24-70mm is for Canon to fix the field curvature of the current lens.

 

[scottsdaleriots]

Hoping against hoping that the 24-70 gets IS. I know most people think it's a bad idea but I believe it's a terrible idea to re-release the same lens without IS only to just fix up some minor things, etc. Why not just buy the mkI version that's a lot cheaper and still a good/great lens instead of forking out another $400-$700 (rough estimate) on a mkII?

 

[akiskev]

EF 24-70 f/2.8L II won't have IS.
EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS will have IS ;-)

I must admit that I got a bit surprised when I saw a CR2 article about 24-70 II.

 

[briansquibb]

EF 24-70 f/2.8L II won't have IS.
EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS will have IS ;-)

I must admit that I got a bit surprised when I saw a CR2 article about 24-70 II.

The Canon push for higher iso means that IS for shorter lens becomes less and less relevant. It is easier for Canon to design sensors for higher ISO - and then put that sensor in multiple bodies - than it is to design and build lens each lens with IS.

It is my view that anything under 100mm wont need IS so Canon can focus on image quality from the lens. I dont notice any such clamour to get Zeiss to add IS ....

 

[Edwin Herdman]

A lens announcement in January won't give you anything to shoot with until the release later...wouldn't be too surprising for any pre-CES lens announcements to see availability in Q3 or Q4 2012, or maybe even later.

No IS on the 24-70mm f/2.8 is weird.

EF 24-70 f/2.8L II won't have IS.
EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS will have IS ;-)

Come on, you know what CRguy intended. It's just to mean "the successor to the 24-70mm f/2.8," nothing more.

 

[Radiating]

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

 

[briansquibb]

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

Only if you are shooting in the dark.

I was shooting last night in the near dark at 1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40/1d4.

So what would an extra 4 stops buy you? Motion blur from the subject? Lower ISO - which we have already said would be not needed?

Why would you be livid? When do you need 4 stops extra now?

 

[omgitslong]

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

Only if you are shooting in the dark.

I was shooting last night in the near dark at 1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40/1d4.

So what would an extra 4 stops buy you? Motion blur from the subject? Lower ISO - which we have already said would be not needed?

Why would you be livid? When do you need 4 stops extra now?

"1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40"
Try shooting that with the 5D Mark II

 

[heheapa]

Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?
I won't upgrade if it's with IS but f/2.0L will get my support

Instead, 35L upgrade is more interesting. If there is improved glass + weather-shielded, I will be seriously interested. ;D

 

[whatta]

Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?

a good IQ f2.0 zoom would really make difficult to justify many primes, so even if it was possible in an acceptable size, I doubt they would do it.

 

[Radiating]

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

Only if you are shooting in the dark.

I was shooting last night in the near dark at 1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40/1d4.

So what would an extra 4 stops buy you? Motion blur from the subject? Lower ISO - which we have already said would be not needed?

Why would you be livid? When do you need 4 stops extra now?

Well if current technology is good enough for you that's nice. That's not an argument for living in the stone age. Your oddly specific situation is a good counter example but there are a million situations where IS is beneficial such as nearly every situation where IS has ever been used to effect on an f/4.0 lens. 1 stop isn't a big difference so I'm sure IS on an f/2.8 lens is as useful as IS on an f/4.0 lens.

The main draw for me is that this would help consolidate my lens collection and add flexibility for tight situations. Technology is there to help you get the shot. Once it stops doing that it is pointless. A lens that adds more flexibility both by having to change and carry fewer lenses and by getting better low light performance is what is ultimately best serves photographers.

 

[briansquibb]

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

Only if you are shooting in the dark.

I was shooting last night in the near dark at 1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40/1d4.

So what would an extra 4 stops buy you? Motion blur from the subject? Lower ISO - which we have already said would be not needed?

Why would you be livid? When do you need 4 stops extra now?

Well if current technology is good enough for you that's nice. That's not an argument for living in the stone age. Your oddly specific situation is a good counter example but there are a million situations where IS is beneficial such as nearly every situation where IS has ever been used to effect on an f/4.0 lens. 1 stop isn't a big difference so I'm sure IS on an f/2.8 lens is as useful as IS on an f/4.0 lens.

The main draw for me is that this would help consolidate my lens collection and add flexibility for tight situations. Technology is there to help you get the shot. Once it stops doing that it is pointless. A lens that adds more flexibility both by having to change and carry fewer lenses and by getting better low light performance is what is ultimately best serves photographers.

Perhaps you would like to quote a 'real' example then.

My situation I would say was pretty common for low light shooters - this would cope with concerts, parties etc . Note that I was shooting at f/8 so the f/2.8 or f/4 is not an issue. You will no doubt have noticed that my 'f/4' lens is non IS - and it did not need it. At 17mm that was a pretty tight situation. We are not debating low light here (with the f/2.8) but adding IS onto a short lens. Why not push for IS on the 50 f/1.2 as well while you are at it?

You say I am living in the stone age? Just because I dont need a technological prop to get a sharp image? Before I moved to the 1D4 I had low light issues with the 50D/7D which meant that IS (on my 24-105) was used often. However I have moved on into high ISO technology and on to the 1DX or simmilar - which is going to make IS obsolute for short lens - at the same time making them cheaper and with higher IQ.

 

[ferdi]

Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?

I don't think there are many photogs that are also heavy-weight champions.
A f/2.0 version is likely to be more than twice the weight of the old brick (it got that nickname for a reason).
You have my vote for a 35-70L f/2.0 if it's the same weight as a 24-70L f/2.8.

 

[Loswr]

Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?
I won't upgrade if it's with IS but f/2.0L will get my support

It would need more than your support...carrying a 24-70mm f/2 lens would likely require the support of two people. Ok, I exaggerate, but really, it would be neither practical nor cost-effective for Canon to produce such a beast of a lens.

 

[japhoto]

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

No, you're not alone with this one, because I really really don't see the point in releasing this lens without IS.

Also I don't get why people are so reluctant towards this lens having IS, why is that exactly?

If the MkII is only optically improved, but without IS, I certainly wouldn't bother with it since the lens as it is now is optically not-that-bad to cough up the price difference. If it has IS, I'm much more interested in it.

I can see the argument that the IS system is difficult to design for this lens, but I bet there have been bigger obstacles along the way for Canon.

If it's the weight addition that concerns people, the old 100mm macro was 600g and the new L macro is 625g. Ok, it's a prime, but the weight addition is close to nothing. The 70-200mm 2.8 without IS is 1310g and the IS II is 1490g, a bit bigger difference, but it doesn't concern me a bit.

It's a bit harder to compare the 24-70L weight-wise, but it's now 950g, so add IS to it, ditch the metal construction (cold to hands, possible condensation & expansion when temperature changes, weight addition). If cars and boats can be made from other materials than metal, why should a lens be any different.

The people who are saying that IS is useless in focal lengths under 100mm must have solid steel hands since at least for me it's really easy to get blurry photos with this lens when hand holding (even on the wide end). Either that or they are not concerned about IQ they are getting.

Let's say it's a four stop IS and take away 1 stop since it's possible that four is "marketing speech". A cloudy day and I'd like to have f/8, so yes, it's possible to pump up the ISO to compensate and get a shutter speed to get sharp images, but why in the world would I want ISO 800 when I could have ISO 200 and get the same result? Maybe even ISO 100 if the IS worked really well.

Above is just an example, but I really don't get why people want an optically well behaving lens, but throw away the benefit of a greater resolving capability by not having IS and getting just that small amount of shake or bumping up the ISO so that it negates the resolution.

This is not a problem in studio or when you shoot moving subjects (although I would argue that when panning, IS is a great help). But as a walk-around lens it's not great unless it's a bright day.

And at briansquibb, why do you think that a 50mm 1.2 shouldn't have IS? Especially when shooting at 1.2, I think a hybrid IS could help a lot with a shallow depth of field and if you want more dof, then IS would definitely be a welcomed addition. All in all, why the hostility against IS?

 

[omgitslong]

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.

No, you're not alone with this one, because I really really don't see the point in releasing this lens without IS.

Also I don't get why people are so reluctant towards this lens having IS, why is that exactly?

If the MkII is only optically improved, but without IS, I certainly wouldn't bother with it since the lens as it is now is optically not-that-bad to cough up the price difference. If it has IS, I'm much more interested in it.

I can see the argument that the IS system is difficult to design for this lens, but I bet there have been bigger obstacles along the way for Canon.

If it's the weight addition that concerns people, the old 100mm macro was 600g and the new L macro is 625g. Ok, it's a prime, but the weight addition is close to nothing. The 70-200mm 2.8 without IS is 1310g and the IS II is 1490g, a bit bigger difference, but it doesn't concern me a bit.

It's a bit harder to compare the 24-70L weight-wise, but it's now 950g, so add IS to it, ditch the metal construction (cold to hands, possible condensation & expansion when temperature changes, weight addition). If cars and boats can be made from other materials than metal, why should a lens be any different.

The people who are saying that IS is useless in focal lengths under 100mm must have solid steel hands since at least for me it's really easy to get blurry photos with this lens when hand holding (even on the wide end). Either that or they are not concerned about IQ they are getting.

Let's say it's a four stop IS and take away 1 stop since it's possible that four is "marketing speech". A cloudy day and I'd like to have f/8, so yes, it's possible to pump up the ISO to compensate and get a shutter speed to get sharp images, but why in the world would I want ISO 800 when I could have ISO 200 and get the same result? Maybe even ISO 100 if the IS worked really well.

Above is just an example, but I really don't get why people want an optically well behaving lens, but throw away the benefit of a greater resolving capability by not having IS and getting just that small amount of shake or bumping up the ISO so that it negates the resolution.

This is not a problem in studio or when you shoot moving subjects (although I would argue that when panning, IS is a great help). But as a walk-around lens it's not great unless it's a bright day.

And at briansquibb, why do you think that a 50mm 1.2 shouldn't have IS? Especially when shooting at 1.2, I think a hybrid IS could help a lot with a shallow depth of field and if you want more dof, then IS would definitely be a welcomed addition. All in all, why the hostility against IS?

ISO 3200 -> 200 is 4 stops. 800 -> 200 is only 2 stops.