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

[japhoto]

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

Sorry, my bad, I knew I missed something

 

[Loswr]

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.

All in all, why the hostility against IS?

Not sure it's hostility, just an acknowledgement that IS is not a panacea for getting good shots. As stated, it doesn't stop subject motion, and I do think the most common users of the 24-70mm lens are shooting people. Briansquibb is correct in that the shutter speeds necessary to stop subject motion (1/60 s generally) are sufficient to eliminate camera shake at short focal lengths.

As to why not just include it anyway, there may be technical reasons given the reverse zoom design of the 24-70mm lens. Cost is also a factor - consider the price differences between the non-IS and IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms, where IS nearly doubles the cost. As was stated earlier in this thread, Canon would likely sell a lot more $1800 non-IS lenses than $3200 IS lenses.

 

[ping_media]

Damn, never knew the 24-70 could get this heated. I work with a wedding photog who has a 24-70 and the new 70-200 in his kit, as well as the 16-35. However, he mainly uses his L primes most of the time. the only time he really uses the zooms is when he needs the really short end of the 16-35 (all thought the 14L, 24L is on his list for next purchases) and the really long end of the 70-200. He actually hates using the 24-70 because he feels "lazy" and because his 35L, 50L get much better results, and he can blow the background completely out for portraits. I'm an avid prime user myself. The only time I use a 70-200 is when I shoot basketball here at school. Anyone else out there advocate the use of primes rather than a 24-70, even for event photos?

 

[Loswr]

Anyone else out there advocate the use of primes rather than a 24-70, even for event photos?

Sure...if you have two bodies and/or a second shooter. Else, the flexibility of a zoom is often required.

 

[japhoto]

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.

All in all, why the hostility against IS?

Not sure it's hostility, just an acknowledgement that IS is not a panacea for getting good shots. As stated, it doesn't stop subject motion, and I do think the most common users of the 24-70mm lens are shooting people. Briansquibb is correct in that the shutter speeds necessary to stop subject motion (1/60 s generally) are sufficient to eliminate camera shake at short focal lengths.

As to why not just include it anyway, there may be technical reasons given the reverse zoom design of the 24-70mm lens. Cost is also a factor - consider the price differences between the non-IS and IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms, where IS nearly doubles the cost. As was stated earlier in this thread, Canon would likely sell a lot more $1800 non-IS lenses than $3200 IS lenses.

Thanks for the answer, I don't know if it's hostility, but this subject seems to divide people in two entirely different categories.

I myself (coming from Olympus which had in-body IS) would like to see IS in every single lens available. I do think Canon IS works better, mainly because the IS effect can be seen through the viewfinder.

I'm also a bit of a perfectionist, so yes, as I stated before, I judge my photos at 1:1 and if it isn't sharp at that magnification, then it's usually not sharp enough for me. Sometimes I break this rule, but only for photos that go for example on my blog at 800px wide. And it still bothers me when I know that the shot isn't sharp

You bring up a valid point about the reverse zoom construction, so that might be a reason behind it for Canon, but then again, (even though it is an ingenious system), is it necessary. Cost is of course a big factor, but I don't know how bad are the sales for the 70-200II despite of the high pricetag (I should know since I own one).

All I can say is that I truly wish that the new lens will have IS, but even if it doesn't I'm not switching systems because of if. Other option would be the 24-105 IS II if it comes out with the new 5D (if that day ever comes mind you).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Not sure how they'd improve either of these lenses significantly to make purchase worth it. I got my 35L beginning of summer and I really cant imagine it getting much better unless you particularly hate vignetting...

The saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.

Just compare the 24-70 to say 24 1.4 II on FF and you'll have a hard to NOT seeing how the 24-70 could get much better. Sharper near the edges at ANY aperture and a ton less distortion. Plus a good Tamron 28-75 copy is every bit as sharp as many to most copies of the 24-70L (AF isn't the same speed though by any stretch).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

No IS on a new 24-70? Although, I wouldn't be surprised given they released 16-35 II well into the IS era in late 2000's without IS. But I figured that's a wide angle zoom, probably used more in landscapes and wider scopes, with likely more light, so sorta makes sense to skip IS, to keep price/weight down for the function it is supposed to serve.

But 24-70mm is a different beast that will find use in event photography, indoors, wedding, and low light situtations ... IS would be very handy...

But Canon could do what they did with 16-35 II again without batting an eye and release a non-IS version in 2012!.

I will never understand Canon marketing I guess.

It does seem shocking since that is a range I really would appreciate having IS on and it would be a major extra selling point. The only thing I can think of is that they had to go to a sort of design that simply left no room to fit in IS. If this design means it can fully match the 24 1.4 II at landscape apertures and at least be close wide open then I'd say it definitely made sense to leave out IS though. If not, then it really seems foolish, what is the point almost (other than them getting to now charge 2x as much).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I can totally understand Canon’s take on no IS for the 24-70 II, though this is a rumor at this point.

Why?

The primary reason could well be because such a lens, with IS in the general zoom range has the potential to cut into a number of their revenue lines …

The current 24-70L f/2.8 targets a specific consumer rung, who are willing to pay a good amount but not the bank. They are willing to choose a contracted focal range but a faster f/2.8 lens provided the pricing is not way too high. We are not talking about the well-heeled pros with all the L-primes in this range and beyond. The “differential” contender with longer focal range would be 24-105L, a peg down in the marketing line (I am not inviting a flame war here on merits of these two lenses, just where they fall in the Canon product line and pricing) which continues to be a good seller for Canon.

If pricing on 24-70 version II is low enough to tread this fine line, with the faster f/2.8,and IS, it could cut severely into the 24-105L f/4 line even with the longer focal range enticement. Hell, it may even cut into the sales of some of the much older non-L primes which are still on sale from Canon. No one wants to cut their own legs shorter.

Marketing and where to put a high-quality fast IS zoom in the price/consumer range may be the deciding factor here. They may do a 70-200 f/4 trick on us and release an IS and non-IS version, but that’s probably too hopeful.

Cynical, but a smart Canon &@#@@!!!

If that was the only reason they left it out and it wasn't for technical reasons (maybe a premier design doesn't let IS unit fit, look at say 85L how could you fit IS into that design, for instance) then I could see them sitting on the shelves and Canon losing nearly their entire development costs on it and deservedly so.
If they also cripple the new 5D3 and Nikon then goes to the ends with the D800 and releases a 24-70 IS that has top quality it could get ugly hah.
But I can't believe that even Canon as they have become would be quite so cynical as to leave out IS simply for the reasons you state.

 

[Radiating]

As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.

 

[unkbob]

I really wish Canon would ad 5mm to the top end of the 24-70.
It just doesn't have enough reach on a full frame body.

I use the Tamron 28-75 and wish they would make a 24-75 as well.

I do find it amusing when Tamron 28-75 users say the Canon 24-70 just doesn't have that extra 5mm on the long end that they need.

FYI - The Canon 24-70 L has MORE REACH at the 70mm end than the Tamron 28-75 does at 75mm. I own both and have tested this. The Tamron is a pretty horrible lens, feels like a toy from a christmas cracker, focus ring is a joke, soft @2.8 and that 75mm is misleading.

Having said that, the 24-70 isn't brilliant. Wish I could afford to update it when the new version appears.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

+1
As it is, an awful lot of people gripe about the size and weight of the Canon 24-70 2/8 version.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.

True, the old rule was based on people of average hand steadiness so many will be shakier AND it was based on 35mm 4x6" print sharpness I believe which is a far cry from trying to maximize from one of the higher density sensor DSLR bodies for larger prints.

That said if putting IS in it would've meant a different design with more distortion and worse edge quality than maybe that trade off for just 1 stop over the 24-105 IS would become questionable for some. I'd rather it compete with their L primes at landscape apertures and be solid wide open with no IS than mediocre 24-105 quality plus IS. Of course not everyone will see it that way.

 

[unkbob]

As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.

Thank you. I wish people would quit ignoring the video side.

Perhaps what Canon really needs is a new category of lens, tailored to that particular industry, so "L" lenses would be for photographers and "C" would be for cinema, with IS and no focus breathing.

 

[Ryusui]

Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.

Just because they may not listen to everything you want in a lens/body doesn't mean they're not listening to their customers "at all". Obviously they're listening to customers. They're still selling merchandise, aren't they? From my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), they're still among the top in DSLR manufacturers.

You and millions of others want IS in a 24-70. Perhaps there are even more who do not want it. You can look around this forum, or hundreds of others if you like to try and make a score sheet. But bottom line, it won't compare to Canon's consumer research; add to that whatever they know about the R&D of making a 24-70 IS. For whatever reason, I guess Canon just feels it unnecessary and/or unfeasible to make a 24-70 IS. Or at least at this time.

 

[Loswr]

Perhaps what Canon really needs is a new category of lens, tailored to that particular industry, so "L" lenses would be for photographers and "C" would be for cinema....

Ummm...like this, perhaps? http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/cinema_lenses

 

[briansquibb]

As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.

Thank you. I wish people would quit ignoring the video side.

Perhaps what Canon really needs is a new category of lens, tailored to that particular industry, so "L" lenses would be for photographers and "C" would be for cinema, with IS and no focus breathing.

Well I dont want a 24-70

I carry two bodies mostly with a combination of 17-40, 24-105, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 plus 135 f/2 and 70-200 f2.8 II

I shoot mostly at f5.6/f/8 as I need the DOF. Shooting portraits in low light is daft. Shooting still objects then the tripod/monopod/flash come out. Shooting moving objects gives issues with motion blur at low shutter speeds. Perfect IQ at high ISO is impossible to achieve so sharp focus is the one area which is needed.

Canon's direction is to improve high ISO to allow faster shutter speeds - one stop at 1/60 means 1/125 which is more than enough for <100mm lens

 

[unkbob]

Perhaps what Canon really needs is a new category of lens, tailored to that particular industry, so "L" lenses would be for photographers and "C" would be for cinema....

Ummm...like this, perhaps? http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/cinema_lenses

Ha, yeah I guess so. Although those lenses will be silly money I expect. They're also fully manual and lack IS, right? So not ideal for everyone. I personally use AF a lot for video on my 5D2 so I can start shooting with minimal delay, although if the 5D2 had a higher resolution screen or EVF reliably nailing focus manually would be easier. Of course, you can zoom in but that takes away valuable seconds from the shot.

 

[JR]

Well I dont want a 24-70

I carry two bodies mostly with a combination of 17-40, 24-105, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 plus 135 f/2 and 70-200 f2.8 II

I shoot mostly at f5.6/f/8 as I need the DOF. Shooting portraits in low light is daft. Shooting still objects then the tripod/monopod/flash come out. Shooting moving objects gives issues with motion blur at low shutter speeds. Perfect IQ at high ISO is impossible to achieve so sharp focus is the one area which is needed.

Canon's direction is to improve high ISO to allow faster shutter speeds - one stop at 1/60 means 1/125 which is more than enough for <100mm lens

isn't there some benefit though of IS when we shoot video? I totally agree we dont need IS with 24-70mm focal range to take still picture, but in video mode if we use hand help, it would be useful? I know the 24-105 can do that, but I would like one zoom in the focal range that can excel at still picture and video - but then again maybe Canon wants me to buy two lens for this! ???

 

[pipinu]

EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

This new lens is overdue for too long. I have been waiting for it for over 12 months. Now I opt for buying the I probably within 20 days. Could anyone explain the major enhancement of II? Is it worth waiting for II out? Just saw http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/ef-35-f1-4l-ii-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-on-january-3-2012-cr2/, I bet II will be announced right after I buy I

Any advise?

 

[Radiating]

I think releasing this lens without IS is a mistake. It will cut out several key demographics:

- videographers
- those who are looking to shoot in low light
- amateur prosumers who need all the help they can get with fast lenses and IS
- people on crop bodies looking for a high end walk around lens other than the 17-55mm
- everyone shooting at or slower than, 1 / focal length.
- most importantly: those looking for an upgrade to the 24-105mm


Simply put Canon could make a "must have" lens that would be an instant hit for anyone or one that isn't.