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

[briansquibb]

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.

These people would be SO disappointed to buy a $2000 lens to find that they get pictures with motion blur when they think that IS will buy them tack sharp images. Think how many returns there would be because the image was 'soft' as they took pictures of people or pets at 1/30.

Higher ISO performance on modern bodies means higher shutter speeds which in turn means that ISO is no longer needed for short lens.

I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:

- the f2.8 helps those looking to shoot in low light/shallow DOF
- the IQ should be better than the 24-105 (which is actually very good in firld use)

IS buys nothing for these users - it would only be a marketing gimic. In the budget, prosumer ranges IS has a use as the users dont buy bodies with high ISO capability so IS is needed for lens such as the 55-250. The 24-105 only has IS as it was designed in the days where bodies struggled to get more than ISO 400 so the argument was to shoot at ISO400 and rely on IS for speeds at 1/80 or so ( but still fast enough to get rid of motion blur).

To illustrate what I mean here is a picture at 1/30 - tack sharp except where there is motion blur. Even using the formula of 1/focal length this should work -it does except the subject moved. Imagine how I would have felt if I had upgraded to a 24-70 with the magic IS and got exactly the same blur .....

 

[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.

These people would be SO disappointed to buy a $2000 lens to find that they get pictures with motion blur when they think that IS will buy them tack sharp images. Think how many returns there would be because the image was 'soft' as they took pictures of people or pets at 1/30.

Higher ISO performance on modern bodies means higher shutter speeds which in turn means that ISO is no longer needed for short lens.

I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:

- the f2.8 helps those looking to shoot in low light/shallow DOF
- the IQ should be better than the 24-105 (which is actually very good in firld use)

IS buys nothing for these users - it would only be a marketing gimic. In the budget, prosumer ranges IS has a use as the users dont buy bodies with high ISO capability so IS is needed for lens such as the 55-250. The 24-105 only has IS as it was designed in the days where bodies struggled to get more than ISO 400 so the argument was to shoot at ISO400 and rely on IS for speeds at 1/80 or so ( but still fast enough to get rid of motion blur).

To illustrate what I mean here is a picture at 1/30 - tack sharp except where there is motion blur. Even using the formula of 1/focal length this should work -it does except the subject moved. Imagine how I would have felt if I had upgraded to a 24-70 with the magic IS and got exactly the same blur .....

You seem to have these delusional ideas about how Canon implements IS and how people use it. IS is not a party trick that is going to completely dissapear when Canon gets its high ISO performance down. In fact as someone versed in the physics of cameras I can tell you IS will be beneficial until the end of time. IS is not going away. I am confident also that the vast majority of people using a $2000 lens will know how IS works. You really do not seem to understand the strong points of IS and when to use it and who needs it. It is very useful on a wide lens and I use it all the time at 24-50mm so do many people. For example there are these things called still life photos which have no motion blur, I take several of these at night all the time which I get paid for. Furthermore when you combine IS, faster lenses and high ISO you get a breakthrough in low light performance, that pushes the limits of technology, which is why a lens like this would be significant. To avoid pushing the limits of technology will make Canon a dinosaur besides gimping a great lens.

 

[briansquibb]

You seem to have these delusional ideas about how Canon implements IS and how people use it. IS is not a party trick that is going to completely dissapear when Canon gets its high ISO performance down. In fact as someone versed in the physics of cameras I can tell you IS will be beneficial until the end of time. IS is not going away. I am confident also that the vast majority of people using a $2000 lens will know how IS works. You really do not seem to understand the strong points of IS and when to use it and who needs it. It is very useful on a wide lens and I use it all the time at 24-50mm so do many people. For example there are these things called still life photos which have no motion blur, I take several of these at night all the time which I get paid for. Furthermore when you combine IS, faster lenses and high ISO you get a breakthrough in low light performance, that pushes the limits of technology, which is why a lens like this would be significant. To avoid pushing the limits of technology will make Canon a dinosaur besides gimping a great lens.

Old school shooters like me do understand what IS is all about and how new shooters abuse it - we see them in our photoclub every week.

Still life photos - tripod or the like and turn off IS is Canons recommended approach.

When are you going to give us a real life example of where IS will really help and there are no alternatives? I have shown you how it would not help street shooters, sport shooters, concert shooters, wedding shooters etc.

What is your response? - to give personal abuse when you have no idea whom you are talking to and therefore cannot possibly substantiate your remarks with fact

The facts as you have presented them is that is if you turn up with the wrong equipment you want this magic lens to compensate. The cost of this magic lens will be mega bucks.

At least Canon will still be in business as a high IQ 24-70 at a reasonable cost will sell like hot cakes, a high IQ 24-70 IS at double the price wont sell to the average prosumer (they will probably go with the 24-105). So Canon have focussed their energies on the high ISO route instead where everyone benefits from their existing investment in lens etc.

You are so focussed on low light had it not occurred to you that there a lot of people wanting to take pictures on f/5.6, f/8 @1/125 @iso6400? Nope you just want too avoid carrying a support to take static items in the dark.

Smell the coffee and think of another way of acheiving what you want. Heaven forbid using muliple speedlights in the dark - try 3 - one on the hotshoe, two free standing. Nothing you cant light up then - and you will get change from avoiding IS on ONE lens - and a MUCH better picture as a bonus.

 

[torger]

I find IS to be very useful when photographing people at events. I'm often photographing situations when people are fairly static so even a 1/30 shutter speed is not so affected by motion blur. There's also often situations where it is nice with some motion blur but want all static parts sharp.

I also think that holding the camera still is a talent that is quite hard to improve significantly, either you can hold your hand still (and you could work as a clockmaker), or you can't. I don't have clockmaker hands and I need 1/100 even for shorter focal lengths to get them reasonably sharp. For me it is more likely that a 200mm image using the 70-200/2.8 IS II gets sharp at 1/50 than a 50mm at 1/50 using my 50/1.4 prime (it is a pity that the Av + auto-ISO mode cannot be configured to work for us shaky-hands).

Hand-held sharpness is also a very relative term, they never get as sharp as tripod with mirror up. I haven't done any formal tests but I would think that there's a shutter speed range, perhaps 1/100 - 1/250, where IS makes a "sharp" picture even sharper, and that's valuable too. Modern digital sensors are capable of higher resolution at low light than film, so it takes more to max out what the camera can do.

If the 24-70 II comes without IS I will likely not buy it, then I rather continue use primes in that range as I do today.

 

[briansquibb]

(it is a pity that the Av + auto-ISO mode cannot be configured to work for us shaky-hands).

I dont know what camera you use but the 1D4 and the 7D work best on manual and auto ISO.

Set the shutter speed and the aperture and let the iso adjust. I find that 1/30 on the 17-40 is shake free.

Regular motion blur starts to disapear at about 1/50 so by 1/80 you are getting good IQ from shorter focal lengths.

Yes I have shake free hands

 

[scottsdaleriots]

It doesn't make sense to me to re-release a lens without IS, I've said it before and am saying it again. Fixing up a few minor things/adjustments? As someone mentioned earlier Canon will lost business and losing a lot of the demographics. People don't just take photos these days with their cameras and fork out thousands of $$$ just for pics (some people do though), quite a lot of people make videos and short films and such. I think having IS on a 24-70 lens will only improve it's features. I can picture someone typing out a long paragraph disagreeing with me about having IS on this lens lol.

I mean if you don't want the IS just get the mkI version if you do want IS (like me) get the 24-70 2.8 IS (if they release it with IS).

 

[wickidwombat]

You seem to have these delusional ideas about how Canon implements IS and how people use it. IS is not a party trick that is going to completely dissapear when Canon gets its high ISO performance down. In fact as someone versed in the physics of cameras I can tell you IS will be beneficial until the end of time. IS is not going away. I am confident also that the vast majority of people using a $2000 lens will know how IS works. You really do not seem to understand the strong points of IS and when to use it and who needs it. It is very useful on a wide lens and I use it all the time at 24-50mm so do many people. For example there are these things called still life photos which have no motion blur, I take several of these at night all the time which I get paid for. Furthermore when you combine IS, faster lenses and high ISO you get a breakthrough in low light performance, that pushes the limits of technology, which is why a lens like this would be significant. To avoid pushing the limits of technology will make Canon a dinosaur besides gimping a great lens.

Old school shooters like me do understand what IS is all about and how new shooters abuse it - we see them in our photoclub every week.

Still life photos - tripod or the like and turn off IS is Canons recommended approach.

When are you going to give us a real life example of where IS will really help and there are no alternatives? I have shown you how it would not help street shooters, sport shooters, concert shooters, wedding shooters etc.

What is your response? - to give personal abuse when you have no idea whom you are talking to and therefore cannot possibly substantiate your remarks with fact

The facts as you have presented them is that is if you turn up with the wrong equipment you want this magic lens to compensate. The cost of this magic lens will be mega bucks.

At least Canon will still be in business as a high IQ 24-70 at a reasonable cost will sell like hot cakes, a high IQ 24-70 IS at double the price wont sell to the average prosumer (they will probably go with the 24-105). So Canon have focussed their energies on the high ISO route instead where everyone benefits from their existing investment in lens etc.

You are so focussed on low light had it not occurred to you that there a lot of people wanting to take pictures on f/5.6, f/8 @1/125 @iso6400? Nope you just want too avoid carrying a support to take static items in the dark.

Smell the coffee and think of another way of acheiving what you want. Heaven forbid using muliple speedlights in the dark - try 3 - one on the hotshoe, two free standing. Nothing you cant light up then - and you will get change from avoiding IS on ONE lens - and a MUCH better picture as a bonus.

if you are standing on something moving or vibrating and are shooting something else that is stationary then IS is king and a tripod cannot help you

 

[whatta]

btw, could someone tell us which were the last 5 non L prime lenses with year? if I remember well, canon is not so keen on refreshing non L primes.. thanks

 

[photogaz]

Seriously, what is up with all the people suggesting IS is pointless in short lenses? Do you ever use a tripod on short lenses? Ofcourse you do. I love doing walk around stuff in low light and sometimes IS will give me that extra room to shoot stuff in low light.

I hope this lens has IS but I really can't see it doing so.

 

[torger]

(it is a pity that the Av + auto-ISO mode cannot be configured to work for us shaky-hands).

I dont know what camera you use but the 1D4 and the 7D work best on manual and auto ISO.

Set the shutter speed and the aperture and let the iso adjust. I find that 1/30 on the 17-40 is shake free.

Regular motion blur starts to disapear at about 1/50 so by 1/80 you are getting good IQ from shorter focal lengths.

Yes I have shake free hands

Manual+auto ISO is my typical choice for low light photo when using the 7D, it's nice (the standard APS-C zooms also have IS by the way). This mode is unfortunately not available on the 5Dmk2 which I also use. With a really tight camera strap and some careful relaxation I too can get pictures sharp around 1/50-1/30, but I just miss too many of them, so I usually want no slower than 1/100. My guess is that I am a bit shakier than the average person though, I just can't help it .

 

[japhoto]

Old school shooters like me do understand what IS is all about and how new shooters abuse it - we see them in our photoclub every week.

Still life photos - tripod or the like and turn off IS is Canons recommended approach.

When are you going to give us a real life example of where IS will really help and there are no alternatives? I have shown you how it would not help street shooters, sport shooters, concert shooters, wedding shooters etc.

What is your response? - to give personal abuse when you have no idea whom you are talking to and therefore cannot possibly substantiate your remarks with fact

The facts as you have presented them is that is if you turn up with the wrong equipment you want this magic lens to compensate. The cost of this magic lens will be mega bucks.

At least Canon will still be in business as a high IQ 24-70 at a reasonable cost will sell like hot cakes, a high IQ 24-70 IS at double the price wont sell to the average prosumer (they will probably go with the 24-105). So Canon have focussed their energies on the high ISO route instead where everyone benefits from their existing investment in lens etc.

You are so focussed on low light had it not occurred to you that there a lot of people wanting to take pictures on f/5.6, f/8 @1/125 @iso6400? Nope you just want too avoid carrying a support to take static items in the dark.

Smell the coffee and think of another way of acheiving what you want. Heaven forbid using muliple speedlights in the dark - try 3 - one on the hotshoe, two free standing. Nothing you cant light up then - and you will get change from avoiding IS on ONE lens - and a MUCH better picture as a bonus.

I guess you're one of the lucky who have "clockmaker" hands, but I still really really can't understand your attitude towards IS.

First of all, how do the new photographers "abuse" the IS system? Just using the word abuse makes no sense when the system is designed to aid photographers to get sharp images.

I can understand that they might not understand how it doesn't stop motion blur for example, but what it does quite effectively is stopping the shake coming from the photographer itself.

The next thing I would argue is that a shutter speed of 1/focal length isn't nearly enough anymore. Firstly if you're shooting APS-C, I'd multiply it by 1.6 and with high density sensors (7D, 5DMkII, 60D...) I'd multiply it by 2.6 to get really sharp images on a pixel level without IS. So why on earth wouldn't IS help here even on shorter focal lengths?

What about bumping up the ISO then, the low ISO noise of my 7D is bad enough, so every single thing to enable me to go down on ISO is welcomed, but not going up. I'll ask this again, why do you want a lens that's optically great and then bump up the ISO to effectively decimate the achievable resolution?

On with a few examples:

-Someone already said that when taking photos from a platform that's shaking (a ferry for example), tripod won't do you any good.
-Wedding shooters, wanting motion blur on the people, but not to the whole picture.
-Sports shooters, wanting to do a panning shot where IS helps a lot.
-Nature photographers, wanting to blur the water, but not the surroundings.
-When working close to the MFD of a lens when the magnification is greater.

And generally to anyone who want better IQ when hand-holding the camera.

Yes, I can use my tripod, but even though it is a carbon fiber tripod, it's heavy and large, so there are places where I can't use it or the situation would be over before getting the tripod set up. By that I mean for example a bird shot, but that's usually with a longer focal length (not always though).

Also I wouldn't take my tripod in a busy public event where I'm not shooting the people, but "still life" (the Tall Ships Races from this summer comes to mind). The tripod was also almost unusable at the local botanical garden where the pathways are quite narrow. The result is that the hand-held 24-70 shots are almost all blurred with a few "acceptable" ones but almost all photos taken with the 70-200II IS are sharp even on a pixel level.

I won't argue about Canon taking the high ISO route (and it's great to have such clean images at higher ISOs), but I still would use IS much rather than bumping up the ISO. Mind you that I seldom shoot people or anything moving at least on the shorter focal lengths.

And why are you fixated on the fact that IS only helps when it's dark? Using smaller apertures in daylight (to achieve more DOF) brings the problem around just as quickly. Why bump the ISO when I can go with ISO 100 and a longer shutter speed?

Things are different when you are going to a specific spot and have a specific goal & a clear vision about the photograph you want to take. Then the IS isn't necessary, I'll surely bring my tripod and maybe even my flashes with softboxes and studio stands, but the situation I'm trying to explain here is the day-to-day usage of a lens, photowalks etc. and especially if you're not a professional photographer (although I'm pretty sure the professionals shoot for fun sometimes also).

Also, "Nothing you cant light up then" - I can think of multiple things I can't light with speedlights or even studio strobes, but I guess you only think about shooting people. Maybe you should open up your mind to the fact that there are a lot of people shooting everything but moving subjects and they would like to do that sometimes without lugging around a van full of gear.

The price point is a good point though, because I can't see the IS version of this lens being cheap. Only the tests and first hand experience with the lens would show if it would actually be worth the price difference.

 

[briansquibb]

I just love the way that the argument has turned around so that it is me fixated with low light

All that I have ever put forward is:
- for short lens a shutter speed of < 1/80 is needed else motion blur can become an issue.
- Canon are going for high ISO to allow higher shutter speeds, one stop makes a big difference to 1/30
- I have said that there are other ways of getting a low speed shot such as using a tripod - perhaps I should have also listed all the other supports such as monopod, beanbags, SWBO shoulder etc etc to enable a longer shutter speed
- the consequence of adding IS would probably reduce Canon's sales due to the increased price

Remember we are looking at future directions not today's issues

I have now been labelled as anti IS - not so, it has its place like all tools. You will probably spot that I actually have some IS lens - however it isn't the golden egg that will get high IQ shots in bad situations. Chances are if you are having problems with a non (short) IS lens then you will have problems with an IS lens if it is low light

I do remember stating very early on that there are a lot of people (me included) that shoot in poor light at f5.6/f8 that need to be catered for.

Perhaps all those really upset that the 24-70 wont be getting IS should also be campaigning for IS in all the other lens of this range like the 50 f/1.2 or the other short primes.

Anyway just for those that are demonising me as an anti IS person fixated with low light shots - here is a photo taken at 1/30 with an IS lens taken at iso 100

 

[Loswr]

I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:

- the f2.8 helps those looking to shoot in low light/shallow DOF
- the IQ should be better than the 24-105 (which is actually very good in firld use)

IS buys nothing for these users - it would only be a marketing gimic. In the budget, prosumer ranges IS has a use as the users dont buy bodies with high ISO capability so IS is needed for lens such as the 55-250.

And yet...Nikon put VR into a 16-35mm lens costing north of $1K and thus not intended for the 'consumer' market for which a lens like the 55-250mm is attractive. So, does Nikon have no clue?

Granted, for some IS amounts to a crutch. Anyone who claims that it obviates the need for a tripod is an idiot (e.g. KR). But for those who understand it's uses and it's limitations, it's another tool in the toolbox, just like good high ISO performance.

Personally, I'd like to see IS in more lenses in the shorter focal length range. It's in the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, a 'fast' lens of an APS-C-adjusted focal length quite similar to the 24-70mm, and also a lens costing north of $1K and not in the consumer class.

Sure, I'd even like it in the 50mm f/1.2L...why not? Ok, I can think of one reason - decreased IQ. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkI is the worst-performing of the 70-200mm options, and despite being newer than the non-IS verison, it's not as good, optically. So, if the inclusing of IS results in an IQ hit, leave it out. But the MkII of that lens clearly shows excellent IQ is possible with IS (as do the supertele primes, of course). It's a tool, but a useful one.

I'm sure Canon can run the sales estimates and determine which version - more expensive IS or cheaper non-IS - would yield greater profit, and that's the one they'll make. But from a consumer standpoint, I'll pay more for IS in shorter lenses. IF that means a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is $2500, fine.

I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:

I have yet to hear viable a justification for not including it... (besides the possibility of a technical problem).

 

[briansquibb]

I have yet to hear viable a justification for not including it... (besides the possibility of a technical problem).

You said it yourself - cost and IQ

 

[japhoto]

I just love the way that the argument has turned around so that it is me fixated with low light

All that I have ever put forward is:
- for short lens a shutter speed of < 1/80 is needed else motion blur can become an issue.
- Canon are going for high ISO to allow higher shutter speeds, one stop makes a big difference to 1/30
- I have said that there are other ways of getting a low speed shot such as using a tripod - perhaps I should have also listed all the other supports such as monopod, beanbags, SWBO shoulder etc etc to enable a longer shutter speed
- the consequence of adding IS would probably reduce Canon's sales due to the increased price

Remember we are looking at future directions not today's issues

I have now been labelled as anti IS - not so, it has its place like all tools. You will probably spot that I actually have some IS lens - however it isn't the golden egg that will get high IQ shots in bad situations. Chances are if you are having problems with a non (short) IS lens then you will have problems with an IS lens if it is low light

I do remember stating very early on that there are a lot of people (me included) that shoot in poor light at f5.6/f8 that need to be catered for.

Perhaps all those really upset that the 24-70 wont be getting IS should also be campaigning for IS in all the other lens of this range like the 50 f/1.2 or the other short primes.

Anyway just for those that are demonising me as an anti IS person fixated with low light shots - here is a photo taken at 1/30 with an IS lens taken at iso 100

Hey briansquibb,

I might have read wrong the statement you made about low light, so sorry if I made you the "darkness fixated" photographer here

I'd still argue that say for the 24-70L coupled with 7D, I'd like to be somewhere around 1/200 to 1/250 to be confident that I get a crisp shot. That's for the long end though, maybe around 1/100 would be sufficient enough for the wider end.

So instead of bumping up the ISO here (and still be worried about camera shake), I'd rather use IS.

Small example, I'm metering 1/80 at f/4 and ISO100, so instead of going to 1/250-320 at f/4 and ISO400, I can happily take the shot with that shutter speed and not even worry too much about motion blur.

Canon is undeniably improving the ISO, but why not have best of both worlds, high ISO + IS?

And yes, I got you even before with the different ways of improving low shutter speed shots, but just walking around they aren't always possible to utilize.

Reduced sales are a double-edged sword, price increases are never too welcomed, but then again if you gain IS and optical improvements, I think many will cough it up. So if they make it optically as good as the 70-200II and with IS, I bet it would be a big seller.

I also agree that we and Canon are looking at the future and it so seems that the Mp race isn't over, which also means smaller pixels. This requires optical improvements, but I'd say it also would benefit greatly from having IS. The 1Dx might be crazy in low light and with high ISOs, but Canon will probably have to answer Nikon if they roll out with 36Mp full-frame and that camera might not be as good with high ISOs + the sensor will show even slightest camera movement during the shot.

I even agree that IS is a tool among other tools and that it isn't a "magic bullet" or a "golden egg", but it has improved a lot of my shots in let's say "challenging" situations. It even improves shots taken in good situations, so I'd welcome it with opened arms.

You stated that shooting in poor light at f/5.6-8 needs to be catered. In what way adding IS to the 24-70L would not cater for that situation?

And yes, ideally I'd like to see IS even on the 8-15mm fisheye or the 14mm f/2.8L. Not to mention longer focal lengths. The only downside being the cost, but I don't see any other disadvantage in it otherwise.

Nice panning shot btw.

 

[japhoto]

I have yet to hear viable a justification for not including it... (besides the possibility of a technical problem).

You said it yourself - cost and IQ

Again, I'd say that the 70-200II has proven both of those things wrong.

Not of course the fact that the price would increase substantially, but the point that even if it does, people will still buy it.

As for the IQ, not many people see anything wrong with the 70-200II IQ and it has IS...

 

[axismundi]

I'm still not sure - buying the current 24-70 now is safe in terms of good/money or stupid idea?

 

[briansquibb]

I'm still not sure - buying the current 24-70 now is safe in terms of good/money or stupid idea?

I would wait until Jan 3 to decide

 

[Axilrod]

I liked the 24-70, just not enough to keep it. Had a few different copies, one of them stood out more than the others.

As for the new one, I could care less about IS, but I'll say this: One of the sharpest zooms I've ever used was the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (28-80 FF equivalent I think..) and I think alot of it had to do with the IS. So I can see its potential benefit on an L lens with a similar range, but its not a dealbreaker for me. I know the cost will be higher with IS so I'll give the VII a try either way.

 

[Axilrod]

I'm still not sure - buying the current 24-70 now is safe in terms of good/money or stupid idea?

The fact that it's on sale for around $1100 right now doesnt hurt, and considering it's been $1399 in the last few years I would say you're fine. Id say youd still be able to get $1k out of it in a year