How much would you pay for Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L IS

[ChilledXpress]

.28 cents... about as much as I'd pay for a pegusus or the Man/Bear/Pig. I have never understood the need for eveything IS... like the masses begging for the 135 w/IS. It won't save poor technique or much beyond still work. I love the ability of it on a tele... like the 70-200 but honestly it is off 95% of the time on mine.

Again... For video IS is a massive +

Remember that the general rule for getting sharp images is focal length/shutter speed = <1

And that for video you are stuck at a shutter sped of 1/50th second if you want natural looking motion at 24/25 frames per second.

For the 135 that means you're very unlikely to get usable hand-held footage (unless you only need a very brief cutaway).

With a 4-stop IS system, you would be able to shoot reasonable hand-held video with a 135mm lens. Consequently for video shooters this would be a killer feature. It has nothing to do with poor technique (unless you count not having every shot locked off on a tripod/dolly/crane as poor technique I guess - but this is hardly feasible for low-budget event/documentary jobs). Much the same can be said about shooting handheld at 70mm - you might get away with it as it's closer to a 1:1 focal length to shutter speed ration - but IS will give you a steadier shot on a more consistent basis.

IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.

Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche. As a commercial/professional photographer I do take video but my bread and butter is from still work. I've always felt that video is a nice addition but not really the main concern for my body selection. I buy a video unit for video and a DSLR for still, so insisting that every lens has IS because it video friendly is like insisting all Ferraris must have a trailer hitch. You know, for that 5% of Italian sports car camping fanatics that travel with a camper.

Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Hm really? I think AF is more useful. I can live without IS on my lenses but i dont wanna trade AF. Useable high ISO might be the best i think. Way more than IS.

I don't think anyone is disputing how important AF is ... AF literally propelled Canon into top position.
What we are talking about is IS in the lens without compromising on AF, sharpness, IQ etc ... what if that lens is the sharpest canon lens ever, with the fastest and the most accurate AF ever and with minimum 4 stops IS, what would you be willing to pay?

 

[CarlTN]

.28 cents... about as much as I'd pay for a pegusus or the Man/Bear/Pig. I have never understood the need for eveything IS... like the masses begging for the 135 w/IS. It won't save poor technique or much beyond still work. I love the ability of it on a tele... like the 70-200 but honestly it is off 95% of the time on mine.

Again... For video IS is a massive +

Remember that the general rule for getting sharp images is focal length/shutter speed = <1

And that for video you are stuck at a shutter sped of 1/50th second if you want natural looking motion at 24/25 frames per second.

For the 135 that means you're very unlikely to get usable hand-held footage (unless you only need a very brief cutaway).

With a 4-stop IS system, you would be able to shoot reasonable hand-held video with a 135mm lens. Consequently for video shooters this would be a killer feature. It has nothing to do with poor technique (unless you count not having every shot locked off on a tripod/dolly/crane as poor technique I guess - but this is hardly feasible for low-budget event/documentary jobs). Much the same can be said about shooting handheld at 70mm - you might get away with it as it's closer to a 1:1 focal length to shutter speed ration - but IS will give you a steadier shot on a more consistent basis.

IS may not be what you look for or need for your own particular usage, however for others (particularly those focussed on video, or who make significant usage of video) IS is a massive advantage in a lens.

Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche. As a commercial/professional photographer I do take video but my bread and butter is from still work. I've always felt that video is a nice addition but not really the main concern for my body selection. I buy a video unit for video and a DSLR for still, so insisting that every lens has IS because it video friendly is like insisting all Ferraris must have a trailer hitch. You know, for that 5% of Italian sports car camping fanatics that travel with a camper.

Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.

Excellent and hilarious points! I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.

 

[picturesbyme]

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
:

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche.

Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.

A lot of wedding photographers are now using fusion, mixing video with stills ... and more and more couples are asking for fusion ... it would be foolish for those photographers to invest in Canon cinema lenses as they cost a fortune. Besides, the 24-70 f/2.8 L II is there for people like you who don't want IS, since it is new, it won't go anywhere if (hypothetically speaking) canon releases an IS version in 2013 or 2014. I don't think a general purpose zoom lens with IS will be all that heavy, I am sure we will still be able to carry it all day comfortably, unless someone is extremely weak.

 

[ablearcher]

i'll be happy to pay for 24-105 2.8 IS around $2300 price. That would be a golden lens. Not really interested in 24-70 fl.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.

I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
:

Please do not joke about such things ... Canon might take you seriously and we'd all be 5crewed, having to pay $7500 for our beloved lens. ;D

 

[syder]

my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.

A standard zoom is about as useful for video as it is for stills tbh - very. For most event work it gives you the flexibility to go from a general view/establishing shot to a medium close up. A 70-200 is a close up lens - also massively useful, especially at things like conferences where you can't necessarily get anywhere near the action.

Would a prime be better... Well it's much the same as with stills. If you have time to set things up just the way you want them then a prime will generally beat a zoom. For weddings/events/documentary style action then you don't really have that luxury, so having a zoom that will cover a bunch of useful focal lengths (24, 35, 50, 70) is pretty handy.

Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche.

Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.

A lot of wedding photographers are now using fusion, mixing video with stills ... and more and more couples are asking for fusion ... it would be foolish for those photographers to invest in Canon cinema lenses as they cost a fortune. Besides, the 24-70 f/2.8 L II is there for people like you who don't want IS, since it is new, it won't go anywhere if (hypothetically speaking) canon releases an IS version in 2013 or 2014. I don't think a general purpose zoom lens with IS will be all that heavy, I am sure we will still be able to carry it all day comfortably, unless someone is extremely weak.

+1

DSLR video is a way an awful lot of people make at least some of their money. Telling them they HAVE TO buy a £4k camera and £4k lenses just because you use your gear differently is just plain dumb.

 

[CarlTN]

I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.

I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!

You're sure everyone here is educated? I'm not...I meant, educate yourself formally...as in, go to film school. Learn how to shoot a "film" the right way, and not by following fads and trends of the wedding market. And stop telling me something is foolish just because you think it costs too much. Your competition may very well eventually budget for a C100, or similar (if they haven't already)...and steal your customers, so you might as well work toward getting one yourself. If you already own several DSLR bodies, a C100 would only take the place of two. Oh, and I'm perfectly relaxed...are you? Sheesh. Like I said, I'm tired of people who have the DSLR video mindset, thinking they can dictate how those who shoot primarily stills, should think. Control freak much?

I'm not against a 24-70 IS. But I am against one if it is meant primarily as a video lens...I doubt it would sell very well. I actually enjoy lenses with IS, for shooting stills. If the IS is working properly and used properly, it can add sharpness to a picture regardless of the shutter speed...fast or slow...in my opinion. It's just that there are varying levels of IS quality, depending on the individual lens, and focal length. I agree that a lens like the 24-70, at least at the wide end...could have problems with IS switched on, as was stated above.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I'm tired of all these people who insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video. You know, because stills photography is for old timers. Go buy a C100, educate yourself, and try to do some quality work, if you really need to do video.

I read all the posts in this thread but nobody said "stills photography is for old timers", neither did I see anyone "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... so relax, no need to get tired with unnecessary imaginations.
Just because we want to do a bit of video and feel IS would be an advantage to us, does not mean we have to buy C100, that's pretty foolish advise. Besides for those who don't need IS there is already an excelent 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens ... for those who would like IS, let us live in peace without giving us "holier than thou" comments like "educate yourself and try to do some quality work" ... I am sure everyone here is educated and trying to do quality work, thank you!

You're sure everyone here is educated? I'm not...I meant, educate yourself formally...as in, go to film school. Learn how to shoot a "film" the right way, and not by following fads and trends of the wedding market. And stop telling me something is foolish just because you think it costs too much. Your competition may very well eventually budget for a C100, or similar (if they haven't already)...and steal your customers, so you might as well work toward getting one yourself. If you already own several DSLR bodies, a C100 would only take the place of two. Oh, and I'm perfectly relaxed...are you? Sheesh. Like I said, I'm tired of people who have the DSLR video mindset, thinking they can dictate how those who shoot primarily stills, should think. Control freak much?

I'm not against a 24-70 IS. But I am against one if it is meant primarily as a video lens...I doubt it would sell very well. I actually enjoy lenses with IS, for shooting stills. If the IS is working properly and used properly, it can add sharpness to a picture regardless of the shutter speed...fast or slow...in my opinion. It's just that there are varying levels of IS quality, depending on the individual lens, and focal length. I agree that a lens like the 24-70, at least at the wide end...could have problems with IS switched on, as was stated above.

Thanks for your response. But I'm still waiting for where in this thread you saw anyone say "stills photography is for old timers", or "insist that the future of DSLR usage, is video" ... I mean that's what got you "tired" right? ;D
Coming to your question about if I was "sure everyone is educated?" ... yes I am sure ... education does not necessarily come only from going to a film school ... the fact that all these people come to forums like Canon Rumours to read others post their views shows their desire to learn. By the way there is nothing wrong if some photographers are "following fads and trends of the wedding market" coz not all photographers need C100 but "following fads and trends of the wedding market" could very well mean they are earning their daily bread with that or paying their mortgage or putting their kids through college ... it is not a crime or something to be ashamed of to follow fads and trends of the wedding market ... despite "following fads and trends of the wedding market" artistic pursuits can still go on. So lets not be so self-righteous.

 

[picturesbyme]

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
:

Please do not joke about such things ... Canon might take you seriously and we'd all be 5crewed, having to pay $7500 for our beloved lens. ;D

Haha.. I think it's too late, they already grabbed on to the idea..

The way I see camera gear is a tool for the "professionals" and a toy for big kids, hobbyists.
Nothing wrong with that but as every school yard, there are always kids who have more money than the rest and they want to be popular by "flashing" their stuff .
I see the same here. Some could take an amazing photo with a piece of emmental some couldn't with a 5d3/1dx if his life depend on it. Yet, these people have money and can and will buy the most expensive and/or the newest stuff even if they don't "need" it, because it's a status symbol. Look at me I have a ....
They (especially the flock of non pro early birds) practically "outbidding" each other and ensuring Canon that the price is not high.
More people, more social media and photography is getting more and more popular. Now there is a larger pool who can afford a lens at $2500 then many yrs ago.
Canon realized this (like Apple) and now the more they charge the more people want to buy.

A fun BBC movie "Secrets of the superbrands" pretty much explains it.

 

[Axilrod]

I don't think I would be willing to pay much more than $2500, and it would depend on the IQ compared to the 24-70L II. I just don't think that IS is very necessary for a 24-70mm. Sure, at 70mm I guess it would be helpful, but when I had a 24-70mm I shot mostly between 24-50mm, which IS doesn't really help much. I guess for video it could be a more beneficial, but for stills I don't think it would be worth the price difference.

 

[Daniel Flather]

$8

 

[Daniel Flather]

i'll be happy to pay for 24-105 2.8 IS around $2300 price. That would be a golden lens. Not really interested in 24-70 fl.

A.K.A. EF 100/2.8L macro.

 

[Dylan777]

I rather buy a tiny Sony rx1 with giant sensor for travel over sea. And yes, I did. It will arrive this coming thur.........Can't wait

Congrats! Enjoy your trip and do post some pics on your return

I just got back US last friday. Here are some pictures I took during the walk with my co-workers - around "L" Hotel areas, in Hong Kong. I still have 3 more trips to China this year, Sony RX1 will travel with me from now on

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/UYeiZxIK/1/5940288#imageID=179366059

If you ever plan visit HK, I recommend you book the "Executive Harbour View Room" at "L" Hotel. It has great view at night time. As you can see, I was shooting through 1" thick glass window. Not very clear, but you get the idea of this view.

Hotel site: http://www.lhotelcausewaybayhv.com/

 

[wickidwombat]

my question is however, how useful is a mid range zoom for video? would a prime be more desirable at those focal ranges? i see plenty of 70-200mm 2.8 IS lenses being used by video guys on the weddings i shoot but they are always locked down on tripods/dollys and as far as i know the focal length is not being changed during filming.

A standard zoom is about as useful for video as it is for stills tbh - very. For most event work it gives you the flexibility to go from a general view/establishing shot to a medium close up. A 70-200 is a close up lens - also massively useful, especially at things like conferences where you can't necessarily get anywhere near the action.

Would a prime be better... Well it's much the same as with stills. If you have time to set things up just the way you want them then a prime will generally beat a zoom. For weddings/events/documentary style action then you don't really have that luxury, so having a zoom that will cover a bunch of useful focal lengths (24, 35, 50, 70) is pretty handy.

Yes, but we are talking about DSLRs where video is a niche.

Canon makes cinema lenses... buy one if that is your interest, leave the cost and weight out of the design of most DSLR lenses.

A lot of wedding photographers are now using fusion, mixing video with stills ... and more and more couples are asking for fusion ... it would be foolish for those photographers to invest in Canon cinema lenses as they cost a fortune. Besides, the 24-70 f/2.8 L II is there for people like you who don't want IS, since it is new, it won't go anywhere if (hypothetically speaking) canon releases an IS version in 2013 or 2014. I don't think a general purpose zoom lens with IS will be all that heavy, I am sure we will still be able to carry it all day comfortably, unless someone is extremely weak.

+1

DSLR video is a way an awful lot of people make at least some of their money. Telling them they HAVE TO buy a £4k camera and £4k lenses just because you use your gear differently is just plain dumb.

+1000

mixed media is become an increasingly more common client request

 

[Rienzphotoz]

$8

If Canon sells it for $8, I will become Santa Claus, order 100 EF 24-70 f/2.8 L IS lenses and gift 99 to the followers of Canon Rumors as my Christmas present ... first one will be for you ;D I'll keep the 100th one (the first 99 will be beta testers, so I can keep the sharpest copy of the lot ;D)
But on second thoughts I don't think that's gonna happen coz 'picturesbyme' 5crewed us all with his $7500 offer, and word has it that Canon "already grabbed on to the idea" ;D

 

[Meh]

$5000, but if it comes with the new cap maybe $7500.
:

Please do not joke about such things ... Canon might take you seriously and we'd all be 5crewed, having to pay $7500 for our beloved lens. ;D

Haha.. I think it's too late, they already grabbed on to the idea..

The way I see camera gear is a tool for the "professionals" and a toy for big kids, hobbyists.
Nothing wrong with that but as every school yard, there are always kids who have more money than the rest and they want to be popular by "flashing" their stuff .
I see the same here. Some could take an amazing photo with a piece of emmental some couldn't with a 5d3/1dx if his life depend on it. Yet, these people have money and can and will buy the most expensive and/or the newest stuff even if they don't "need" it, because it's a status symbol. Look at me I have a ....
They (especially the flock of non pro early birds) practically "outbidding" each other and ensuring Canon that the price is not high.
More people, more social media and photography is getting more and more popular. Now there is a larger pool who can afford a lens at $2500 then many yrs ago.
Canon realized this (like Apple) and now the more they charge the more people want to buy.

A fun BBC movie "Secrets of the superbrands" pretty much explains it.

May I offer you some cheese to go with that wine?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I just got back US last friday. Here are some pictures I took during the walk with my co-workers - around "L" Hotel areas, in Hong Kong. I still have 3 more trips to China this year, Sony RX1 will travel with me from now on

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/UYeiZxIK/1/5940288#imageID=179366059

If you ever plan visit HK, I recommend you book the "Executive Harbour View Room" at "L" Hotel. It has great view at night time. As you can see, I was shooting through 1" thick glass window. Not very clear, but you get the idea of this view.

Hotel site: http://www.lhotelcausewaybayhv.com/

Nice! ... thanks for the tip ... will keep "L" in mind for my next trip to Hongkong, hopeully in December.