M
muteteh
Guest
scott said:I want the EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but think it will easily be $700 more since it will have IS.
Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?
Upvote
0
scott said:I want the EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but think it will easily be $700 more since it will have IS.
muteteh said:Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?
ronderick said:muteteh said:Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?
There's been reports of QC issues with the current EF 24-70mm (focusing problems, etc.).
Also, an H-IS version of this mid-range zoom would give you more control in low-light situations.
ronderick said:muteteh said:Why is it that so many people want an EF 24-70mm lens with IS ?
There's been reports of QC issues with the current EF 24-70mm (focusing problems, etc.).
ronderick said:Also, an H-IS version of this mid-range zoom would give you more control in low-light situations.
kubelik said:... I would suspect that it's because people haven't been clamoring for a 24-70 L IS until fairly recently ... and it's still not clear to me if there's actually a lot of people out there clamoring for it, or if it's just on the CR forums. the 24-70 L is one of the first lenses that anyone who goes full-frame gets, so basically everyone has to decide to upgrade to a 24-70 L IS that costs in the $2K range ...
I thought the Hybrid IS of the 100mm macro was specifically designed for that situation - where you are rotating the lens, but not moving it up or down, in order to follow a subject.Sebastian said:As I have pointed out earlier on the CR blog, IS doesn't help you one tiny bit if your subject's moving. Yes, that might happen...
Edwin Herdman said:I thought the Hybrid IS of the 100mm macro was specifically designed for that situation - where you are rotating the lens, but not moving it up or down, in order to follow a subject.Sebastian said:As I have pointed out earlier on the CR blog, IS doesn't help you one tiny bit if your subject's moving. Yes, that might happen...
kubelik said:approaching this slightly differently, it's not like Canon even has to officially declare a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8 L ... they can go ahead a release a new IS version and continue to sell the original. there's probably going to be a significant enough price gap that these will now serve different tiers of the market. so the fact that the original has only been on market for 8 years is irrelevant
Flake said:Not a chance of replacing the 28 - 300mm IS L, it was only released in 2004 replacing the 35 - 350mm version, and is a good performer. How on earth do you think they could improve it realistically?
IS is 3rd generation, and the amount of glass required and pro spec body means it's going to weigh quite a bit.
There are quite a few lenses I'd like to see replaced before this one, the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L and a new decent performing wide angle too!