Re: New Rebel & EF 11-24 f/4L USM Coming Shortly
Neither of us wrote anything about the price of adding IS to lenses: the comments were about IS versus image quality. Price was mentioned only in relation to mounting filters on lenses with bulbous front elements
Where did I write that?
Perhaps English is not your first language, or in future, you should read posts more carefully before replying?
ashmadux said:traveller said:PureClassA said:RE: 11-24 f4
I would guess no IS because Canon wanted to go all in on sheer optics, and I know historically they have had some issues employing both (like the first 70-200 IS L) Perhaps a field of view this wide created too big a a hurdle to overcome for an IS motor without having to sacrifice a bit of edge sharpness? I'm just guessing, Dylan. That said, the 16-35 f4 (FABULOUS glass, I own it) is such a great all around wide angle for the money. But, for the high end pros who demand the utmost precision from corner to corner, methinks they are mostly shooting tripod/monopod anyway. I know I shoot my 16-35 on tripod for landscape stuff as much as possible, negating the use of IS anyway.
This is for a different level of landscape shooting where obviously you're going to spend hundreds more on an expensive filter kit to buckle to the front of this light bulb anyway.
You are quoting the internet lore that the 70-200mm f/2.8L is sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS? I'm not sure that there is any real difference other than sample variation. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on the other hand is clearly superior to both its predecessors. That being said, there may be more issues with implementing IS on wide angle lenses; I'm sure someone on this forum will have a geeky answer!
You're right about the filter kit, but it isn't just the price that puts me off: the standard Lee filters are already big enough, how you go about carrying the monsters that are made for the bulbous-fronted lenses without a separate bag would be a challenge.
IS means higher prices?
IS means you make your shots, that's a heck of a lot more important. I really feel its a useless argument, Canon will still price the lens however they want. High end pros...heck, everyone uses thier hand for photos also hehe ;D ;D ;D
The 70-200 2.8 is most definitely not sharper than the II IS version....where would that info even come from...its all in the readily available charts.
Neither of us wrote anything about the price of adding IS to lenses: the comments were about IS versus image quality. Price was mentioned only in relation to mounting filters on lenses with bulbous front elements
Where did I write that?
Perhaps English is not your first language, or in future, you should read posts more carefully before replying?
Upvote
0