Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
- Thread starter Radiating
- Start date
- Status
Radiating said:
I'm not sure what you're evidence for that is but I doubt that this is the only reason. A 90-some filter size would also mean a lot more glass, weight - well and cost. The extra cost for filters would likely be a drop in the bucket at that point.
I'm sure it's more a marketing decision as to what they can really sell and for how much. I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.
The regular 24-70 type zooms have been plenty good for decades and I don't see how the weight/cost/size trade-off for IS would be valuable for those people who rely on them every day. Canon strikes me as one of those companies that is really good at analyzing their markets (despite the occasional clunker).
Upvote
0
I think it'd mostly be for videographers, but it helps in journalistic photography as well - you don't always have time to mind your balance and occasionally you might even want to make a running shot. Sometimes you just need to shoot and hope for the best, and IS will help you improve the odds in such cases.7enderbender said:
Upvote
0
AprilForever said:
lol... Me too. That would be a awesome looking lens! The bigger the better! I think the decision to not release the IS version was about the price point rather than filter size. The 24-70 IS could be the new number one lens used by pros, but $3000+ would send most people running to Tamron or other cheaper alternatives.
Upvote
0
Actually, if the 24-70 f/2.8 IS had a front element that large, wouldn't Canon just make it work with their drop-in filters? Seems silly to imagine they would even allow a 95mm front filter ring when they have another system already designed to solve the problem. And, it brings more filter customers (where a 95mm filter would mean cash for B+W, etc).
But, I agree that the premise is crap. All the lenses where they have non-IS and IS versions usually have the same filter size (70-200's for example). And they can do 24 f/2.8 IS with a 58mm filter size. So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?
But, I agree that the premise is crap. All the lenses where they have non-IS and IS versions usually have the same filter size (70-200's for example). And they can do 24 f/2.8 IS with a 58mm filter size. So, why does it suddenly have to be 50% larger to add IS?
Upvote
0
preppyak said:
I'm not a Canon engineer, but I was thinking the same thing. Tamron did it with an 82mm filter. Why can't Canon?
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Sort of like that pimped-out nifty-fifty!
LOL... winter is awful and lasts way too long and with lenses that aren't weather sealed, I have used strips of stretch parafilm at the lens/mount-joint or the whole lens if it is internally focusing.
Granted, it doesn't look as clean as the pimped out nifty-fifty you posted.
It looks like ghetto bandaid holding up the lens and falls off more often than not.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Rat said:
This of course has been discussed n times - and even wedding photogs who shoot posed candids would profit from the IS, though it's not strictly necessary for events because of subject movement and IS lock in time.
FatDaddyJones said:
Probably Canon marketing thought impressive glass size to be necessary to make the €3500 price tag appear more justified
Upvote
0
This thread is just silly. There is no reason whatsoever for a 24-70/2.8 IS to have or need a larger front element than a 24-70/2.8 non-IS.
Upvote
0
bvukich said:
Also, some of the posts give the impression that a front elelement over 90mm is a done deal and build further on that soft-cheese foundation. I think the 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm filters (and the legacy smaller sizes) will be the consumer L lens range for many years to come.
Upvote
0
A google search led me back here to another post mentioning the 24-70 and a 95mm filter size. OP was the same that mentioned it in the other thread. Not sure where the info is from. Radiating, where did you hear about the 95mm filter size?
Upvote
0
I too wonder how he came up with 95 ... why not 86? or 82?neuroanatomist said:bvukich said:
Which is why, upon reflection, I asked for some evidence from the OP. I wonder if he can produce some... :
But gotta admit that a 95mm front element would make a relatively modest sized 24-70mm lens look awesomely intimidating.
Upvote
0
I've never heard that one either, but a larger front element would boost the price a lot for a relatively small difference in size, perhaps even double the price. Those large lens elements ground to less than a millionth of a inch accuracy get insanely expensive as they get larger. The cost of a larger filter would only be a few hundred dollars.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:bvukich said:
Which is why, upon reflection, I asked for some evidence from the OP. I wonder if he can produce some... :
Seriously Neuro, what's with your obsession with evidence, logic, and reasoning? Frankly, it's getting old and tiresome.
Upvote
0
I would never base my decision to buy what would be a really expensive lens on the size or cost of a filter, only on the quality of the photographs that could be achieved with it.
Upvote
0
- Status
