24-70mm f/2.8L [IS!!!!11]

[alux0417]

I'd sell my 24-70 and buy the one with IS, because the IS will be useful for my handheld video shooting with a shoulder rig. The only reason I didn't get the 24-105 is because of the f/4 (not worth shooting FF video with f/4 - might as well buy a standard camcorder).

question: wouldn't it be much easier to focus with a smaller aperture on video?

 

[ismokeweed79]

question: wouldn't it be much easier to focus with a smaller aperture on video?

Maybe its for better OOF?

 

[Headshotzx]

question: wouldn't it be much easier to focus with a smaller aperture on video?

Yes, but when I'm shooting videos, I'd rather have the ability to stop down for more DOF, and then open up when I want the dreamy background Doing all this on a hand-held rig with IS would be great.

 

[engrmariano]

another never ending issue...

 

[evilorgi]

The reason for the dilemma in most people who are comparing the 24-70 and 24-105 is because its f2.8 vs IS + focal length.
If canon comes out a 24-70 f2.8 IS, then i believe it would cannibalize their 24-105 sales .

not exactly... how about a price tag of lets say S$3.2k vs 24-105's S$1.7k?? considered it being double the price will everybody jump at the 24-70L IS???

 

[alux0417]

Maybe its for better OOF?

Yes, but when I'm shooting videos, I'd rather have the ability to stop down for more DOF, and then open up when I want the dreamy background Doing all this on a hand-held rig with IS would be great.

ok got it thx:thumbsup:

 

[larlarloo]

I think if 24-70L came out with IS, the only remedy is for 24-105L to have f2.8 as well n it'd be interesting to see what'll happen! ;p :think:

 

[engrmariano]

I think if 24-70L came out with IS, the only remedy is for 24-105L to have f2.8 as well n it'd be interesting to see what'll happen! ;p :think:

not really...

if 24-105 f4 IS is around $1.4k & 24-70 f2.8 is around $1.8k, i suspect 24-70 f2.8 IS would be around $2.6k... with this price difference, no lens will be cannibalize, unless canon discontinued it...

just like their 70-200 lineup, no model was cannibalized even IS version came out. (of course with the exception of f2.8 IS Mk I)

 

[chris0804]

It doesn't matter. The current 24-70 is just fine, do not need IS because it is a very short lens. However, if it is the 70-200 f2.8 then the IS is a great feature to have. Cheers.

 

[Malicious]

IS would be good to have but at that focal length i guess its not needed as much. still the lens itself is pretty heavy so people that cant get a firm grib on their camera would probably lose out.

usually people would supplement with a monopod or tripod. to me overall IS = good to have but not needed for the 24-70. unless one needs to take videos but i do not take videos that often

 

[zozzcyx]

24-70 without IS is very much good enough for my use. Cant imagine the price of this lens with IS, furthermore the design of the lens is already intelligently designed to extend outwards when zooming out, granting more stability at 70mm as the lens will be shorter.

Anyway this topic has been around for so long, and the only reasonable upgrade would be a mark 2 version with better IQ etc I guess.

 

[flipfreak]

i buy lenses to suit what i need to do, not because i expect them to be the magic bullet.

 

[kencfk]

Well, 70-200 F2.8 IS did not cannibalise the F4 IS equilavent sales?
I see no problem with releasing a 24-70 F2.8 IS for Canon....think Nikon would be shaken and pressured.
Infact its a good move forward in technology and not lie stagnant there. Dont you think so?

 

[solasido]

i hope it will not be 24-70 f2.8L IS,

BUT 24-105L f2.8L IS
now i am on 24-70 and i miss my 24-105..