if u are willing to pay almost $3k for 24-70IS...im sure u will have no problem investing in the 35L. =) light, compact and it is f/1.4L. u can consider 24 f/1.4L II too. all same price category. they produce fantastic images.
Canon 24-70 F2.8L IS
- Thread starter desmondchan
- Start date
if u are willing to pay almost $3k for 24-70IS...im sure u will have no problem investing in the 35L. =) light, compact and it is f/1.4L. u can consider 24 f/1.4L II too. all same price category. they produce fantastic images.
the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4 have IS and non-IS variants. giving more options to customers can't be a bad thing unless sales figures prove otherwise.
the thing is not everybody wants to be stuck to a single focal length.
Last edited:
each has his/her own preferences.. i always travel with 24-70 and 70-200.. 24-70 is always mounted on my body unless i need to zoom in from far, then i'll change to the 70-200..
i'm fine with the weight though.. maybe i have been exercising enough to keep myself fit to carry the heavy load.. :bsmilie:
i'm fine with the weight though.. maybe i have been exercising enough to keep myself fit to carry the heavy load.. :bsmilie:
do you really need IS for the 24-70?
after all it has f/2.8 and the focal length is only 70mm max
I agree this guy is heavy, but i personally dont see the need for IS., even at 70mm.
after all it has f/2.8 and the focal length is only 70mm max
I agree this guy is heavy, but i personally dont see the need for IS., even at 70mm.
as most said, it wld be nice to have IS for that extra 3-4 stops without the need for tripod. lol...reuters, my theory on heavy lenses is: carry the heavy lenses while u still can, cuz when age catches up u may not get to do that anymore. haha! but then again, the bulk is irritating. it just feels weird bringing the 24-70 to a family dinner. =/ well thats for me. a lot ppl will turn and look...
as much as someone "really needs" IS for EF-S 18-55mm or 17-55mm...
Need or not is subjective and depending on the individual. Does it "help" regardless? I certainly think so.
agree.
try capturing nice light trails or smooth water flow hand held with a non- IS 24-70
Also, without IS your are always forced to use 2.8 and have a shallow depth of field (handheld). Sometimes you want the narrower aperture when there are more subjects (that are still) or when shooting scenery.
yup...precisely. but different ppl haf different needs and styles of shooting. i know some ppl generally love to shoot at f/2.8 or faster because they just love the look of it. and i am one of them. haha! i'll only stop down for group photos, scenery/landscape etc. otherwise...f2.8 or faster on my prime.
i did find out by accident that a 2.8 aperture for group shots taken a bit far away actually makes them look like action figures . subjects are't sharp but looks pretty cool.especially when they are wearing colorful clothes
agree.
try capturing nice light trails or smooth water flow hand held with a non- IS 24-70
Also, without IS your are always forced to use 2.8 and have a shallow depth of field (handheld). Sometimes you want the narrower aperture when there are more subjects (that are still) or when shooting scenery.
yah.. i think IS will always be useful if tripod cannot be used due to certain circumstances.. it will be popular for most people.. but not the price.. :bsmilie:
I think the 70-200 f2.8 IS II will have Canon's newest Hybrid IS, and they will probably work hard to improve the sharpness to at least match the sharpness of the 70-200 f4 non-IS. The 16-35 f2.8 II is sharper than the 16-35 f2.8 I. The reason why Canon decides to release the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is due to its popularity imo.
Haha actually, depending on how dim the location you're photographing at is, f2.8 may suffice, if you use ISO 1600 or higher, unless of course you're very anal about sharpness and noise.