EF 24-70L f2.8 with IS Rumour

[muvouser]

I realy wonder why people keep saying short focal range no need IS.

You may only be shooting at 40mm for example, but in a bad lighting condition, you may have to shoot at 1/4 s shutter speed.

Which bro can shoot at 1/4S at 40mm with no picture blur at all please own up so that I can call you "Master".

This range of focal length should be no need IS bah. Last time film slr lenses dont have IS one also can use.

 

[neech7]

It shouldn't sound so surprise?? Definitely you need IS for this range especially for this breast even on a on full frame body. If IS is not needed for this range, else why Canon in all the later design have IS build into the lenses of similar range, such as EF 24-105 f4, EF-S 17-55 f2.8, 17-85, 15-85, 18-135 and 18-55 all are IS.

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[neech7]

IS will not make the 24-70 a better lens but make it bigger. heavier and more expensive. What we need is improved optics.

Not necessarily weight wise. They can always go plastic for the barrel to reduce some weight.

 

[CS TAN]

Not necessarily weight wise. They can always go plastic for the barrel to reduce some weight.

And give people another excuse to complaint about the flimsiness of a L Lens they paid so much for? ;p

 

[enzeru21]

then if plastic, then some will say 'eee..' not solid buillt like L lens like that...

then some people don't like plastic ma..

 

[icelava]

It shouldn't sound so surprise?? Definitely you need IS for this range especially for this breast even on a on full frame body. If IS is not needed for this range, else why Canon in all the later design have IS build into the lenses of similar range, such as EF 24-105 f4, EF-S 17-55 f2.8, 17-85, 15-85, 18-135 and 18-55 all are IS.

Exactly. if there is a demand for IS (from people like me), why not produce it.

if those focal lengths are empirically proven to not benefit from IS one single bit, then Canon has gone the way of folly to introduce IS in all those other lenses.

 

[evilorgi]

seriously, IS is a wonderful function to have.. however it will not be justified if it increases the weight of the lens and most importantly, the price of the lens!

 

[nitewalk]

I realy wonder why people keep saying short focal range no need IS.

You may only be shooting at 40mm for example, but in a bad lighting condition, you may have to shoot at 1/4 s shutter speed.

Which bro can shoot at 1/4S at 40mm with no picture blur at all please own up so that I can call you "Master".

U meant 1/40, i suppose? 1/40 no blur is not that difficult.

I dont think i ever said IS is useless but rather if without IS it can still give good IQ then why IS+high price? After all, didnt we made do with no IS when we were shooting with film slr?

 

[nitewalk]

Exactly. if there is a demand for IS (from people like me), why not produce it.

if those focal lengths are empirically proven to not benefit from IS one single bit, then Canon has gone the way of folly to introduce IS in all those other lenses.

Phone makers produce phones with GPS because there is a market for it but doesnt mean its a necessity. Of course canon is not stupid, and not just canon. Duh.

Besides, if you do birding without a tripod perhaps the IS would be useful? I dunno i dun do birding. I am just stating my 0.02. Kthx.

 

[hotchoco1ate]

U meant 1/40, i suppose? 1/40 no blur is not that difficult.

I dont think i ever said IS is useless but rather if without IS it can still give good IQ then why IS+high price? After all, didnt we made do with no IS when we were shooting with film slr?

Eh bro why do you assume he is talking about 1/40?

Obviously you haven been reading or shooting a lot. In really low light conditions is it absurd to say that it will reach 1/4s shutter speed? thats why the 17-55 is the most hand holdable low light lens for canon for now.

Why you people like to compare to film SLR? okay then go use ur pentium one computer with 1GB hard drive. HUH you say dont want? how come? if you really did survive during that era with such a computer, why upgrade to pentium 4? When we are blessed with technology, please dont reminisce about the past can? If you dont feel like paying for the IS then fine, save ur money on something else. Maybe you hand hold your rifle 24/7 till train ur hands super steady.

But do you always want to take so long to shoot one photo, trying to keep ur posture and balance? Why not just use the godsend IS ?

Please refrain from using such a flawed argument again. If you want to live in the past, i suggest you take public transport to work everyday since in the olden days few can afford cars.
:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[SoonHan]

This range of focal length should be no need IS bah. Last time film slr lenses dont have IS one also can use.

:thumbsup:
I'm using current model and without IS..
It never disappoint me.. I wont upgrade just becoz of the IS.. And for sure the price will be extremely higher..

 

[SoonHan]

I realy wonder why people keep saying short focal range no need IS.

You may only be shooting at 40mm for example, but in a bad lighting condition, you may have to shoot at 1/4 s shutter speed.

Which bro can shoot at 1/4S at 40mm with no picture blur at all please own up so that I can call you "Master".

of coz with my 580exII

 

[Anthony Lee]

Eh bro why do you assume he is talking about 1/40?

Obviously you haven been reading or shooting a lot. In really low light conditions is it absurd to say that it will reach 1/4s shutter speed? thats why the 17-55 is the most hand holdable low light lens for canon for now.

Why you people like to compare to film SLR? okay then go use ur pentium one computer with 1GB hard drive. HUH you say dont want? how come? if you really did survive during that era with such a computer, why upgrade to pentium 4? When we are blessed with technology, please dont reminisce about the past can? If you dont feel like paying for the IS then fine, save ur money on something else. Maybe you hand hold your rifle 24/7 till train ur hands super steady.

But do you always want to take so long to shoot one photo, trying to keep ur posture and balance? Why not just use the godsend IS ?

Please refrain from using such a flawed argument again. If you want to live in the past, i suggest you take public transport to work everyday since in the olden days few can afford cars.
:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

What's wrong with film SLR? Many, including myself, are still using them and shooting film because we choose to. Also, what has the use of public transport and using film SLR got to do with IS.

 

[nitewalk]

Eh bro why do you assume he is talking about 1/40?

Obviously you haven been reading or shooting a lot. In really low light conditions is it absurd to say that it will reach 1/4s shutter speed? thats why the 17-55 is the most hand holdable low light lens for canon for now.

Why you people like to compare to film SLR? okay then go use ur pentium one computer with 1GB hard drive. HUH you say dont want? how come? if you really did survive during that era with such a computer, why upgrade to pentium 4? When we are blessed with technology, please dont reminisce about the past can? If you dont feel like paying for the IS then fine, save ur money on something else. Maybe you hand hold your rifle 24/7 till train ur hands super steady.

But do you always want to take so long to shoot one photo, trying to keep ur posture and balance? Why not just use the godsend IS ?:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

Hi i'm just offering my 2 penny worth i didnt say he is wrong. Just different opinions.

Btw i didnt assume i guess? He said at 40 mm so i suppose he was refering to 1/40 as the slowest shutter speed. Dont be so aggressive. I didnt shoot anyone. You are just overly sensitive. Nothing wrong to mention film slr. We should embrace old stuff also. Just like people who love antique cars and antique vases.

If i am wrong, its alright to point out to me, like what muvouser had tried to do. In fact I may have misunderstood his meaning, but that is for him to point it out. He has every right to do that. But I don't see the reason for your anger towards me? Puzzling.

 

[terrylam77]

And give people another excuse to complaint about the flimsiness of a L Lens they paid so much for? ;p

The new 100L f2.8 macro which launched at 2009 is made of Plastic, but Canon called it "engineering Plastic ", FYI.


from http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

What I first noticed upon taking the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens out of the box was that the body was not made of the normal-for-an-L-lens metal. "The official reply from Tokyo is as follows: The focus ring, lens mount and name plate are made from aluminum, and other parts are basically made with engineering plastic." (Chuck Westfall, Canon USA) Engineering plastic is the good stuff. So, the 100 IS macro lens does not have that cold, hard feel, but it feels solid nonetheless. The attractive finish helps with the quality feel.

Build quality overall is very good - and includes weather sealing. I like the smooth, straight design of this lens - including the flush-mounted switches. The 100 L Macro is very comfortable to hold and use.

 

[omegacs]

I have heard the rumour since 2 years back, and am still undecided if I should simply wait or purchase the 24-70mm right now.

The IS is definitely good to have, but it'll be come at the expense of an increased weight compared to the current version. Not that it really matters, but it could be quite a shot-saver during events!

 

[enzeru21]

Hi i'm just offering my 2 penny worth i didnt say he is wrong. Just different opinions.

Btw i didnt assume i guess? He said at 40 mm so i suppose he was refering to 1/40 as the slowest shutter speed. Dont be so aggressive. I didnt shoot anyone. You are just overly sensitive. Nothing wrong to mention film slr. We should embrace old stuff also. Just like people who love antique cars and antique vases.

If i am wrong, its alright to point out to me, like what muvouser had tried to do. In fact I may have misunderstood his meaning, but that is for him to point it out. He has every right to do that. But I don't see the reason for your anger towards me? Puzzling.

hey chill man, i oso kana before.. got alot of weird people like to shoot people even though its nothing.. they just wanna prove that they're better..

don't dwell on it.. there are still nice people here in the forum like some of the senoirs.. not all..

 

[gazkw]

to me the size is more critical and i hate it being reverse zoom...

if they can shrink the size and make it zoom normally, put me down for one.

IS is not a big deal for my purposes.

 

[David]

totally rubbish rumor. YET YET YET again. Dig out the old posts from canonrumors and you will see how convincingly deceiving that website has been. At some point in the past, I was almost so convinced that the IS version was really going to materialize! But NO.

 

[hotchoco1ate]

hey chill man, i oso kana before.. got alot of weird people like to shoot people even though its nothing.. they just wanna prove that they're better..

don't dwell on it.. there are still nice people here in the forum like some of the senoirs.. not all..

Hey nitewalk im sorry if i did sound like i was directing at you. I am generally refering to people who do make references like that, not you in particular. My apologies if i sounded harsh man.

I have nothing against film honestly speaking. What i'm saying is that is pointless to compare IS usefulness during the film era cos it does not exist at that time, so people are forced to shoot without it. However, now you are given a choice, whether you want to shoot with it or without.

Why i use the public transport is simple. Just like how cars were not affordable during the film era. Hence most are forced to take public transport. However as the era changed, cars and standard of living increased, particularly in Singapore. Thus now many drive to work.
And metaphorically, cars are the IS. You can still go to work with public transport now right? But why some people choose to drive? Im guessing its more convenient and a time-saver.

Thus when you make a reference like, "Hey since we did not use IS during the film era why start now?", i do find it a little insensitive. No doubt most seniors could really shoot steady without, but there are tons who do require it. Declaring "i dont require IS", is a statement that flaunts their skill if you realise it. But they do have bragging rights, since they have been in the photog industry for so long. They would have picked up a level of skill up to now. There was even a CSer who did claim that he can take a pic at 200mm focal length with 1/25 speed? Who am i to doubt that? I honestly cannot manage such a feat thus i myself require IS to help me.

Sorry if i sounded crude in the first post just now. It was perhaps because i wasnt thinking straight then and now i am more refreshed and am replying you in a more civilised manner. I apologise sincerely if i really did sound harsh just now nitewalk.

:angel: