EF 24-70L f2.8 with IS Rumour
- Thread starter pentaxme
- Start date
nitewalk
Senior Member
The hope for a 24-70L f2.8 IS is getting thin
Hmm. Maybe not yet, maybe not yet. Maybe by the time I graduate, my first pay come, just nice they announce it and sell. :bsmilie:
crazysurfer
New Member
Don't think Canon will make an IS version for the 24-70mm f2.8L since the IS is not really required for this range but more applicable for tele-zooms, which are more prone to handshake, and thus will not serve its purpose for WA Lenses.
Moreover, being an L-Lens, it is made more for Pros or Semi-Pro photographers and not so for amateurs so IS will not do much for this group of photographers as they are already adept to handling such lenses and will be less prone to handshake so no point adding unnecessary cost to such an already expensive lens.
Moreover, being an L-Lens, it is made more for Pros or Semi-Pro photographers and not so for amateurs so IS will not do much for this group of photographers as they are already adept to handling such lenses and will be less prone to handshake so no point adding unnecessary cost to such an already expensive lens.
Stratix
New Member
i hope for an updated version of this lens, IS or not.
the performance of this lens is purely disgusting. whoever who says it's good, simply havent been shooting day in and day out and/or havent been looking at offerings from other brands. it's horrendous to know that such a bread and butter lens is known to be soft at 2.8, have AF issues, and with a barrel that can extend (hence more prone to damage and failure?) come on, it's 2010 already, canon ought to update this piece.
with that said, the nikon version is simply the best. comes as no surprise, since it's the latest to reach markets.
the performance of this lens is purely disgusting. whoever who says it's good, simply havent been shooting day in and day out and/or havent been looking at offerings from other brands. it's horrendous to know that such a bread and butter lens is known to be soft at 2.8, have AF issues, and with a barrel that can extend (hence more prone to damage and failure?) come on, it's 2010 already, canon ought to update this piece.
with that said, the nikon version is simply the best. comes as no surprise, since it's the latest to reach markets.
nitewalk
Senior Member
I said similar thing and i got bombarded.
Last edited:
enzeru21
New Member
lol... sometimes we must learn the hard way i guess...
nitewalk
Senior Member
I suay. Next time wait ppl say first then i agree can already. Haha
IS is always appreciated, especially when you're using it with aps-c bodies. Even the 17-55 has IS. I own the 24-70, and sometimes I do wish I had IS, although high ISO performance of today's cameras may make the IS seem redundant.
Btw, I think 24-70 IS will be very expensive. More expensive than 70-200 f2.8 IS II in my opinion.
Last edited:
It's still a great lens imo. It may not be as good as Nikon's or Sony's offerings, or even Sigma, but I still think it's a very good lens. It's not that sharp, I agree, but it's versatile. The color and saturation is awesome, at least to me. It's still the lens I bring when I go on vacations (because all my other lenses are primes or telephotos lol).
nitewalk
Senior Member
Sigh. I never said IS is not appreciated. Been haggling with people over this and they don't read what I said carefully. Sigh. I think if you look at this topic at all my responses I DID (can i increase the font for "did"?) mentioned that I think IS is useful but not necessary. SIGH. Again I get quoted when someone else said similar things to me. -.-
you do realize its a rumors site? it merely consolidated stuff people send in and try to make an educated guess.
never take such sites seriously, always with a pinch of salt.
commonjunks
Senior Member
Maybe one need to do some research before making such claims, 17-55 would be failure with IS no?
nitewalk
Senior Member
I think to say IS is not a necessity does not equate to "having IS in a lens is failure". If you read carefully, gazkw did say it is useful. But to say its not a big deal does not imply having IS in a lens means the lens is a failure.
Last edited:
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
Is 24-70f2.8L a failure? Also, do you think the Tammy 17-50f2.8 a failure even when the IS version is out? There are always 2 sides to a coin. Actually, this discussion should end as it will be Canon who decides.
I agree with you and also with nitewalk (sorry if I didn't read carefully. I posted at 2 am last night ;p). Canon's new "hybrid" IS is rated at 3 stops, right? It's definitely enough for some people to cream their pants. I'd love to have IS, especially for the telephoto end (I use this lens with crop body) but I won't lose sleep over that. And I definitely won't be upgrading to 24-70 IS if it does go to production.
You are going to shoot an event.
You only have 1 opportunity. You are not allowed to use flash.
Peter whipped out his camera and his new 24-70 f2.8 Mark 2 (with IS), zoomed in at 50mm, set his ISO at 400 and clicked with a shutter speed of 1/4 second. HIs picture came out nice and with no obvious blur.
You whipped out your beloved 24-70 f2.8 Mark 1, zoomed in at 50mm, set your ISO at 400 and clicked at the same shutter at 1/4 second. Your picture came out blur ... ...
You only have 1 opportunity. You are not allowed to use flash.
Peter whipped out his camera and his new 24-70 f2.8 Mark 2 (with IS), zoomed in at 50mm, set his ISO at 400 and clicked with a shutter speed of 1/4 second. HIs picture came out nice and with no obvious blur.
You whipped out your beloved 24-70 f2.8 Mark 1, zoomed in at 50mm, set your ISO at 400 and clicked at the same shutter at 1/4 second. Your picture came out blur ... ...
Last edited:
Maybe you can show us an event picture with shutter speed of 1/4 with IS and people inside and the shot has no motion blur?
I'm sure many would like to see how magnificent IS is
nitewalk
Senior Member
Someone omce taught me the basics of photography. He didnt taught me composition, exposure and stuff like that, just the basics of handling a film slr independently (i'm not saying this to sound old but i'm really young actually).
After all these years i still remember that rule number one is to steady your hands. The lens i used back then was EF 35-80mm which i am still using now. It has no IS. I even have a lens which has no AF, are you going to hammer me on sharpness of image bcos i have no AF?
I cant claim to have no blur shots with steady hands. But i think we have gotten a little carried away. Super Telephoto range need IS i cant debate as i have no telephoto zoom lens and i don't use it. But i used lens in the range of 18mm up till 135mm to cover friend's events and sports events for mu personal interest and i can say the only blurs in the images are the fault of mine.
For i at times neglect the fundamental of taking photos imho, that is steady hands.
Last edited:
Similar threads
