24-70 2.8 IS yes or no
What are the positives and negatives of this idea would you want it
I personally see no reason for it but what do you think
Positives
IS
Low light
Redesigned
Neg
Higher Weight
Increased price
Printable View
24-70 2.8 IS yes or no
What are the positives and negatives of this idea would you want it
I personally see no reason for it but what do you think
Positives
IS
Low light
Redesigned
Neg
Higher Weight
Increased price
I've had my 24-70 for about 5 months and I gotta say this lens would be hard to improve upon. I don't miss IS in it. I think the big complaint most have about this lens is size/weight and IS isn't going to solve that. I imagine when they upgrade this lens, the subwave length coating will be the major difference. My one complaint is lens flare.
I'm sure it will involve weight if there is IS. BTW why it produce FLARE? Filter Brand? Have you callobrated to suit BODY?
No filter. All lenses will produce flare with light hitting the lens. Some control it better than others. I've noticed some harsh flare when shooting scenes with street lights at night.
It won't be heavier for sure. Look @ 70-200 f4 IS, it's lighter :)
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Courier New';"]ModelWeightDimensions w/o Hood Filter <span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Courier New';"]Quote:
Originally Posted by hotsecretary
<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Courier New';"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens24.9 oz (705g)3.0 x 6.8" (76 x 172mm)67mm
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens 26.8 oz (760g)3.0 x 6.8" (76 x 172mm)67mm<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"]<o:p></o:p>
F4 construction vs F2.8 is absolutely not the same. [:(]
The 2.8 is a tank, the 4 is not so much but still a great lens. And I've been told a lot sharper IQ.
Also .. as mentioned, yes I was comparing 2.8 vs 4.. not 4 vs 4 with IS :) I just assume with the newer glass, HIS, etc it'll be lighter.
And there's a CR2 that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is coming :)
I vote YES for a 24-70mm f/2.8IS. Come on,2 OZ you can't hardly tell that differance.
If they were to come out with such a lens a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II would probablly be right beside it.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
I vote yes also. I probably wouldn't get the IS version, but a new IS version would maybe mean a price drop of the non IS making it affordable for me! haha
weight will not be a problem, price will be (at least for some)
24-70 f/2.8L IS, why not? It compliments the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS very well.
They don't have to discontinue the 24-70mm, Canon could have two versions of thislenslike the the 70-200's line-up. That way there is more variety for people to choose from. One for those that can't afford the new IS version or don't need ISand the otherthat want the best.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger
Although I agree this would be fantastic. I doubt having IS added would mean a price drop of the existing 24-70. If anything I would see the older model staying at the same price and the new model being in a different, and much higher,price category altogether.
... but I suppose we can dream... cant we? [:P]
Haha then dream I will!
To me the 24-70 is the best value L lens. It is my most used lens by far and the least expensive L lens in my kit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coastalkid88
I owned this lens for 2 years. In terms of improvement in optics, I would wish Canon to make this lens more usable wide open. Wide open it is a little bit soft, unlike the Nikon one...
IS will certainly be a plus. I feel reluctant to shoot with this lens at speeds lower than 1/15 at wide angle and 1/40 at long end. With IS i would imagine that I can at least half this speed with ease.
For me, I'm not sure how much IS would help really.
I can shoot fairly reliably from 1/10-1/40 or so through the range with a good keep percentage. If i'm hiking or going out specifically for shooting I've got my tripod and I don't mind taking the time to set it up (stills and things).
I just don't see the little bit more hand-hold-ability that IS would allow being worth the $500 more or however much it would be.