canon 24-70 f2.8 IS USM???

Just want to ask everyone if Canon would ever release the 24-70 IS version. I've read in some sites that they're going to release the IS version this year. Now, I don't know how reliable their information but it would be nice for the 24-70 to have an IS. Having a hard time at the moment whether to go for 24-105 or 24-70.I like the IS because it really helps counter camera shake and probably for low light at f4but the f2.8 is very tempting. Any thoughts guys? I shoot indoors and outdoors...thanks! IF EVER there will be a 24-70 f2.8 IS version, for sure I'll get that one.

I'm not sure if an IS version will be released soon, but photographers are definitely begging Canon for one, so I wouldn't be surprised. Keep in mind that an IS version will probably cost more than $1800.


brendan

I'm sure there will be an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM lens at some point. There's a clamor for it, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is very popular for users of crop bodies, and perhaps most importantly, Nikon's 24-70 doesn't have VR (the Nikon equivalent of Canon's IS). The question is when... Note that there are rumors of additional lens announcements from Canon, expected Feb 8-9th. I'd certainly hold off on until then.

I don't know if Canon will put IS in the 24-70. There is plenty of folks begging for it.


I personally don't miss IS with it (use to own the 24-105). The lens is very well balanced and I'm able to steady it on my 5DII with out any additional care. I get very sharp shots with 1/focal length shutter speeds and often lower.


I wouldn't be upset if they added it. I figure, give the masses what they want. I wouldn't upgrade for it though, for sure.

I think its better for me to hold on first untilbefore summerprobably because I don't want to regret if I'll get either the 24-105 or the 24-70. For sure the price for the 24-70 IS (if ever) will be really high & hopefully they'll drop down the price for the non IS version. Butif they'll be releasing the 24-70 IS version, what will happen now to the 24-105?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cxr

Butif they'll be releasing the 24-70 IS version, what will happen now to the 24-105?

---

Nothing, per se. They are quite different lenses - it will just be a slightly more equal comparison in that they'll both have IS. The 24-105mm will still be longer, slower, and more affordable. Look at the 70-200 series - 4 lenses with exactly the same focal length, differing in maximum aperture and IS.

You're quite right there neuroanatomist. But no one knows if canon will really release the 24-70 IS so probably the best thing to do is just wait & see until the time comes. But I say that will be a big hit if ever they'll gonna release the IS version.

cxr,


You need to decide first the conditions you will be shooting under. I have had the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 for a year and I love it. I have had zero problems with it and a very high keeper rate. I just bought the EF 24-70 f/2.8 and am still adjusting to using it. Without the IS I have discovered that I am not as steady as I once was. Still, I do get great images with it. Since a lot of my pictures are indoors without a flash a wide aperture is a must for me. I toyed with the idea of the EF 24-105 f/4 mainly due to the IS, but I would not be able to take many of the sports photos like the one below. Eight year old girls move quick!


In my recent poll, it was stated that I am well covered in mid-range zooms, but they are what I use most. I decided to try the EF 24-70 f/2.8 because I wanted the little extra reach. To me it is worth it. Furthermore, I looked into renting the EF 24-70 f/2.8 and the rate is @ $200.00 for a month. My feeling is that I can use it for a few months and should I decide I do not want it, I can sell it for @ $200.00 less than I paid and basically break even. I will most likely keep it though as my goal is to also get a full frame down the road, I am currently looking at the 5D MkII. I am also seriously considering adding the EF 24-105 f/4 for outdoors. I know it is a lot of mid-zoom, but again, it is currently my most used range and I want the best images I can afford.


To directly make a suggestion to you, if you need to stop action in low light and you are going to stay with a 1.6 crop camera, I would go with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. If you are thinking of going full frame and need a wider aperture, then the EF 24-70 f/2.8 is for you. Also, you may want to keep the crop body as a second shooter. I have a 50D and it is better for sports than the 5D as I can shoot more frames/second.








[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.60/IMG_5F00_0064.JPG[/img]


Canon 50D, EF24-70mm f2.8L USM, 1/125, f/2.8, ISO 1600





As you can see, not only would I have a problem with subject movement I am at the end of my comfort zone for ISO. A f/4 would not work here for me. If the 24-70 goes IS, I will probably be in line for one, and sell my non-IS to help fund it. [<:o)] Plus, I have to agree with Brendan, there will be a near doubling in the price.


Good luck choosing, I know how tough it can be. [;)]


Chris

I personally don't see a ton of value in an IS version of the 24-70. 70mm isn't that long of a focal length for hand holding. I'm hoping for a 24-105 f2.8 IS, which would be heavier than dirt for sure. But that focal length is just perfect for the work I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris White

To directly make a suggestion to you, if you need to stop action in low light and you are going to stay with a 1.6 crop camera, I would go with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. If you are thinking of going full frame and need a wider aperture, then the EF 24-70 f/2.8 is for you. Also, you may want to keep the crop body as a second shooter. I have a 50D and it is better for sports than the 5D as I can shoot more frames/second.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.60/IMG_5F00_0064.JPG[/img]


Canon 50D, EF24-70mm f2.8L USM, 1/125, f/2.8, ISO 1600


As you can see, not only would I have a problem with subject movement I am at the end of my comfort zone for ISO. A f/4 would not work here for me. If the 24-70 goes IS, I will probably be in line for one, and sell my non-IS to help fund it.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

This photo completely contradicts what you say: for stop-action, and this particular photo, IS is useless. Your shutter speed is fast enough that IS isn't a key benefit. You're already at 1/focal-length for shutter speed. That's not to say that IS wouldn't be helpful for other photographic tasks and situations, but stop-action requires shutter speeds that "override" hand shake.

IS is a valuable asset for hand held video work and I would gladly trade up for it (:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

This photo completely contradicts what you say: for stop-action, and this particular photo, IS is useless. Your shutter speed is fast enough that IS isn't a key benefit. You're already at 1/focal-length for shutter speed. That's not to say that IS wouldn't be helpful for other photographic tasks and situations, but stop-action requires shutter speeds that "override" hand shake.

---

<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.0 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
&lt;!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
--&gt;
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]peety,
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]<span style="font-style: normal;"] I
am sorry if I did not state it clearly enough, but my point,
particularly with that photo and the many others like it I take, is
that the f/2.8 is immeasurably more valuable than the IS would be to
me. I must have failed to make it clear that had I tried to take that
photo with the EF 24-105 f/4 I would have had to use much higher ISO
and much slower shutter speed, resulting in an undesirable photo.
With f/2.8 to freeze the action I am generally at ISO 1200 &ndash; 1600,
which is as high as I care to go. My IS comment was not for action
photos, but for darker venues with much less movement, like the
school play, to compensate for my &ldquo;hand shake&rdquo; as you suggest. My
wish, like many others, is to have both f/2.8 and IS. <span style="font-style: normal;"]I
have taken about a thousand images with the 24-70 in the couple of
weeks since getting it and I am very pleased with it. I am getting
what I hoped to get from it.

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"] <span style="font-style: normal;"]As
far as getting used to it, it is little adjustments like the focus
and zoom rings being reversed from my 17-55. I have to remember which
I am using when I first start, but once I am going it is not a
problem.
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]<span style="font-style: normal;"]Chris

hi guys! any update if this lens is really coming out? i started to save to get my first L lens, either the 24-105 or 24-70 but if this one (24-70 IS)is reallycoming out, i thinkit will be a killer lens.

Go pop your head into the Canon Rumors site and read away.


When Canon announces something, they announce something. Until they announce something, they don't announce something. They haven't announced this lens, so they aren't releasing it. Yet. Today. But tomorrow could be a new day.


No one here has connections into Canon that allow them to announce things before they are public. If they had those connections, they'd likely lose them if things were announced before they were public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

When Canon announces something, they announce something. Until they announce something, they don't announce something.

---

Another case of "he says what he means, and he means what he says." [:)]


You're absolutely right, Peety.

NEWS FLASH - Canon rumors had posted an email that confirms a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lens!! Oh, wait, the date on the post is February 28th, 2009. *sigh* I guess we'll all just have to wait and see...

Lets just say if there would be another lens that Canon would make it very well could be a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM L. Almost everyone wants one, including me....[:)]


John.

I think Canon isunder pressure to make a 24-70 IS. However, there are a couple of lenses also probably higher on their hitlist:


35mm f/1.8 - to counteract Nikon


200-400mm f/4 - Nikon's awesome lens has no other counterpart. Canon could produce one of these, narrowing the gap in their wildlife lens range. More $$$ than the 100-400 but less $$$ than the 500 f/4. Maybe $4000. nice.


180mm f/3.5 - Canon's ultimate macro lens is slow and beginning to show its age.


200mm f/2.8 prime - very old.


135mm f/2 prime - a great lens that needs replacement with IS.


I personally would go bananas for a Canon 200-400. It could be a killer lens for FF and APS-C. Then again, the 24-70 would probably make a bigger impact than any of the lenses above. The only thing is that Canon introduced it fairly recently (2002?).


brendan