Printable View
i'm sure this has to be in the back of the minds of the powers that be.. but seriously. i want this frickin' lens. i absolutely adore my 24-105, and IS is very important to the work i do.. but there are some times that f/4 simply doesn't cut it. i mean, really.. if this lens existed, wouldn't that pretty much complete canon's lineup? i couldn't think of anything else i could possibly want.. unless they magically find a way to create a zoom with a wider aperture than f/2.8..
What we should really do is start demanding a 17-70 f/2.8 L IS USM.
If not 17 then 18 at the wide end and if not 70 then something close at the long end. But it seems Canon would give away 1Ds mark III's for free before they come with such a lens [:P]
yeeah. i was kinda speaking within the scope of reality.. haha
just as there are four variations of the 70-200 (two with IS, two without), it seems it would be very easy to drop an IS motor in that lens, repackage it, and call it a day. i'd buy one tomorrow if that were the case.
I'd prefer a 24-105 2.8L IS.
Not one upping, just saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Aside from it being the size of a garbage can it would weigh a ton.Don't get me wrong, in theory its a nice idea--in reality completely infeasible.
As for a 24-70IS, it's not a stretch by any means and is very likely IMO though I don't think an online petition will get you one :)
What I really want is an inexpensive high quality lightweight 17-400mm f/1 IS zoom. That's all.
No USM? I don't buy it then [:P]
Would be nice. I'd buy one for sure.
I'd also like to see a 35 1.2L II, I'd pay $1900 for that tomorrow.
That's the primary reason I've waited to buy one, which in turn is the primary reason I've waited to add a new body (are you listening, Canon?). I know the numbers aren't exactly the same after you account for the crop factor, but on 1.6x body, the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS is an exceptional lens. I'd love to have something similar to use with FF or 1.3. The 24-70, especially with its close-focusing ability, would rock with IS.
that's my big problem.. i adored my 17-55mm, but recently upgraded to the 5dmkII.. i bought the kit, and the 24-105mm has been great-- a super workhorse lens-- but i still can't do everything that i could do with my 17-55mm
they probably will release with IS on PMA... thats the rumors.
What exactly is it that you could do with the 17-55 that you can't with the 24-105? The 24-105 on a full frame body is wider at the wide end and longer at the long end than the 17-55 on a 1.6 fovcf body. It is also faster: f/4 on a full frame body is like f/2.5 on a 1.6 fovcf body, both in terms of dof and light gathering.
Jon,
I don't thinkits true tosay it is faster. I agree with the DOF comment. But f4 is f4. Full frame has better high iso, but thats not the same thing.
Tom
To me it seems to be exactly the same thing. If sensor 1 is twice as big as sensor 2, iso 800 on sensor 1 has the same noise as iso 400 on sensor 2. So you can get the same shutter speed with the same noise with f/4 on the bigger sensor as f/2.8 on the smaller sensor.
You could say, "well, the difference is the sensor, not the lens. F/4 is f/4." But if the f/2.8 lens can't illuminate the bigger sensor, I think the terminology is appropriate. The 24-105 lens is actually capable of getting more light onto a ccd at f/4 than the 17-55 is at f/2.8. Similarly, I would call an f/4 medium format lens faster than an f/2.8 35mm one, because the medium format lens gets more light to the sensor (or film).
That's just terminology, though, and if you think I am crazy for using the word "faster" that is cool :) My main point is that I don't see any major disadvantage of the 24-105 f/4 on a full frame as compared to 17-55 f/2.8 on a 1.6 fovcf camera.
Yes please .... I want one.
The 24-70 is most probably my most used lens. I use it especially indoors (churches etc) and would love IS.
It isn't that a 24-70 is wouldn't be great. It would be.
But the two lenses I would most like to have with IS are the 100mm macro and the 135mm f/2.
Macro because you never have enough light for macro, it seems, since one is always stopping down to very large effective f/ numbers, and because one often does a lot of cropping. And it isn't always convenient or possible to follow a bee or butterfly or whatever through the bushes with a tripod. Yes, you can use flash, but sometimes one wants natural light. Am I the only one that has this problem? I've taken to using my 70-200 IS with extension tubes at times for butterflies.
And the 135 f/2 because, even at f/2, the thing isn't that hand-holdable in low light due to the long fl. A 4-stop IS would be huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
there's still a difference.. trust me. i knew that 17-55mm like the back of my hand, and it was definitely a faster lens. you are spot on with the DOF comment, but that's not what i'm looking for.. the 24-105 pleases in every respect when it comes to DOF. when i'm having to use higher ISOs and/or shutter speeds with this lens wide open than i had to with my 17-55mm.. i would say that 2.8 is still faster, be it on a crop *or* a full frame.
Jon,
I think the 17-55 2.8 is able toget the same amount of light onto the cropped sensoras the 24-105 is on the larger one. They both use a 77mm filter so I am guessing they allow about the same in. The 17-55 just directs it into a smaller image circle. The light on that smaller circle will be brighter per unit area than the 24-105, hence 2.8.I think the ISO vs actual noise argument holds some water, I need to think about that one a bit. I am really not trying to argue and apologize if it seems that way.
Tom
No, it doesn't seem like you are trying to argue. We're both just trying to get at the truth, not to put each other down.
I think you are right about "same light but spread out" point, and that is a good way to think about it. But I don't think the filter size is a good indication of this. For example, the 17-40mm f/4 has at most a 10mm effective aperture when wide open (40mm at f/4 means 40mm/4 = 10mm aperture), so you might guess it has a tiny filter size. But it also takes a 77mm filter. I don't know anything about optics so I don't know why this is true. Maybe it has to do with avoiding vignetting on a lens that has to illuminate a sensor that is large compared to its focal length.
Quote Canon Rumors:
"EF 24-70 f/2.8L II IS
- Possibly the most sought after lens Canonites are lusting after. Match Nikon’s optics and add IS? You’d have a massive sales success. It almost wouldn’t matter what it cost."
True. I'll immediately sell my 24-70L and get one regardless how much it would cost.
I have the 24-70, but I use it for landscape photography. Thus, it's mostly on a tripod.
So you get it with IS. I would turn that off, on a tripod, anyway.
What situations would the IS come in handy? I mean, REALLY come in handy, with a wide angle lens like this?
Just curious.
I, too, find IS is more useful on a long lens than a short one. Roughly speaking, IS with a wide lens means long shutter speeds, which means the subject isn't moving, which means you could have used a tripod.
Still, IS is still nice on a wide lens for taking pictures in really low light when a tripod is inconvenient or not available. I often use the IS feature of my 24-105 for candid portraits of people who are not quickly moving. It also works amazingly well for hand held night photography. At 24mm, we're talking 1/2 to 1/4 second shutter speeds hand held.
If canon made a 24-70 lens, it would (I think) be their most hand holdable lens. Someone correct me if I am wrong. (By most hand holdable, I of course mean the lens where where 2^(# IS stops)/( f number squared * focal length * FOVC crop factor cubed) is as high as possible).
Another answer is that many people use the 24-70 and 24-105 lenses as
"walk around lenses". Ie, you don't necessarily know in advance what
you will be using it for. These are very versatile focal length
ranges. Adding IS just makes a lens whose forte is versatility more
versatile still.
I also have the 24-105, and for that lens, I do appreciate having the IS. As you mentioned, it's a good walk around lens.
The versatility of that lens, though, is because of its greater zoom reach. More often than not, I will use this lens for such a purpose, as zooming in on people, moving objects, etc. Having the IS for this lens makes sense, since it will be used much more (in my opinion) for hand held situations.
The 24-70 vs the 24-105....that extra 35 mm is a lot and, for me, makes the 24-70 more likely to be used for landscape shots (both night, and daylight) and the 24-105 for daylight "walk around" shots. I wouldn't dare do a night shot, hand held, if I was at 2.8 and 1/2 second, with a 24-70 IS. I'd be guaranteed to have a bad image. You must have the steady "rock of gibralter" hands.
With IS adding another 4-500 dollars to the lens (similar with the non-IS 70-200 2.8 vs IS version), that's a lot of extra money for limited application benefit. I'd rather spend that on a tripod, and achieve better results.
Along with the lack of a 14-24 lens, the nonstabilized24-70 is I think the biggest weakness in Canon's lineup. This update would sure make the lens even cooler. But it might be a good thing to keep a non IS version sold for a bit less like for the 70-200 as the IS is notnecessaryfor everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
- In situations where a tripod is not possible such as public places where a no tripod law is implemented (i.e. Grand central Station)
- Wedding/event photography.
- In situations where you do not want to deal with the hassle of carrying, setting up or dealing with a tripod (i.e. vacation, day trips)
Adding IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 is a very common request and I'm sure that Canon has heard a lot about it, but personally, IS doesn't interest me that much at that focal length. My subjects usually need 1/60 or faster, and I can handhold 1/60 at 70mm even on the 5D2. Of course, there's an entire world of subjects that would benefit greatly from it; however, my understanding is that IS is not quite as effective at short focal lengths. (I hear less than 2 stops improvement at 24mm on the 24-105.) Right now my preferred lenses are 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and 70-200 f/4 IS, so I don't even use a typical "walkaround zoom".
I agree with John Ruyle and Tom Alicoate: the 24-105 f/4 IS has a wider aperture and more light gathering power than the 17-55 f/2.8. The only thing that it doesn't do as well is activate the f/2.8-only autofocus sensors.Quote:
Originally Posted by atticusdsf
I posted about this topic here:
http://community.the-digital-picture.../42/94.aspx#94
The 24-105 has a *wider* aperture than the 17-55 at every equivalent field of view and perspective. For example, the aperture on the 17mm at f/2.8 is 6mm. The L at 27mm f/4 is 7mm: 17% wider aperture. The larger front element of the L points toward this fact too.
The focal ratio (not aperture) is one stop narrower (f/4 vs f/2.8), so the light intensity per area is twice as dim. However, the total amount of light is more than double, thanks to the much larger area and wider aperture. So you can up the ISO or use -1 EC to get the same shutter speed as with f/2.8 and still collect a half-stop more light in total. The resulting image will be superior to the 17mm on the 30D, and only slightly better than on the 50D.
At f/2.8 you will be letting in twice the amount of light *per area*, but the total amount of light captured will be much smaller. For example, the lens on a very tiny 1/1.7" Digicam with a 7mm f/2.8 lens also has the same perspective/FOV as your 20mm, and it also captures the same amount of light per area, but the total amount of light falling on the sensor is much less. In fact, f/2.8 on a digicam is the same amount of light as f/14 on your 50D! (And f/19 on the 5D2.) It's no wonder digicams struggle in low light. The reason is sensor area.
In the same way, a full-frame f/4 lens focuses more light than an f/2.8 APS-C lens: it's just spread out over a wider area. So the full-frame camera has about a 1/3 stop advantage in low light at f/4: you could upgrade to the 5D2 and 24-105 f/4 and still get all the same DOF, noise level, and shutter speed. In fact, it's more than a 1/3rd stop better at f/4.
Of course, if you take it even further, and go with f/2.8 on the 5D2, then you'll have a 1.4 stops thinner DOF, and that much more low light power.
There is one web page that explains all of this, and more, in excrutiating detail.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Alicoate
Not exactly, but close. a 1.6 FOVCF is like a 1.6x teleconverter, in terms of less light. 2.8 would be the same light on a 1.4 FOVCF sensor as a f/4 on a full frame, but 1.6 means smaller, so slightly less. In terms of what this really means, I'd defer to actual results.
I doubt anyone can tell :)
And if they can, differences in the results are likely due to other differences between the cameras and lenses. Of course, we expect better iq on the larger format, but thats a separate issue.
do you think canon will eventually make it though? I have a 1.6 crop camera and eventually want to upgrade to full frame, just worried about if i buy 17-55 for now to satisfy my current need i'll regret when 24-70 f2.8 comes out... if it does ...
you are where i was a year ago.. however i decided that the wide angle was important enough to me that i'd go ahead and get the 17-55.
i still don't regret it.. i upgraded to a 5dmkII, but i'm still keeping my old camera because it's good to have a backup, and the 17-55 is a great lens to just leave on that camera.
Current price of the EF 24-70 is arround 1200EURO with IS it would probably cost 1800EURO...
IfCanon makes a zoom wide angle/tele f2.8 L IS USM I'll buy it and a full frame camera on the next day. Serious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
LMFAO
I really got a kick out of that comment. It's not really asking for much. I mean, I guess it'd be about...what....$20,000?
To the original message here, I'd love them to offer the 24-70 2.8 in an IS. I mean, if this is "the" wedding lens, how much better could it be with IS? I mean, I'd take an IS lens, over one with a smaller f number non IS. Think of a dimly lit church, with f/2.8 and stabalized? Oh yes it's a good thought.
I don't buy into the argument that a short focal lenght zoom lens (especially one with a fast aperture like that) doesn't need IS. I mean, I have a 50mm 1.8, and sometimes I wish it had IS when doing portraits inside. In fact, I don't know what I'd do without IS in my kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 lens.