Printable View
I am still a not so experienced photographer so excuse my lack of knowledge.
In the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM lens ( www.the-digital-picture.com/.../Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ) why is it that CANON have no Image stabilization (IS) when it is a so high end product of the L series ?
Is it because it is a "fast" (f/2.8) lens and shutter speeds are bound to be high ?
It's probably marketing. For that amount of money you either buy a fast f2.8 lens without IS or a "slow" f4 lens with IS. This way they can sell two types of lenses. The production cost of the f4 lenses are mostly cheaper so if they would apply an IS system to the 24-70 they would cut their own fingers pretty much, because the demand on the 24-105 F4L would drop like crazy.
If you follow the Canon rumors and demands of photographers a little bit, you'll see that a 24-70 L with IS is probably the most "hoped for" lens there is. It's rumored to be announced ever since I started photographing so at least 2,5 years or so [;)]
I doubt it will come and if it will, it will be in a different budget probably[A]
I think the 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS will come eventually. However, it will be in a price point well above the 24-105. The 70-200mm line (with an f/2.8, an f/2.8 IS, an F/4, and an F/4 IS version). Just because Canon makes an f/2.8 version of the lens in the same focal length, it doesn't seem to diminish the demand for the f/4 versionssignificantly enough to stop production.All the lenses fill a niche, and the reason everyone doesn't get the f/2.8L IS is because of its hefty price tag. Therefore, if anything, the additional f/4 lenses do nothing but increase overall sales by giving the more budget conscious consumers an obtainable lens.
In the same way, I don't think the introduction of a 24-70mm f/2.8 L with IS will severely diminish the sales of the 24-105 f/4 L, as long as it carries a premium pricetag (as it justifiably will).
On a side note, the whole reason I purchased a 7D instead of the 5D Mark II is because the 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS didn't exist. I fell in love with the general purposefunctionality of my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and I couldn't bear to leave any of its useful traits (the focal range coupled with IS) on the table when upgrading to a full-frame camera. When Canon does come put IS into their 24-70mm f/2.8 L, I will once again evaluate an upgrade.
Hi Kyprianos, and welcome to the TDP forums!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Paalman
Of course, Canon makes the 70-200mm series in both f/4 and f/2.8, with and without IS at both apertures. Given that, I would think that Canon certainly could release a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS at a price point higher than the current lens, and keep the non-IS version in the lineup. I really like my EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS, and I appreciate the advantages of IS even at wide focal lengths. Many times, though, I'd like the extra stop of light, so I've considered the 24-70mm f/2.8L, but haven't jumped on that yet. If they do release an IS version of the lens, I'd definitely buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Paalman
I doubt that. First off, I'm sure they'd keep the 24-105mm as the 5D series kit lens, so it would still sell a lot of copies. Second, you'd have a choice of f/4 lens with IS or f/2.8 lens without IS at an approximately similar price point (just like the current 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS), and an f/2.8 lens with IS at a substantially higher price point (like the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II). I'm not sure how they justified charging a 60% premium for IS on the 70-200/2.8 - but they did, and it still sells well (I bought one [;)] ). Given that, Canon may see an opportunity for a substantial profit. I hope they do, and take advantage of it! Bring on the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
You know, Sean, I said this very thing myself. Then I bought a 5DII + 24-105mm f/4L IS, and I couldn't be happier - it's a substantial improvement on the 7D + 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (although I still use the latter combination sometimes).
It makes sense if you look at the FF equivalent specs, given that the crop factor affects both focal length and aperture (in terms of DoF). That means that the 17-55mm on a crop body behaves like a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens on FF, so the 24-105mm lens on a FF body has a focal range that's both wider at the wide end and longer at the long end, and a DoF that's 1/3-stop shallower, and it still has IS. Also, since ISO noise is inversely proportional to sensor size, you can compensate for the loss of 1 stop of shutter speed by bumping up the ISO without a noise penalty (in fact, you even get an extra 1/3-stop of ISO-driven shutter speed, if you need it).
So, overall when comparing the 17-55mm on a 7D with a 24-105mm on a 5DII, the latter combination is the clear winner. IMO, the only downside to the 5DII+24-105mm combo is the autofocus - the f/4 lens does not activate the high-precision, f/2.8-sensitive AF point (but I find the 5DII's center AF point to be very accurate, and it's actually noticeably better than the 7D in low light).
All very good points, John. ;-)
Good points, John. But I still want a 24-70 f/2.8 IS on my 5DII. [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I haven't used the 7D much and I don't own one, but I find this surprising. According to dpreview, the 7D AF is rated for just as low light (-0.5 EV) as the 5DII. Of course, I'll take your experience over dpreview's stats any day :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
In my experience, the 5DII will lock on in lower light than the 7D, and with a Speedlite attached, the 5DII will not activate the AF assist lamp at illumination levels where the 7D will. But, that's for the center AF point only - my opinion on the relative sensitivities are: 5DII center point > all 7D points >> 5DII off-center points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Me, too! Even at a 60% premium (i.e. $2000-2200), I'd likely buy one, perhaps even pre-order.
I have been using the 24-70mm f/2.8 forever and never once said to myself I needed IS. I owned the 24-105mm f/4 but found it soft and terrible in low light. So I ended up selling it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iso79
<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]On what body were you using these lenses?<o:p></o:p>
5D Mark iI.
One stop doesn't make it terrible in low light, just half the light. With a 5D II's noise performace you should for the most part (general purpose photography) be fine. If the subject is not moving then the 24-105mm is much better in low light because you get three stops of IS, thats eight times as much light for the same DOF! Orfour times both wide open.
As far as softness goes I somewhat agree with you. On the wide end it's kinda soft wide open, stopped down it's pretty good. The mid focal lengths are more of less equivalent and the long end is a little soft. But not as bad as the wide end. But stopped down to f/8-f/11 there basically the same.
John.
I noticed that none of the fastest lenses (L or otherwise), up to almost 100 mm, don't have IS. Some of the lenses are recently issued, yet Canon didn't put IS on them.
So, why would an IS be needed on such a fast lens? And, if they thought it was so important, why didn't they put it in, say the 85 1.2 II, 24 1.4 II or the TS-E 17? Could it be that, despite the increased cost, it isn't necessary?
Just curious.
I think the 85L would be too difficult to design - the IS elements would need to be similar in size to those in a supertele lens, and the 85L is already enough of a cannonball. But, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS has IS, and it's FF-equivalent focal range is 27-88mm, pretty close to 24-70mm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
What makes the difference in the 17-55, in terms of the size, for IS design? I mean, they fit IS into it, and it's not a cannonball.
Besides, the 27-70 is also a cannonball. People already complain about its weight. That doesn't stop them from buying it, nor does it stop them from buying the truly BIG cannonballs: the long teles.
Or, should the long teles be called Cannons?
If Canon made a 24 f/1.4 with a 4-stop IS, they'd be putting Manfrotto and Gitzo out of business! [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Funny.....
Two questions: why don't they, then?
Second question: Doesn't Ken Rockwell say as much? [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Don't you know that it is a conspiracy? Canon board members hold stock in Gitzo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
In fact, sensor size is irrelevant for both issues.
Etc, etc. Don't get me started :)
There are no lenses faster than f/2 that have an IS unit. The sole exception is the EF 200/2L IS. All other lenses with IS are f/2.8 or slower. This in itself makes the 200/2L a rather remarkable lens.
There are two fundamental challenges with respect to IS; the first is space constraints, and the second is optical constraints. Furthermore, these are somewhat interrelated.
The space constraint means that there needs to be enough physical room inside the lens to accommodate the IS assembly, with additional room allowed for the IS group to actually move within the lens.
The optical constraints, however, are even more difficult to overcome. As the aperture gets larger, the IS group would also have to be correspondingly larger--or else the lens would not achieve the desired f-number. An f/1.2 lens has a much larger exit pupil than an f/2.8 lens, and even an f/2 lens. Then, the larger the IS group, the heavier it is and the slower it would be to respond to movement. So the technology doesn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Good! Precisely what I was hoping for....a rant!
Isn't marketing a conspiracy, disguised? [:D]
I haven
Ah yes, a good point Stephen. You don
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Ah...that's "THE THRUTH" .... See, I learn every day [:D]
If what you say is really the truth, I made the worst decision of my
life when buying the 24-105 f4L IS instead of the 24-70 f2.8L when
buying the 5D2 (prices where pretty much equal). Funny, it doesn't feel
like that at all. I borrow my firends 24-70 from time to time, but I'm
never really happy with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I don't know what I'm talking about I guess. My keeper rate with IS
in macro-photography(without flashing) is higher than ever. Putting down
a tripod would not only be too slow for the things I shoot, but would
also mean that I have to carry it every time. And by the time I have
set-up my stuff, the little bugs and flies would have left already
probably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I find my photos much sharper with IS when I'm at the edge of
shutterspeed when taking photos of people. I'm not standing still and I
don't take 5 seconds to fully stabilize before I take a shot. Definitely
not when I have to take a 100 in a row and have to direct people while
I'm at it. I rather use IS and worry about the composition, than don't
use IS and also have to worry about camera-shake every shot.
If I would be shooting 1 model at 1/100s without IS and I would be
walking around her. Take a full body portrait, walk to her, compose
quickly take a head shoulder portrait, get low and take a shot, switch
from portrait to landscape and take a shot. I'm sure I wouldn't be happy
with the sharpness in at least half the photos. This happens a lot in
weddings (at least with me) and I'm very happy I have IS when I'm using
such shutterspeeds. That's the truth for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I
don't know what *** is, but if I would have put in a word it would be
"TOP". Not only do I appreciate IS with portraits. I also like it for
sports, believe it or not, even at high shutterspeeds when it stabilizes
my viewfinder and I can compose much easier. And macro really hits the
nail. Try composing a 1:1 macro without IS and then with IS. For me it's
worth paying a little extra. Plus f2.8 or faster sounds nice, but for a
lot of photos you need more depth of field to work with. Cheap lenses
aren't bad, you just can't work with them.
If I would be a doctor,
I would diagnose you with a severe case of L-Disease(worst I've ever
seen). You probably only use faster lenses than f2.8 with a Red Ring
which cost more than average camera people buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Oh. Ok. I'm glad you're here to correct all of us, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Should probably have stopped yourself there, but.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
We're all eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Lots of "I's" in that sentence, and quite a few "my's" as well. Do we all shoot the same subject matter as you? No. Are we all you? Thank goodness, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Ah yes, like those CHEAP L-series telezooms and supertele lenses in the $1,200 to $13,000 range. Quite the gimick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Well, there is a lot of agreement that the person who put forth that drivel has a loose grip on reality. At least he has lots of company out there in the world.
By the way, while I certainly don't agree with KR's statement, this shot was taken handheld - a 0.5 s exposure at 95mm. I was standing on a viewing bridge that was not wide enough for a tripod. I'm sure glad Canon's marketing ploy succeeded in getting me to buy such a cheap lens (it only cost $2,500).
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/5515135844/in/set-72157626112302225/lightbox/]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5052/...65d28f4a_z.jpg[/url]
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS II USM @ 95mm, 1/2 s, f/5.6, ISO 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I like you. You're funny.
Nice Shot Neuro!
Stephen, welcome to the forum. Certainly all opinions are welcome here! Perhaps, not the best strategy to call everyone out with your first post. Regardless, your viewpoints regarding IS are limited to your types of shooting where people are slightly moving in wedding photos, or they're running away from you as a photojournalist. I think most people here would agree with your assertion regarding moving subjects, however just because you don't have a use for IS, doesn't mean it's a gimmick or unnecessary.
Hopefully, you will see the benefits of IS after reading through this entire thread...; such as Macro photography, stationary objects in low light, locking the image in the viewfinder for faster moving subjects, as well as steadying a long heavy lens. I do feel that IS is less useful for shorter, faster, lenses that are easier to handhold, however it certainly does have it's place and I could have used it a few times on my 24-70mm f/2.8L, especially from a boat at dusk, or when I would like to reduce the amount of noise in the photo by choosing a slower SS for landscapes or street architecture at dusk, or indoor use without a flash.
Johns photo demonstrates a few concepts; one is that IS definitely has it's place to use slower shutter-speeds to reduce the need for a tripod without introducing camera shake. It also demonstrates that IS isn't only useful for stationary objects, as the main subject in this photo is moving, it's also useful for artistic renditions of moving subjects. Without IS, you're probably looking at a SS of 1/125sec at 95mm and the water won't blur with that exposure. This waterfall is an interesting example, because it lends itself to 2 points in this thread, such as using slower shutter-speeds handheld with IS, and the fact that IS does reduce the need for a tripod. The combination of a slower SS and IS allows the waterfall to be blurred, whereas a higher ISO and faster SS wouldn't help in this case. I would never be bold enough to suggest that tripods are obsolete, but I would agree that with the advent of IS for camera shake and higher ISO's to increase shutter-speeds and DOF, that the need for tripods have been diminished over the years.
Rich
Image stabilization was invented by Canon and was first released into production in 1995 with the EF 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM. The technology proved so useful that it was soon implemented for the EF 300/4L IS USM in 1997, and the fast super telephoto primes (EF 300/2.8L IS, 400/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, 600/4L IS) around 1999. Later lenses, mostly telephoto zooms and primes, also received IS, all the while improving the stabilization technology with faster processors, which enabled more responsive correction.
The reason why these lenses got IS was because their focal lengths are so long that, if one were to shoot them handheld, the shutter speed would need to be quite fast. Combined with a relatively slow aperture (the fastest of these lenses were f/2.8, and most were f/4 or slower), this clearly resulted in a restriction in the allowable range of light conditions for which an acceptable exposure was possible. For example, at 300mm f/4, without IS one could not achieve a reliable handheld exposure below EV +12. With 2-stop IS, that improves to a more manageable EV +10. Were this lens given a modern IS system with 4-stop correction, it would be able to shoot at EV +8, which is somewhere around 1/15 s at f/4.
But, as we all know, there
Wow, I really have offended some tech fundies by suggesting that something that they swear by is not really necessary. If I am really as crazy as they suggest I am, and IS is really something that is going to change my life, then I wonder how all those photographers of the past such as the ones who were on Omaha beach on D-day for example, got a single useful photograph the whole time they were there. How on earth did they have the patience to use those cumbersome 4X5" and 6x6" hasselblad, 35mm and movie cameras, that did not have any IS.
When I started shooting, all I had was a cheapo kit lens attached to a film camera. There were no histograms, immediate reviewing of images, or adjusting your ISO midshoot. This is why I am a bit of a purist and really dont like people who swear by a new gizmo or gadget that fixes a problem that experience could have avoided. I hate shooting digital, but I
Wow....I sure hope it wasn't me that got this thread turned up in volume.
If so, I apologize. It was not my intent. [:(]
First, you may want to go back and read my previous post.
Second, by your reasoning, why shouldn
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I'm pretty sure I'm with "they" so I will explain my point of view. I'm not really offended by your idea. Better yet, I can understand your point of view. However I wouldn't call your idealogy as a suggestive type. Your idea works for a few things, but is definitely not the truth for all photography. Not even for all people-photography. The words "the truth is" is what got me bothered.
To answer your question on how they did it back then is simple. They had other points to critique. Also for example: the photos you desribe are photos where something spectecular or very interesting happens. Another part with film is that every photo costs money. You better compose correctly the first time and make sure your settings are right. We have to worry less about those things, since a lot can be done later on. For press related shots it's better to have a bad photo than no photo at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
So you don't use any post-processing either? I want to see how much of a purist you are [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
If you were to have your tripod with you that is [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
No that wouldn't be a bad thing at all. If you have more time, your compsition might get better, you might see some other things or wait for a cloud to appear to make it more dramatic. However this would mean that you don't have plans for the rest of the day. During a citytrip you might spot more than 1 occasion and I'm pretty sure your wife wouldn't appreciate it if you take 10 minutes for each shot [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I also love my non-IS 50mm. It makes you think twice about your composition. But the simple fact is that you cannot shoot everything with a 50mm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I rarely take photos of people(unless it's sports), so I don't know about that point. I'm not sure if IS wouldn't help you. I guess it wouldn't be necessary, but you might like it more than you think[A]
Oh and if you're getting older and get a little shaky, you might reconsider your point of view [;)]
Edit:when I look over my post I see a lot of wink-emoticons. Sorry about that, here's a different one [:P]
I use a tripod almost exclusively with Minolta 600mm f/6.3. Even with a tripod I get more slightly blured photos that I would like, not because it's not stable enough but because I sometimes have handle the camera when shooting. I tellcan you from experience that hand holding 600mm witha 2x extender is no easy task even with a very high shutter speed, it's extremely hard to frame at those focal lengths without IS.
I never found that being slowed down ever helped me compose a shot, if I needed more time to make a shot I'll take more time. I don't need an artificial means to slow me down.
I have shot film before as well and didn't like it, the fully manual Minolta system and Canon EF. You had to wait for the pictures to be developed. You couldn't review it in real time. The IQ is not comparable except at very low ISO's. And you had to change ISO by changing the roll of film. Not to mention the cost, if you shot sports or wildlife it was extremely expensive. You didn't have absolute control of exposure in less demanding situations.
I did like the like DOF of 35mm but full frame dslr's have fixed that.
If you think I don't know what I talking about check out my portfolio,
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Paalman
Yes. Precisely. Otherwise, what's the point of owning an SLR?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Skip the camera altogether - you may swear by it, but itis not really necessary. Go dig up some ochre and paint images of current events and mating ceremonies on a cave wall. It was state of the art 17,000 years ago atLascaux, and who needs all these technological advancements, anyway...
[:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I don't really think you offended anyone. I think your problem was your tone and the fact that you overstated your case (to the point that I actually thought you were a troll). It is true that IS is not needed for all applications, and perhaps a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would not be useful to you. But you went further- by not only stating that IS is useless, but by calling IS a gimmick (thus insulting anyone who paid a big premium for an IS lens).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
No one said IS is going to change your life, and no one said that it is impossible to get a good picture without IS. But some of us, under some conditions, get pictures with IS that it would have been difficult or impossible to get without.
If I may get back to the point.
I think the post from Wickerprints is spot on, the reason why this lens does not have IS could be optical constraints. This lens is (for me) somewhat unusual because it is wide (24mm) when the barrel is fully extended, and narrow when retracted (makes the lens hood easy). It may not be possible to deliver an IS with the current lens configuration, which means a totally new design, which could mean years of testing.
From reading Canon Rumors (OK this is no authoritative source) there are at least 5 test 24-70 lenses in the field, with and without IS, so something may be comming.
Now let us give Canon some credit their knowledge of optics. Canon is not one of those companies who just want to sell the same product unchanged for the next 20 years. Canon is one of the great innovators in optics and engineering today, if IS is both possible and provides an advantage, then it will come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I agreed. and I think this is the point about this discussion of IS. IS, of course, is not useless, John's picture is a very good example, but it can be replaced by some other ways-------- like faster shutter speed, higher ISO, flash, tripod etc. and it only works for non-moving object. if you have to pay big premium for that, some people(including myself) might think it's not worth it. It's funny I tend to say "useless" instead of saying "not worth it"[:D].
other fact is that usually the newer IS version lenses are better than the old version in almost all aspects, better optical performance, lighter etc. this was why i still got the IS version when purchased my 300mm and 500mm though i'm not a big fan of IS.(I turn IS off when shooting birds almost all the time when using a tripod)
if there is a 24mm 1.4 IS(4 stop) lens for landscape shots, I don't see why you need to carry a tripod, but I guess if they can produce really good high ISO sensor in the future,we might never need a IS lens. just my 2 cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Thank you for joining our forum. We have precious few trolls around here, so we appreciate every one we can get, even trolls as unskilled as you. However, I'd like to offer a few pointers as you are clearly very new at this.
First, when you pretend to be someone you are not, such as a photojournalist/wedding photographer, don't choose trolling topics that are so obviously in conflict with your made-up profession. For example, no real photojournalist would be so ignorant as to ever think there is no situation which justifies IS. Same for wedding photographers -- none of them are so blinded to reality that they would think their own specific circumstances apply globally to all photography, even if IS did not help them (though it does). A wiser choice would have been to pretend to be someone for whom such idiodic behavior is normal (such as a politician or a teenager).
Second, don't use all-caps for emphasizing your point. I understand that when you're starving for attention you resort to drastic behavior, but be aware that it only makes it more obvious that you are trolling. A little etiquette will give you more bites.
Third, try throwing in a little fact and truth every once and a while. When the entire post is full of logical fallacies, you will be recognized for the angsty teen troll you are, and they will skip over your post. The best trolls can bait hundreds of post without using a single non-sequitur. With some more effort you may be able to fool some into thinking that you are capable of intelligent conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
I agree. I.S. is 3 out of 4 stars. (I would give it 4/4, ****, but I knocked off one star due to price.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
For the benefit of the non-troll audience, I would like to add something. I do photojournalism and wedding photography, yet even there I find I.S. highly useful. For example, when taking a full length portrait, natural light, 5D2, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 1600.
In my experience, many people can hold still enough for a full length portrait at 1/60. But I can't hold 200mm still enough for 1/60. In fact, for the largest prints from a 5D2, I need at least 1/400 at 200mm. With I.S., I can do 200mm at 1/60 and still print it really large.
Now, if I was only doing small prints, or only shooting 24mm, then 1/60 might have been fine. But I like the option to shoot telephoto and use the full 21 MP. And that's not limited to just posed portraits -- candid photography (for me at least) often includes stationary people that are tack sharp at 1/60 and sometimes 1/30.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
No one called you crazy (not yet anyway!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
Reality is there not that cumbersom, the tripod would be more of a bother than the camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephensphotos
First of all IS is usefull in people photography incertain situations as Daniel pointed out, and to even entertain suchideas that everyone shoots the samething gives credence to your knoledge much less your common sense. This is the very falacy in your doctrin that "IS is useless".
John.
I