24-70 2.8 IS yes or no

[coastalkid88]

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

[Keith B]

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.

[SupraSonic]

I'm sure it will involve weight if there is IS. BTW why it produce FLARE? Filter Brand? Have you callobrated to suit BODY?

[Keith B]

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.

[hotsecretary]

It won't be heavier for sure. Look @ 70-200 f4 IS, it's lighter

[Mark Elberson]

It won't be heavier for sure. Look @ 70-200 f4 IS, it's lighter
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

<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';"]
<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></o>

[Benjamin]

I personally see no reason for it but what do you think




Positives
IS
Low light
Redesigned
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[twistedphrame]

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.