Canon announced 2 Rebels, 4 compacts, 3 lenses, 2 flashes

[Colin500]

Just checked all the news on dpreview, that's the summary — but still no 24-70 IS!


Colin

[nickds7]

— but still no 24-70 IS!

[]

[Sheiky]

but still no 24-70 IS!

Haha [] Proofs again that you shouldn't be listening to Canonrumors []

[Colin500]

but still no 24-70 IS!

Haha [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img] Proofs again that you shouldn't be listening to Canonrumors [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]

Yes, those who did might be disappointed; I'm glad that my 24-70 is still "current" ;-)

[Kayaker72]

200-400 mm f/4 L IS with built in 1.4x extender. Wow.


How much? How good are the optics? How well does the internal 1.4x work? And, can other extenders be added?


My quick guess at answers are: Too much, excellent, really well, and as intriguing as it may be, no (too much image degradation).


Now the question gets to be, do the 70-300L and the 200-400L combined constitute the replacement of the 100-400L?


EDIT: Oops, in my excitement, I didn't see the other thread. [:$]

[Colin500]

EDIT: Oops, in my excitement, I didn't see the other thread. [img]/emoticons/emotion-10.gif[/img]

In my excitement I started too many threads — although none of the items is even on my wishlist.


Btw, you forgot an important question: How much will it weigh? ;-)

[Sheiky]

EDIT: Oops, in my excitement, I didn't see the other thread. [img]/emoticons/emotion-10.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

In my excitement I started too many threads &mdash; although none of the items is even on my wishlist.


Btw, you forgot an important question: How much will it weigh? ;-)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I had the same problem [] But once I picked up my mind and started thinking about possible costs....back to reality []


How much will it weigh and how big will it be are good question indeed. I'm interested. The 200-400 IS extender might be a fun lens to rent from time to time [A]

[iso79]

If you are a good photographer you don

[neuroanatomist]

If you are a good photographer you don't needIS.

If you are a good photographer, you don't need a 24-70mm L lens, either. Or a fancy dSLR. Heck, grab some film, a cardboard box, a piece of aluminum foil, and a pushpin, and go make yourself a pinhole camera. IF you're a good photographer, you'll still be able to take fantastic pictures.


[:P]


IS is a tool. To me, there's no question that it can be highly beneficial in certain situations, even on lenses with shorter focal lengths. I certainly find that to be true with the EF-S 17-55mm and the 24-105mm f/4L IS.


In the case of the 24-70mm f/2.8L, adding IS would probably add 1-2 ounces (28-56 g) to the weight of the lens, equivalent to about 3 CF cards. Even with that 6% weight boost, a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS would be over a pound lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.


If Canon ever actually releases a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lens, I'd definitely add it to my kit. As it is, I prefer the 24-105mm f/4L IS - in large part because of the IS, with which the lens can be handheld at shutter speeds equivalent to a hypothetical 24-70mm f/1.4 (greatfor static subjects, andwithout the extremely thin DoF you get at f/1.4, for which you'd want to be using a prime anyway).


Just my 2&cent;.