Quote Originally Posted by Tony Printezis
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon upgrades the 24-70 soon (and IS would be a non-brainer for it!). The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is not that old and Canon already has a replacement lined up... and the 24-70 is a very popular lens. Personally, there are some other lenses I'd rather see upgraded instead (e.g., 50 1.4 II with a proper USM motor, 17-40 II with better borders on FF, 400 5.6 IS), but a 24-70 replacement with IS would not surprised me at all!

Tony, I stand corrected, I thought the 24-70 (2002) was three or four years newer than the 70-200 2.8 IS (2001). I spent so much time comparing the 24-70 vs. the 24-105 (2005) I confused the release dates of the two. It does make sense that new and reworked L's will incorporate IS. But as much as I (and many others) would like the 24-70 IS, I think countering some gaps with Nikon -- like their 200-400 f/4 are more of a priority to Canon than our desires.


Quote Originally Posted by Tony Printezis
Chris, yes, I actually totally agree with you. If you want to shoot fast moving subjects in low light (as you do), the IS will not help you therefore the f/2.8 lens is the one for you. If you want to shoot stationary subjects in low light (as I do), the IS will definitely be of great help and the f/4 IS lens is the one for you (actually: for me!). This is I think the best way to determine which of the two one really needs.

Well said! In the end no matter how much we all respect each others input before we drop $1000 plus, it really comes down to what we are going to be doing with our gear.


Chris