IS is a valuable asset for hand held video work and I would gladly trade up for it (:
IS is a valuable asset for hand held video work and I would gladly trade up for it (:
Originally Posted by peety3
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.0 (Win32)" />
<style type="text/css"]
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]peety,
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]<span style="font-style: normal;"] I
am sorry if I did not state it clearly enough, but my point,
particularly with that photo and the many others like it I take, is
that the f/2.8 is immeasurably more valuable than the IS would be to
me. I must have failed to make it clear that had I tried to take that
photo with the EF 24-105 f/4 I would have had to use much higher ISO
and much slower shutter speed, resulting in an undesirable photo.
With f/2.8 to freeze the action I am generally at ISO 1200 – 1600,
which is as high as I care to go. My IS comment was not for action
photos, but for darker venues with much less movement, like the
school play, to compensate for my “hand shake” as you suggest. My
wish, like many others, is to have both f/2.8 and IS. <span style="font-style: normal;"]I
have taken about a thousand images with the 24-70 in the couple of
weeks since getting it and I am very pleased with it. I am getting
what I hoped to get from it.
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"] <span style="font-style: normal;"]As
far as getting used to it, it is little adjustments like the focus
and zoom rings being reversed from my 17-55. I have to remember which
I am using when I first start, but once I am going it is not a
problem.
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"]<span style="font-style: normal;"]Chris
hi guys! any update if this lens is really coming out? i started to save to get my first L lens, either the 24-105 or 24-70 but if this one (24-70 IS)is reallycoming out, i thinkit will be a killer lens.
Go pop your head into the Canon Rumors site and read away.
When Canon announces something, they announce something. Until they announce something, they don't announce something. They haven't announced this lens, so they aren't releasing it. Yet. Today. But tomorrow could be a new day.
No one here has connections into Canon that allow them to announce things before they are public. If they had those connections, they'd likely lose them if things were announced before they were public.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Another case of "he says what he means, and he means what he says." []
You're absolutely right, Peety.
NEWS FLASH - Canon rumors had posted an email that confirms a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lens!! Oh, wait, the date on the post is February 28th, 2009. *sigh* I guess we'll all just have to wait and see...
Lets just say if there would be another lens that Canon would make it very well could be a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM L. Almost everyone wants one, including me....[
John.
I think Canon isunder pressure to make a 24-70 IS. However, there are a couple of lenses also probably higher on their hitlist:
35mm f/1.8 - to counteract Nikon
200-400mm f/4 - Nikon's awesome lens has no other counterpart. Canon could produce one of these, narrowing the gap in their wildlife lens range. More $$$ than the 100-400 but less $$$ than the 500 f/4. Maybe $4000. nice.
180mm f/3.5 - Canon's ultimate macro lens is slow and beginning to show its age.
200mm f/2.8 prime - very old.
135mm f/2 prime - a great lens that needs replacement with IS.
I personally would go bananas for a Canon 200-400. It could be a killer lens for FF and APS-C. Then again, the 24-70 would probably make a bigger impact than any of the lenses above. The only thing is that Canon introduced it fairly recently (2002?).
brendan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote