5D Mark iI.
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...
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! []
Funny.....
Two questions: why don't they, then?
Second question: Doesn't Ken Rockwell say as much? [
Don't you know that it is a conspiracy? Canon board members hold stock in Gitzo!
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
Don't you know that it is a conspiracy? Canon board members hold stock in Gitzo!
Etc, etc. Don't get me started
Good! Precisely what I was hoping for....a rant!
Isn't marketing a conspiracy, disguised? []
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote