Originally Posted by iso79
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¢.
Reply With Quote