Quote Canon Rumors:
"EF 24-70 f/2.8L II IS
- Possibly the most sought after lens Canonites are lusting after. Match Nikon’s optics and add IS? You’d have a massive sales success. It almost wouldn’t matter what it cost."
True. I'll immediately sell my 24-70L and get one regardless how much it would cost.
I have the 24-70, but I use it for landscape photography. Thus, it's mostly on a tripod.
So you get it with IS. I would turn that off, on a tripod, anyway.
What situations would the IS come in handy? I mean, REALLY come in handy, with a wide angle lens like this?
Just curious.
I, too, find IS is more useful on a long lens than a short one. Roughly speaking, IS with a wide lens means long shutter speeds, which means the subject isn't moving, which means you could have used a tripod.
Still, IS is still nice on a wide lens for taking pictures in really low light when a tripod is inconvenient or not available. I often use the IS feature of my 24-105 for candid portraits of people who are not quickly moving. It also works amazingly well for hand held night photography. At 24mm, we're talking 1/2 to 1/4 second shutter speeds hand held.
If canon made a 24-70 lens, it would (I think) be their most hand holdable lens. Someone correct me if I am wrong. (By most hand holdable, I of course mean the lens where where 2^(# IS stops)/( f number squared * focal length * FOVC crop factor cubed) is as high as possible).
Another answer is that many people use the 24-70 and 24-105 lenses as
"walk around lenses". Ie, you don't necessarily know in advance what
you will be using it for. These are very versatile focal length
ranges. Adding IS just makes a lens whose forte is versatility more
versatile still.
I also have the 24-105, and for that lens, I do appreciate having the IS. As you mentioned, it's a good walk around lens.
The versatility of that lens, though, is because of its greater zoom reach. More often than not, I will use this lens for such a purpose, as zooming in on people, moving objects, etc. Having the IS for this lens makes sense, since it will be used much more (in my opinion) for hand held situations.
The 24-70 vs the 24-105....that extra 35 mm is a lot and, for me, makes the 24-70 more likely to be used for landscape shots (both night, and daylight) and the 24-105 for daylight "walk around" shots. I wouldn't dare do a night shot, hand held, if I was at 2.8 and 1/2 second, with a 24-70 IS. I'd be guaranteed to have a bad image. You must have the steady "rock of gibralter" hands.
With IS adding another 4-500 dollars to the lens (similar with the non-IS 70-200 2.8 vs IS version), that's a lot of extra money for limited application benefit. I'd rather spend that on a tripod, and achieve better results.
Originally Posted by Alan
- In situations where a tripod is not possible such as public places where a no tripod law is implemented (i.e. Grand central Station)
- Wedding/event photography.
- In situations where you do not want to deal with the hassle of carrying, setting up or dealing with a tripod (i.e. vacation, day trips)
Along with the lack of a 14-24 lens, the nonstabilized24-70 is I think the biggest weakness in Canon's lineup. This update would sure make the lens even cooler. But it might be a good thing to keep a non IS version sold for a bit less like for the 70-200 as the IS is notnecessaryfor everyone.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote