Lens Rentals Review of the 24-70 II

[Kayaker72]

I think the 200-400 will break the pattern.

[Dr Croubie]

I think the 200-400 will break the pattern.

$23,000?

[ahab1372]

thank you Doctor!

[shutterdown]

$23,000?

It might be close! It will surely break the bank.

[Scott Stephen]

Well it would seem that Canon has managed to dangle yet another lens in front of us this year to tempt the money out of our pockets. Has the time finally come to replace my trusty 24-105 now that my work is starting to include a lot more indoor shots? I know that I'd miss the reach when walking around with one camera body but when on shoots I always have multiple bodies anyways. Decisions, decisions, decisions, nope definitely waffling. Lack of IS, sigh.

Seriously on the lack of IS! Canon seems to be planting IS on everything it touches except for what really needs it! 24-70 is clearly a mainly hand-held walk-around lens. Also will be used INSIDE a lot, where there is no bright sun for abundant light. Seems like a great place for IS to allow a slower shutter w/o blurr, no?
But look at the latest 400, 500, 600 lenses, which ALL have IS, but which will nearly never be used inside, which will often be on a tripod or monopod, which will be usually used in bright sunlight, and which will probably be used at high shutter speed negating need for IS.

This just seems odd.

[HDNitehawk]

Seriously on the lack of IS! Canon seems to be planting IS on everything it touches except for what really needs it! 24-70 is clearly a mainly hand-held walk-around lens. Also will be used INSIDE a lot, where there is no bright sun for abundant light. Seems like a great place for IS to allow a slower shutter w/o blurr, no?
But look at the latest 400, 500, 600 lenses, which ALL have IS, but which will nearly never be used inside, which will often be on a tripod or monopod, which will be usually used in bright sunlight, and which will probably be used at high shutter speed negating need for IS.

This just seems odd.

Scott, I think you have it half right, the 24-70 could really use IS. I was really hoping it would have it.

With my 500mm over 1/2 my wildlife shots are hand held. At twilight and early morning when wildlife is most active, IS can be very important. IS on the super tele is far more important to me than it would be on the 24-70.

[neuroanatomist]

Consider - the 4-stop IS on the 500/600 mm lenses make them as 'handholdable' as the 24-70mm *without* IS.

[FastGass]

I think your are talking out of ignorance, even on a tripod unless you lock down your tripod and use mirror lockup or higher than 160th sec you will get a blurred image. But that is not always the case, usually not the case for me, I usually need to handle the camera and point it around and trigger the shot with the shutter button. The new version of IS is useful for faster shutter speeds as well (As per Bryans review) and IS is very helpfull just for aiming at high magnifacations. Most shots are best in early morning or evening because of the sweet light, broad daylight shots are for the most part not ideal lighting and cloudy is much better than broad daylight.

Never mind just hand holding!

While I would love to have IS in the 24-70mm II as much as anybody I can see myself getting around it FAR easier than a super tele.

Sorry but IS is EXTREMELY useful,
John.

[Busted Knuckles]

FG - you left off all the examples for video - IS is massively useful in video to reduce shake and vibs when hand holding or even using a steady cam rig.

I think your are talking out of ignorance, even on a tripod unless you lock down your tripod and use mirror lockup or higher than 160th sec you will get a blurred image. But that is not always the case, usually not the case for me, I usually need to handle the camera and point it around and trigger the shot with the shutter button. The new version of IS is useful for faster shutter speeds as well (As per Bryans review) and IS is very helpfull just for aiming at high magnifacations. Most shots are best in early morning or evening because of the sweet light, broad daylight shots are for the most part not ideal lighting and cloudy is much better than broad daylight.

Never mind just hand holding!

While I would love to have IS in the 24-70mm II as much as anybody I can see myself getting around it FAR easier than a super tele.

Sorry but IS is EXTREMELY useful,
John.

[Kayaker72]

Well, if you believe the rumors, there were versions of the 24-70 being tested "in the wild" that had IS. Canon opted to go without it for what I can only hope were good reasons. Just to speculate, perhaps IQ suffered slightly? Or put another way, I wonder how many event photographers would upgrade for IS vs increased resolution/weight savings? Or maybe IS added to the already high cost of $2,300 and Canon worried about price point? Maybe it was weight?

We all know Canon has very good IS technology, so I can only assume that there is a good reason to not include it in the 24-70 II.

It seems to me that Canon built the 5DIII very much with event photographers in mind. Could be they did the exact same with the 24-70 II. Regardless, it seems to be an incredibly sharp lens. Hopefully, someday, I 'll have one.