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.
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.
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)
Adding IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 is a very common request and I'm sure that Canon has heard a lot about it, but personally, IS doesn't interest me that much at that focal length. My subjects usually need 1/60 or faster, and I can handhold 1/60 at 70mm even on the 5D2. Of course, there's an entire world of subjects that would benefit greatly from it; however, my understanding is that IS is not quite as effective at short focal lengths. (I hear less than 2 stops improvement at 24mm on the 24-105.) Right now my preferred lenses are 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and 70-200 f/4 IS, so I don't even use a typical "walkaround zoom".
I agree with John Ruyle and Tom Alicoate: the 24-105 f/4 IS has a wider aperture and more light gathering power than the 17-55 f/2.8. The only thing that it doesn't do as well is activate the f/2.8-only autofocus sensors.
I posted about this topic here:
http://community.the-digital-picture.../42/94.aspx#94
The 24-105 has a *wider* aperture than the 17-55 at every equivalent field of view and perspective. For example, the aperture on the 17mm at f/2.8 is 6mm. The L at 27mm f/4 is 7mm: 17% wider aperture. The larger front element of the L points toward this fact too.
The focal ratio (not aperture) is one stop narrower (f/4 vs f/2.8), so the light intensity per area is twice as dim. However, the total amount of light is more than double, thanks to the much larger area and wider aperture. So you can up the ISO or use -1 EC to get the same shutter speed as with f/2.8 and still collect a half-stop more light in total. The resulting image will be superior to the 17mm on the 30D, and only slightly better than on the 50D.
At f/2.8 you will be letting in twice the amount of light *per area*, but the total amount of light captured will be much smaller. For example, the lens on a very tiny 1/1.7" Digicam with a 7mm f/2.8 lens also has the same perspective/FOV as your 20mm, and it also captures the same amount of light per area, but the total amount of light falling on the sensor is much less. In fact, f/2.8 on a digicam is the same amount of light as f/14 on your 50D! (And f/19 on the 5D2.) It's no wonder digicams struggle in low light. The reason is sensor area.
In the same way, a full-frame f/4 lens focuses more light than an f/2.8 APS-C lens: it's just spread out over a wider area. So the full-frame camera has about a 1/3 stop advantage in low light at f/4: you could upgrade to the 5D2 and 24-105 f/4 and still get all the same DOF, noise level, and shutter speed. In fact, it's more than a 1/3rd stop better at f/4.
Of course, if you take it even further, and go with f/2.8 on the 5D2, then you'll have a 1.4 stops thinner DOF, and that much more low light power.
There is one web page that explains all of this, and more, in excrutiating detail.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Not exactly, but close. a 1.6 FOVCF is like a 1.6x teleconverter, in terms of less light. 2.8 would be the same light on a 1.4 FOVCF sensor as a f/4 on a full frame, but 1.6 means smaller, so slightly less. In terms of what this really means, I'd defer to actual results.
I doubt anyone can tell
And if they can, differences in the results are likely due to other differences between the cameras and lenses. Of course, we expect better iq on the larger format, but thats a separate issue.
do you think canon will eventually make it though? I have a 1.6 crop camera and eventually want to upgrade to full frame, just worried about if i buy 17-55 for now to satisfy my current need i'll regret when 24-70 f2.8 comes out... if it does ...
you are where i was a year ago.. however i decided that the wide angle was important enough to me that i'd go ahead and get the 17-55.
i still don't regret it.. i upgraded to a 5dmkII, but i'm still keeping my old camera because it's good to have a backup, and the 17-55 is a great lens to just leave on that camera.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote