EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM - No IS

[petakas]

I am still a not so experienced photographer so excuse my lack of knowledge.


In the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM lens ( www.the-digital-picture.com/.../Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx ) why is it that CANON have no Image stabilization (IS) when it is a so high end product of the L series ?


Is it because it is a "fast" (f/2.8) lens and shutter speeds are bound to be high ?

[Sheiky]

It's probably marketing. For that amount of money you either buy a fast f2.8 lens without IS or a "slow" f4 lens with IS. This way they can sell two types of lenses. The production cost of the f4 lenses are mostly cheaper so if they would apply an IS system to the 24-70 they would cut their own fingers pretty much, because the demand on the 24-105 F4L would drop like crazy.


If you follow the Canon rumors and demands of photographers a little bit, you'll see that a 24-70 L with IS is probably the most "hoped for" lens there is. It's rumored to be announced ever since I started photographing so at least 2,5 years or so []


I doubt it will come and if it will, it will be in a different budget probably[A]

[Sean Setters]

I think the 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS will come eventually. However, it will be in a price point well above the 24-105. The 70-200mm line (with an f/2.8, an f/2.8 IS, an F/4, and an F/4 IS version). Just because Canon makes an f/2.8 version of the lens in the same focal length, it doesn't seem to diminish the demand for the f/4 versionssignificantly enough to stop production.All the lenses fill a niche, and the reason everyone doesn't get the f/2.8L IS is because of its hefty price tag. Therefore, if anything, the additional f/4 lenses do nothing but increase overall sales by giving the more budget conscious consumers an obtainable lens.


In the same way, I don't think the introduction of a 24-70mm f/2.8 L with IS will severely diminish the sales of the 24-105 f/4 L, as long as it carries a premium pricetag (as it justifiably will).


On a side note, the whole reason I purchased a 7D instead of the 5D Mark II is because the 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS didn't exist. I fell in love with the general purposefunctionality of my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and I couldn't bear to leave any of its useful traits (the focal range coupled with IS) on the table when upgrading to a full-frame camera. When Canon does come put IS into their 24-70mm f/2.8 L, I will once again evaluate an upgrade.

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Kyprianos, and welcome to the TDP forums!

It's probably marketing. For that amount of money you either buy a fast f2.8 lens without IS or a "slow" f4 lens with IS. This way they can sell two types of lenses.

Of course, Canon makes the 70-200mm series in both f/4 and f/2.8, with and without IS at both apertures. Given that, I would think that Canon certainly could release a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS at a price point higher than the current lens, and keep the non-IS version in the lineup. I really like my EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L IS, and I appreciate the advantages of IS even at wide focal lengths. Many times, though, I'd like the extra stop of light, so I've considered the 24-70mm f/2.8L, but haven't jumped on that yet. If they do release an IS version of the lens, I'd definitely buy it.

he production cost of the f4 lenses are mostly cheaper so if they would apply an IS system to the 24-70 they would cut their own fingers pretty much, because the demand on the 24-105 F4L would drop like crazy.

I doubt that. First off, I'm sure they'd keep the 24-105mm as the 5D series kit lens, so it would still sell a lot of copies. Second, you'd have a choice of f/4 lens with IS or f/2.8 lens without IS at an approximately similar price point (just like the current 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS), and an f/2.8 lens with IS at a substantially higher price point (like the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II). I'm not sure how they justified charging a 60% premium for IS on the 70-200/2.8 - but they did, and it still sells well (I bought one [] ). Given that, Canon may see an opportunity for a substantial profit. I hope they do, and take advantage of it! Bring on the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS!!

[neuroanatomist]

On a side note, the whole reason I purchased a 7D instead of the 5D Mark II is because the 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS didn't exist. I fell in love with the general purposefunctionality of my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and I couldn't bear to leave any of its useful traits (the focal range coupled with IS) on the table when upgrading to a full-frame camera.

You know, Sean, I said this very thing myself. Then I bought a 5DII + 24-105mm f/4L IS, and I couldn't be happier - it's a substantial improvement on the 7D + 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (although I still use the latter combination sometimes).


It makes sense if you look at the FF equivalent specs, given that the crop factor affects both focal length and aperture (in terms of DoF). That means that the 17-55mm on a crop body behaves like a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens on FF, so the 24-105mm lens on a FF body has a focal range that's both wider at the wide end and longer at the long end, and a DoF that's 1/3-stop shallower, and it still has IS. Also, since ISO noise is inversely proportional to sensor size, you can compensate for the loss of 1 stop of shutter speed by bumping up the ISO without a noise penalty (in fact, you even get an extra 1/3-stop of ISO-driven shutter speed, if you need it).


So, overall when comparing the 17-55mm on a 7D with a 24-105mm on a 5DII, the latter combination is the clear winner. IMO, the only downside to the 5DII+24-105mm combo is the autofocus - the f/4 lens does not activate the high-precision, f/2.8-sensitive AF point (but I find the 5DII's center AF point to be very accurate, and it's actually noticeably better than the 7D in low light).

[Sean Setters]

All very good points, John. ;-)

[Jon Ruyle]

Good points, John. But I still want a 24-70 f/2.8 IS on my 5DII. []

but I find the 5DII's center AF point to be very accurate, and it's actually noticeably better than the 7D in low light

I haven't used the 7D much and I don't own one, but I find this surprising. According to dpreview, the 7D AF is rated for just as low light (-0.5 EV) as the 5DII. Of course, I'll take your experience over dpreview's stats any day

[neuroanatomist]

According to dpreview, the 7D AF is rated for just as low light (-0.5 EV) as the 5DII. Of course, I'll take your experience over dpreview's stats any day

In my experience, the 5DII will lock on in lower light than the 7D, and with a Speedlite attached, the 5DII will not activate the AF assist lamp at illumination levels where the 7D will. But, that's for the center AF point only - my opinion on the relative sensitivities are: 5DII center point &gt; all 7D points &gt;&gt; 5DII off-center points.

But I still want a 24-70 f/2.8 IS on my 5DII.

Me, too! Even at a 60% premium (i.e. $2000-2200), I'd likely buy one, perhaps even pre-order.

[iso79]

I have been using the 24-70mm f/2.8 forever and never once said to myself I needed IS. I owned the 24-105mm f/4 but found it soft and terrible in low light. So I ended up selling it.

[Raid]

I have been using the 24-70mm f/2.8 forever and never once said to myself I needed IS. I owned the 24-105mm f/4 but found it soft and terrible in low light. So I ended up selling it.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]On what body were you using these lenses?<o></o>