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

[Sheiky]

Wow, I really have offended some tech fundies by suggesting that something that they swear by is not really necessary. If I am really as crazy as they suggest I am, and IS is really something that is going to change my life, then I wonder how all those photographers of the past such as the ones who were on Omaha beach on D-day for example, got a single useful photograph the whole time they were there. How on earth did they have the patience to use those cumbersome 4X5" and 6x6" hasselblad, 35mm and movie cameras, that did not have any IS.

I'm pretty sure I'm with "they" so I will explain my point of view. I'm not really offended by your idea. Better yet, I can understand your point of view. However I wouldn't call your idealogy as a suggestive type. Your idea works for a few things, but is definitely not the truth for all photography. Not even for all people-photography. The words "the truth is" is what got me bothered.


To answer your question on how they did it back then is simple. They had other points to critique. Also for example: the photos you desribe are photos where something spectecular or very interesting happens. Another part with film is that every photo costs money. You better compose correctly the first time and make sure your settings are right. We have to worry less about those things, since a lot can be done later on. For press related shots it's better to have a bad photo than no photo at all.

When I started shooting, all I had was a cheapo kit lens attached to a film camera. There were no histograms, immediate reviewing of images, or adjusting your ISO midshoot. This is why I am a bit of a purist and really dont like people who swear by a new gizmo or gadget that fixes a problem that experience could have avoided.

So you don't use any post-processing either? I want to see how much of a purist you are []

and I can imagine what I'd look like standing next to this photographer trying to set up my tripod while he/she has already taken their picture.

If you were to have your tripod with you that is []

But taking longer does not mean that I'm going to necessarily have a weaker image, it just means i am going to take longer to do it. Why would that be a bad thing? Photography is about observation, seeing differently: seeing photographically doesn't happen while you are in hurry to get a shot (unless the bullets are flying).

No that wouldn't be a bad thing at all. If you have more time, your compsition might get better, you might see some other things or wait for a cloud to appear to make it more dramatic. However this would mean that you don't have plans for the rest of the day. During a citytrip you might spot more than 1 occasion and I'm pretty sure your wife wouldn't appreciate it if you take 10 minutes for each shot []

I know colleagues of mine who shoot most of their work with nothing but a 50mm prime, and I aspire to shoot as well as them, not because of what kind of lens it is or what it can do, but because of whats in the frame.

I also love my non-IS 50mm. It makes you think twice about your composition. But the simple fact is that you cannot shoot everything with a 50mm.

IS would not help a photographer like me who shoots people photography 90% of the time, but then again, isn't most photography people photography?

I rarely take photos of people(unless it's sports), so I don't know about that point. I'm not sure if IS wouldn't help you. I guess it wouldn't be necessary, but you might like it more than you think[A]


Oh and if you're getting older and get a little shaky, you might reconsider your point of view []





Edit:when I look over my post I see a lot of wink-emoticons. Sorry about that, here's a different one [:P]

[Fast Glass]

I use a tripod almost exclusively with Minolta 600mm f/6.3. Even with a tripod I get more slightly blured photos that I would like, not because it's not stable enough but because I sometimes have handle the camera when shooting. I tellcan you from experience that hand holding 600mm witha 2x extender is no easy task even with a very high shutter speed, it's extremely hard to frame at those focal lengths without IS.


I never found that being slowed down ever helped me compose a shot, if I needed more time to make a shot I'll take more time. I don't need an artificial means to slow me down.


I have shot film before as well and didn't like it, the fully manual Minolta system and Canon EF. You had to wait for the pictures to be developed. You couldn't review it in real time. The IQ is not comparable except at very low ISO's. And you had to change ISO by changing the roll of film. Not to mention the cost, if you shot sports or wildlife it was extremely expensive. You didn't have absolute control of exposure in less demanding situations.


I did like the like DOF of 35mm but full frame dslr's have fixed that.


If you think I don't know what I talking about check out my portfolio,


John.

[Alan]

But the simple fact is that you cannot shoot everything with a 50mm.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yes. Precisely. Otherwise, what's the point of owning an SLR?

[neuroanatomist]

I am a photojournalist and wedding photographer

I really have offended some tech fundies by suggesting that something that they swear by is not really necessary.

Skip the camera altogether - you may swear by it, but itis not really necessary. Go dig up some ochre and paint images of current events and mating ceremonies on a cave wall. It was state of the art 17,000 years ago atLascaux, and who needs all these technological advancements, anyway...


[:P]

[Jon Ruyle]

Wow, I really have offended some tech fundies by suggesting that something that they swear by is not really necessary.

I don't really think you offended anyone. I think your problem was your tone and the fact that you overstated your case (to the point that I actually thought you were a troll). It is true that IS is not needed for all applications, and perhaps a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would not be useful to you. But you went further- by not only stating that IS is useless, but by calling IS a gimmick (thus insulting anyone who paid a big premium for an IS lens).

If I am really as crazy as they suggest I am, and IS is really something that is going to change my life, then I wonder how all those photographers of the past such as the ones who were on Omaha beach on D-day for example, got a single useful photograph the whole time they were there.

No one said IS is going to change your life, and no one said that it is impossible to get a good picture without IS. But some of us, under some conditions, get pictures with IS that it would have been difficult or impossible to get without.

[Raid]

If I may get back to the point.


I think the post from Wickerprints is spot on, the reason why this lens does not have IS could be optical constraints. This lens is (for me) somewhat unusual because it is wide (24mm) when the barrel is fully extended, and narrow when retracted (makes the lens hood easy). It may not be possible to deliver an IS with the current lens configuration, which means a totally new design, which could mean years of testing.


From reading Canon Rumors (OK this is no authoritative source) there are at least 5 test 24-70 lenses in the field, with and without IS, so something may be comming.


Now let us give Canon some credit their knowledge of optics. Canon is not one of those companies who just want to sell the same product unchanged for the next 20 years. Canon is one of the great innovators in optics and engineering today, if IS is both possible and provides an advantage, then it will come.

[JJphoto]

But you went further- by not only stating that IS is useless, but by calling IS a gimmick (thus insulting anyone who paid a big premium for an IS lens).

I agreed. and I think this is the point about this discussion of IS. IS, of course, is not useless, John's picture is a very good example, but it can be replaced by some other ways-------- like faster shutter speed, higher ISO, flash, tripod etc. and it only works for non-moving object. if you have to pay big premium for that, some people(including myself) might think it's not worth it. It's funny I tend to say "useless" instead of saying "not worth it"[].


other fact is that usually the newer IS version lenses are better than the old version in almost all aspects, better optical performance, lighter etc. this was why i still got the IS version when purchased my 300mm and 500mm though i'm not a big fan of IS.(I turn IS off when shooting birds almost all the time when using a tripod)


if there is a 24mm 1.4 IS(4 stop) lens for landscape shots, I don't see why you need to carry a tripod, but I guess if they can produce really good high ISO sensor in the future,we might never need a IS lens. just my 2 cents.

[Daniel Browning]

most of you guys have it all wrong. [...] There is no situation in which IS justifies the money you've spent on it. [...] I am a photojournalist and wedding photographer.

Thank you for joining our forum. We have precious few trolls around here, so we appreciate every one we can get, even trolls as unskilled as you. However, I'd like to offer a few pointers as you are clearly very new at this.


First, when you pretend to be someone you are not, such as a photojournalist/wedding photographer, don't choose trolling topics that are so obviously in conflict with your made-up profession. For example, no real photojournalist would be so ignorant as to ever think there is no situation which justifies IS. Same for wedding photographers -- none of them are so blinded to reality that they would think their own specific circumstances apply globally to all photography, even if IS did not help them (though it does). A wiser choice would have been to pretend to be someone for whom such idiodic behavior is normal (such as a politician or a teenager).


Second, don't use all-caps for emphasizing your point. I understand that when you're starving for attention you resort to drastic behavior, but be aware that it only makes it more obvious that you are trolling. A little etiquette will give you more bites.


Third, try throwing in a little fact and truth every once and a while. When the entire post is full of logical fallacies, you will be recognized for the angsty teen troll you are, and they will skip over your post. The best trolls can bait hundreds of post without using a single non-sequitur. With some more effort you may be able to fool some into thinking that you are capable of intelligent conversation.

The simple truth of the matter is that IMAGE STABILISATION is ***!

I agree. I.S. is 3 out of 4 stars. (I would give it 4/4, ****, but I knocked off one star due to price.)

I am a photojournalist and wedding photographer, in other words I photograph people. With the subject matter that I shoot, IS is totally useless

For the benefit of the non-troll audience, I would like to add something. I do photojournalism and wedding photography, yet even there I find I.S. highly useful. For example, when taking a full length portrait, natural light, 5D2, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/60, ISO 1600.


In my experience, many people can hold still enough for a full length portrait at 1/60. But I can't hold 200mm still enough for 1/60. In fact, for the largest prints from a 5D2, I need at least 1/400 at 200mm. With I.S., I can do 200mm at 1/60 and still print it really large.


Now, if I was only doing small prints, or only shooting 24mm, then 1/60 might have been fine. But I like the option to shoot telephoto and use the full 21 MP. And that's not limited to just posed portraits -- candid photography (for me at least) often includes stationary people that are tack sharp at 1/60 and sometimes 1/30.

[Fast Glass]

If I am really as crazy as they suggest I am,

No one called you crazy (not yet anyway!).

How on earth did they have the patience to use those cumbersome 4X5" and 6x6" hasselblad,

Reality is there not that cumbersom, the tripod would be more of a bother than the camera.

IS would not help a photographer like me who shoots people photography 90% of the time, but then again, isn't most photography people photography?

First of all IS is usefull in people photography incertain situations as Daniel pointed out, and to even entertain suchideas that everyone shoots the samething gives credence to your knoledge much less your common sense. This is the very falacy in your doctrin that "IS is useless".


John.

[Jeff Lucia]

I