24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS

Started Jul 16, 2012 | Discussions
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS
Jul 16, 2012

I don't understand what Canon is playing at, that they think people will not notice that their new IS short primes offer little to no benefit over the old ones optically, while being bigger, heavier and much more expensive. A case in point is the 24mm f/2.8 IS.

Canon, we need in-body IS, not for you to rape our pocketbooks. You ought to be ashamed.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=246&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Little to no optical difference, and certainly none worth the price differential.

Non-IS: 9.52 ounces, approx. 2.6 x 1.9" (6.60 x 4.83 cm), $359

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12091-GREY/Canon_2506A002_Wide_Angle_EF_24mm.html

IS: 9.9 oz (281 g), approx. 2.69 x 2.19" (6.83 x 5.56 cm), $849

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843009-USA/Canon_5345B002_EF_24mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

Marcel Mutter
Forum MemberPosts: 92
Like?
Re: 24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

These kind of tests are done without IS switched on.

IS really works in real life and is not a big part in the price of such expensive lenses. Look at the price of the 50mm 1.2 which is costing 1200 and the old 50mm 1.4 is costing 320 and they are both without IS.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
Au contraire
In reply to Marcel Mutter, Jul 16, 2012

Marcel Mutter wrote:

These kind of tests are done without IS switched on.

IS really works in real life and is not a big part in the price of such expensive lenses. Look at the price of the 50mm 1.2 which is costing 1200 and the old 50mm 1.4 is costing 320 and they are both without IS.

1. "These kind of tests are done without IS switched on."

Obviously, and this exposes the fact that these two lenses are nearly optically identical.

2. "IS really works in real life"

So does in-body stabilization.

3. "IS... is not a big part in the price of such expensive lenses"

This is obviously false. These two lenses are nearly optically identical, except that the one with IS is bigger, heavier and much more expensive. It doesn't really matter how much of the extra cost is caused by the addition of in-lens IS, and how much is just Canon charging what they think the market will bear-- neither is good for the consumer compared to in-body stabilization.

(It's an obvious fallacy to point to two unrelated non-IS lenses with a non-IS-related price difference as proof that IS costs nothing.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
andersf
Regular MemberPosts: 313
Like?
Re: Au contraire
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

3. "IS... is not a big part in the price of such expensive lenses"

This is obviously false. These two lenses are nearly optically identical, except that the one with IS is bigger, heavier and much more expensive. It doesn't really matter how much of the extra cost is caused by the addition of in-lens IS, and how much is just Canon charging what they think the market will bear

Prices have always an will always be dependent on what the market can pay. Competition is the main factor. In canon's case it is often competition from its own products. I agree that the new IS primes look odd, given that there are excellent f/2.8 zooms with IS these days. They would make sense at f/2 and half the price tag. It may be tha they are part of a longer term strategy from canon (high megapixel cheap-ish full frame body?) but at the moment I fail to see who should use a 24mm IS prime at that price tag.

The cost of IS is probably easiest to spot in the 18-55 IS and other very cheap lenses. The fact that they have IS at all suggests that th cost is nearly nothing. More exotic tech such as diffractive optics is an example of what happens when tech is expensive: it only appears in high end products.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Badbatz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,914
Like?
Re: 24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

graphikal wrote:

Canon, we need in-body IS, not for you to rape our pocketbooks. You ought to be ashamed.

My 400/2.8 L IS has gone through around 1.5 million frames, most of it with IS.

How many bodies with built-in IS do you think it would take and how would you estimate the cost of in-body IS in such a case? And what about longevity and reliability? How many in-body IS cycles do you think a pro camera shooting @ 10 fps would withstand?

I would never buy a pro camera with a built-in IS... I use a little toy, Olympus OM-D 5 with IBIS, which works OK as a "camera always with me" but not for paid work: reliability unknown...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bronxbombers
Forum ProPosts: 18,226
Like?
it looks better
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

it sure looks better to me than the old one on those tests, way better in the center at f/2.8 and better at mid-frame and edges at f/8

and it does wayyy better than the 24-105L on that site's tests

it is true that the 24 1.4 II beats it though which is a bit of a shame, they should've used an extra piece of exotic glass in the 24 2.8 IS for the price

it's still the least expensive way to get a decent 24mm on FF though and the only way to get that with IS (well maybe the new tamron is decent???)

graphikal wrote:

I don't understand what Canon is playing at, that they think people will not notice that their new IS short primes offer little to no benefit over the old ones optically, while being bigger, heavier and much more expensive. A case in point is the 24mm f/2.8 IS.

Canon, we need in-body IS, not for you to rape our pocketbooks. You ought to be ashamed.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=246&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Little to no optical difference, and certainly none worth the price differential.

Non-IS: 9.52 ounces, approx. 2.6 x 1.9" (6.60 x 4.83 cm), $359

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12091-GREY/Canon_2506A002_Wide_Angle_EF_24mm.html

IS: 9.9 oz (281 g), approx. 2.69 x 2.19" (6.83 x 5.56 cm), $849

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843009-USA/Canon_5345B002_EF_24mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
Meh
In reply to Badbatz, Jul 16, 2012

Badbatz wrote:

graphikal wrote:

Canon, we need in-body IS, not for you to rape our pocketbooks. You ought to be ashamed.

My 400/2.8 L IS has gone through around 1.5 million frames, most of it with IS.

This is not a focal length in-body IS addresses.

How many bodies with built-in IS do you think it would take and how would you estimate the cost of in-body IS in such a case? And what about longevity and reliability? How many in-body IS cycles do you think a pro camera shooting @ 10 fps would withstand?

Any concerns about longevity and reliability are baseless fearmongering. Please post actual information if you have it, or else agree that your suggestions are simply BS. In any event bodies tend to wear out or become obsolete long before high-quality lenses.

I would never buy a pro camera with a built-in IS

You would if they added it to pro cameras, same as with video. I personally would rather do without the video-- just don't need it-- but it's there and it adds functionality. In the case of in-body IS, there is no known realistic drawback, just added ability to handold at slower shutter speeds.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
Slightly better
In reply to bronxbombers, Jul 16, 2012

bronxbombers wrote:

it sure looks better to me than the old one on those tests, way better in the center at f/2.8 and better at mid-frame and edges at f/8

It doesn't look way better to me, slightly better-- what I'd expect for a humdrum optica refresh and certainly not worth more than doubling the price. They're so close that with decent processing I think most people would be hard-pressed to tell a difference in actual images.

The differences are so slight that I would rather have had in-body IS with the smaller, lighter, older lens-- best would be in-body IS with an optical refresh at the same size and weight, and a more modest price point.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Badbatz
Senior MemberPosts: 1,914
Like?
Re: Get real
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

graphikal wrote:

This is not a focal length in-body IS addresses.

So, you'd still need both, right? Why bother then..?

Any concerns about longevity and reliability are baseless fearmongering.

Well, I know that my IS lens can withstand at least 1.5 million actuations. Do you know that about in-body IS..? And the cost: say, 400 dollars for in-lens IS and the same $400 for in-body IS. Considering than the shutter in an average pro body is rated at 300K actuations, the shuttter (and presumably the IS mechnism, which is more robust than the shutter itself) would need to be replaced 5 times to equal the use of a single lens with in-lens-IS. So, $400 for the in-lens IS vs., say, total of $2000 for servicing/replacing the in-body IS mechanism 5 times... You mentioned $$ savings...

In the case of in-body IS, there is no known realistic drawback, just added ability to handold at slower shutter speeds.

Except it is not for longer lenses and reliability unknown. Say, does it reliably work at 10 fps? Those who must bring publishable pictures from every assignment are really, really concerned about this little thing called reliability... That's why we tend to use simpler (ergo, more reliable) equipment than the "pimp my camera" crowd.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JohnMatrix
Regular MemberPosts: 332
Like?
exactly, IS costs nothing
In reply to andersf, Jul 16, 2012

The IS in the 18-55 II proves that the technology is very cheap for Canon to implement in these lightweight lenses.

Remember also you can buy the 70-200 f4 L and the 70-300 IS for the same price as the 70-200 f4 L IS. But Canon knows people will pay out.

andersf wrote:

The cost of IS is probably easiest to spot in the 18-55 IS and other very cheap lenses. The fact that they have IS at all suggests that th cost is nearly nothing. More exotic tech such as diffractive optics is an example of what happens when tech is expensive: it only appears in high end products.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
Re: Get real
In reply to Badbatz, Jul 16, 2012

Badbatz wrote:

graphikal wrote:

This is not a focal length in-body IS addresses.

So, you'd still need both, right? Why bother then..?

Because in-body IS stabilizes lenses that otherwise wouldn't be stablized, is an elegant once-for-all solution for shorter lenses, etc. I recommend Google if you're unaware of the benefits of in-body IS, or you can start here in your educational journey:
http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/OIS_M%26M.html

Any concerns about longevity and reliability are baseless fearmongering.

Well, I know that my IS lens can withstand at least 1.5 million actuations. Do you know that about in-body IS..?

Any concerns about longevity and reliability are baseless fearmongering. Baseless means "without basis". Do you have any actual basis for your fearmongering? Sony users et al. seem perfectly happy with their cameras; I don't see them running through the streets wailing about stabilization-related failures.

And the cost: say, 400 dollars for in-lens IS and the same $400 for in-body IS.

It wouldn't cost $400 for in-body IS. Witness comparable bodies from Pentax et al. with and without IS. The rest of your cost-benefit analysis, if I can call it that, fails due to clear misunderstandings about cost.

In the case of in-body IS, there is no known realistic drawback, just added ability to handold at slower shutter speeds.

Except it is not for longer lenses and reliability unknown.

You have to read the whole sentence, including that word "realistic". The fact that it's not for longer lenses is like saying that your automobile makes a poor rocket ship. There is no valid concern over reliability-- if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it, or else, again, admit that you're spouting BS.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
graphikal
Senior MemberPosts: 2,783
Like?
Wrong
In reply to JohnMatrix, Jul 16, 2012

JohnMatrix wrote:

The IS in the 18-55 II proves that the technology is very cheap for Canon to implement in these lightweight lenses.

Showing that a feature is cheap to implement in a cheap lightweight lens means nothing about the cost to implement it in a more robust lens.

Remember also you can buy the 70-200 f4 L and the 70-300 IS for the same price as the 70-200 f4 L IS. But Canon knows people will pay out.

The analysis is complicated by the upgraded optics, which may cost more to manufacture, but in essence this is the nub: Canon is acting against the interests of the consumer, and I'd argue against themselves in the long run. Or so I hope. When a manufacturer refuses to implement a useful feature to the detriment of the consumer, based on a perception of a captive market base, it's not healthy or good for anyone.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rrccad
Senior MemberPosts: 1,639Gear list
Like?
Re: 24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

graphikal wrote:

I don't understand what Canon is playing at, that they think people will not notice that their new IS short primes offer little to no benefit over the old ones optically, while being bigger, heavier and much more expensive. A case in point is the 24mm f/2.8 IS.

Canon, we need in-body IS, not for you to rape our pocketbooks. You ought to be ashamed.

why are they forcing you to purchase it? You ARE really on this witchhunt with IBIS arent you? Why don't you switch camera companies if you are so unsatisfied? There's lots of perfectly half decent camera companies using IBIS ..

Now let's see .. the original 24mm (which you so conveniently left out .. ) -

  • did not have USM.

  • was made and released in 1988 for 43800 Yen (554 USD in today's dollars). (54400 in today's yen taking into account simple GDP inflation - 687 USD in today's dollars)

This lens is around 67000 Yen.

Actual difference for IS, USM and the remodel - 12,600 Yen (about 160 USD in today's dollars). not that much for IS and USM .. is it? certainly not the same as your hysterical rantings claim.

Hopefully it also improves on it's focus shifting which was an issue at least on a few reviews on the original 24 2.8 .. it appears to improve the CA and also the resolution across all apertures, plus update with real USM, and IS.

The Yen being that much stronger versus the USD at the time of release - which is setting these prices, isn't helping the sticker shock. Nor do you think about inflation between the set price of 24 years ago - versus today.

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wskb
Regular MemberPosts: 286
Like?
Re: it looks better
In reply to bronxbombers, Jul 16, 2012

+1, it looks noticeably better than the old one, and f8 looks very clean across the whole picture which is important from a landscape perspective. I agree, unfortunate that the L beats it but then it should do from a price perspective (but still impressive given it starts at 1.4).

I compared with the 17-40 as well, much better than that at 24mm, and that's almost the best focal length for the 17-40.

If this lens was $550, I would seriously consider it (I don't have a 24mm prime yet and it's on my long term wish list), but it's just too pricey at the moment.

bronxbombers wrote:

it sure looks better to me than the old one on those tests, way better in the center at f/2.8 and better at mid-frame and edges at f/8

and it does wayyy better than the 24-105L on that site's tests

it is true that the 24 1.4 II beats it though which is a bit of a shame, they should've used an extra piece of exotic glass in the 24 2.8 IS for the price

it's still the least expensive way to get a decent 24mm on FF though and the only way to get that with IS (well maybe the new tamron is decent???)

graphikal wrote:

I don't understand what Canon is playing at, that they think people will not notice that their new IS short primes offer little to no benefit over the old ones optically, while being bigger, heavier and much more expensive. A case in point is the 24mm f/2.8 IS.

Canon, we need in-body IS, not for you to rape our pocketbooks. You ought to be ashamed.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=788&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=246&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Little to no optical difference, and certainly none worth the price differential.

Non-IS: 9.52 ounces, approx. 2.6 x 1.9" (6.60 x 4.83 cm), $359

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12091-GREY/Canon_2506A002_Wide_Angle_EF_24mm.html

IS: 9.9 oz (281 g), approx. 2.69 x 2.19" (6.83 x 5.56 cm), $849

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843009-USA/Canon_5345B002_EF_24mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rpiotr01
Regular MemberPosts: 256Gear list
Like?
Re: 24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

It's all a moot argument. Canon is not doing in body IS on DSLRs, neither is Nikon. Sony is, and Minolta was doing it before them. I had a Maxxum 7D years ago before switching to Canon. The body IS really wasn't a big deal. Even now I only have it on one lens, the 70-200 f4 IS.

Point is, the cameras and overall system that you want is already out there. It's not some start-up, new thing. It's a mature technology. Just start building a Sony system and go duel for a while until you can switch over completely.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,911
Like?
you seem determined to prove everyone wrong
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

You asked a question. Peopled answered. You kind of blew everyone off with meaningless replies.

You can't possible know what it costs Canon to put in IS. Based on the low cost lens selection with it, it's almost nothing. And there's nothing to the argument that it costs more in expensive lenses. Why?????

We get the fact that you'd like in body IS. Doesn't mean anyone agrees with you. Some people are worse than a Jehovah's Witness at the door . .

graphikal wrote:

JohnMatrix wrote:

The IS in the 18-55 II proves that the technology is very cheap for Canon to implement in these lightweight lenses.

Showing that a feature is cheap to implement in a cheap lightweight lens means nothing about the cost to implement it in a more robust lens.

Remember also you can buy the 70-200 f4 L and the 70-300 IS for the same price as the 70-200 f4 L IS. But Canon knows people will pay out.

The analysis is complicated by the upgraded optics, which may cost more to manufacture, but in essence this is the nub: Canon is acting against the interests of the consumer, and I'd argue against themselves in the long run. Or so I hope. When a manufacturer refuses to implement a useful feature to the detriment of the consumer, based on a perception of a captive market base, it's not healthy or good for anyone.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pete4
Contributing MemberPosts: 747
Like?
Re: 24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS
In reply to rpiotr01, Jul 16, 2012

First of all if IBIS doesn't work on long lenses, isn't it kind of totally useless waste of money? IS is most important on telephoto lenses, where it is difficult to handheld a shot even at 1/200 without help, wide angle lenses can be hand held without any assistance at much lower speeds and you probably have few minutes of twilight, right before or right after sunrise/sunset where IS on wide angle lens is useful: before that there is enough light to hand held it, after that no IS will help you, need tripod, since it's too dark. Canon probably does not have patent on IBIS, so it would have to pay royalties, plus make camera more complex, just to accommodate handful of lenses without IS, so they perform better on rare occasions. Actually 24mm lens could be clear example why IBIS is not needed, I had similar lens with no IS and probably could hand held it even at 1/30sec and at that slow speed anything moving, like a person or car would be ghosting already, so at that point I would probably start using tripod expecting longer exposures, not hand held action shots. And I would repeat sentiment of others: If IBIS is what you really want, why not get it from the makers who have it?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Schwany
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,085Gear list
Like?
Your soap box is showing
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

I think the ole box needs a new coat of paint.

In-body IS is cool, but just one more mechanical sub-system in the camera that can break. I can live without it, and lens prices are not something I worry much about.

If Canon does do in-body IS, I hope they start at the budget bottom end of the DSLR line, and skip the 1D series altogether. Does that sound like I'm only speaking for myself and not the "we"? OK how about this:

Sony has your solution right now. Why wait?

 Schwany's gear list:Schwany's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The_cheshirecat
Senior MemberPosts: 1,169Gear list
Like?
Here we go again
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

You are putting forth the same questions and arguments you did in your prior posts, and getting the same responses you did then.

By now you should realize you don’t have the following you expected (wished for) on your crusade to get Canon to switch to IBIS so you can use your 24mm lens. Instead of taking advantage of using a system which has IBIS you think it better for all involved to convince Canon to change the engineering and direction of their complete photographic line to accommodate your desires. My guess it is not going to happen here (pretty safe bet).

Get over yourself and do us all a favor by switching to a system that has IBIS. You’ll be happier and so will we when you stop your whining. While we are on the subject, have you ever used an IBIS system, and why didn't you go that route instead if it is so important to you?

EDIT:

Now just to keep the debate going, I don’t use or shoot with short lenses EVER. The shortest FL lens I typically have on my camera is 70-200 2.8 mkII, going out to 600mm. So tell me what the heck do I care about IS in shorter FLs?

Everyone who can’t live without IS on a pancake lens stand on grapikal’s side of the room.

Everyone who would benefit from having the most accurate IS possible on their longer lenses stand on my side of the room

Now I am pushing my personal agenda

-- hide signature --

I started in the 50's - my first picture was taken with a Leica and hooked me for life. I no longer use my Leicas, but I am still taking pictures. Some things never change.

 The_cheshirecat's gear list:The_cheshirecat's gear list
Canon PowerShot D10 Canon EOS 450D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 600mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Krawitz
Regular MemberPosts: 277
Like?
Re: 24mm f/2.8 IS shows the clear case for in-body IS
In reply to graphikal, Jul 16, 2012

If the sensor can move, I think a better use for that would be tilt/shift.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads