-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why no Image stabilizer on the Canon 24-70L II.??
- Thread starter 911Tyson1
- Start date
bhollis
Senior Member
If you tried a search, I'm sure you'd find several dozen threads on this topic.
Of course, only Canon knows for sure, but here are some of the leading theories:
1) Canon's marketing department are idiots and missed a great opportunity to make even more money;
2) Canon's engineering department are idiots and couldn't make it work;
3) Canon's seeing how far they can push us before we all jump ship to Nikon;
4) Canon likes to leave us wondering and waiting for the next great thing . . .
and more plausibly . . .
5) IS would have added weight; and/or
6) IS would have degraded sharpness, particularly in the corners.
Whatever the reason, the 24-70 II doesn't have it, and I personally don't miss it.
I guess on these reasons,
1) lower initial cost that was already very high in this category of lens.
2) control weight and size that are already pretty heavy and big.
3) leave room for 'IS' version to keep Canon owners to upgrade that translates into company profit.
Indeed 'IS' version exists in lab and Canon has patent of it. It could be released in next two years especially now Sigma will join Tamron to announce its OS version soon, and after Nikon upgrades its zoom that has shows its age.
1) lower initial cost that was already very high in this category of lens.
2) control weight and size that are already pretty heavy and big.
3) leave room for 'IS' version to keep Canon owners to upgrade that translates into company profit.
Indeed 'IS' version exists in lab and Canon has patent of it. It could be released in next two years especially now Sigma will join Tamron to announce its OS version soon, and after Nikon upgrades its zoom that has shows its age.
Loading…
www.canonrumors.com
24Peter
Veteran Member
Also possibly to segment the market further by splitting buyers between the 24-70 F4 L IS and the 24-70 F2.8 L? If you want IS you buy the F4. If you want F2.8 you buy that. Would anyone buy both these lenses?
In any event I agree 1) this topic was hashed to death when the lens was first announced and 2) doesn't make much sense to a) omit IS on the F2.8 and b) release a new F4 lens (i) with the same focal length as the F2.8 and (ii) while the 24-105 F4 L IS is so widely used and available.
In any event I agree 1) this topic was hashed to death when the lens was first announced and 2) doesn't make much sense to a) omit IS on the F2.8 and b) release a new F4 lens (i) with the same focal length as the F2.8 and (ii) while the 24-105 F4 L IS is so widely used and available.
2.8/70-200
2.8/70-200 IS
4/70-200
4/70-200
For a long time you could choose between these four lenses. (I think something is now discontinued.)
There is also a Canon patent for a 2.8/24-70 IS and a 2.8/24-80 IS.
So I guess as soon as Canon thinks there is a big enough market for such a lens and production capacity is not used for something with a higher profit promise and if they can source the glass they need (not always that easy), we probably see such a lens.
Or not.
Or buy the Tamron if you need IS.
2.8/70-200 IS
4/70-200
4/70-200
For a long time you could choose between these four lenses. (I think something is now discontinued.)
There is also a Canon patent for a 2.8/24-70 IS and a 2.8/24-80 IS.
So I guess as soon as Canon thinks there is a big enough market for such a lens and production capacity is not used for something with a higher profit promise and if they can source the glass they need (not always that easy), we probably see such a lens.
Or not.
Or buy the Tamron if you need IS.
ESfishdoc
Senior Member
The obvious reason to me is: it just isn't needed.
Richard
Richard
Canon decided that they needed to produce a zoom lens that delivered exceptional image quality with very little compromise as a complement to the current 70-200mm zooms. They felt that the newly designed IS for the 24-70 just wasn't ready for prime time. So as not to delay bringing to market a replacement of the less-than-stellar first gen model, they left out the IS. They determined that with the right pricing, the missing IS would be a non-issue as anyone willing to spend $2.4K on a 24-70 f/2.8 lens must obviously know what they were getting into and that proper technique to avoid camera shake would be essential.
hotdog321
Forum Pro
Lots of threads and snark on this topic already, so I'll avoid that approach. I, too, wish it had IS. But it is still a spectacular lens with superior sharpness and resistance to flare.
David Hull
Veteran Member
I own the lens in question as well as a number of others w/o the IS feature and I really don't miss it. I use it in the lenses that have it and have no issue with the ones that don't. It is a nice feature but clearly not a deal breaker (for me anyway).
I think I would appreciate it more in something like the 24-105 F4 (which I also own).
--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26158506@N07/
Last edited:
Here is the thing. I'm looking into purchasing a second system. Not sure Canon or Nikon. I currently own a 24-70 Carl Zeiss and use it on a body that has IBIS. From my experience it helps a good bit. The only time I have it off is when it's on a tripod. It allows me to shoot at much slower shutter speed like 1/8, 1/20 of a sec. and still produce tack sharp images.
Buying into another system my first lens of chose would be 24-70 2.8. But after researching both brands I realized neither one offers IS and I'm just curious why because even Tamron does and I would much prefer the Canon or Nikon. I guess I want to know if there is a technical reason for it. I know if they can put it in the 70-200 and still produce great sharp images then they shouldn't have a problem with a 24-70. Since they offer the same lens at F4 with IS then it seem to me it's more of a marketing technique more then anything to force people into buying more lenses in the same category.
Buying into another system my first lens of chose would be 24-70 2.8. But after researching both brands I realized neither one offers IS and I'm just curious why because even Tamron does and I would much prefer the Canon or Nikon. I guess I want to know if there is a technical reason for it. I know if they can put it in the 70-200 and still produce great sharp images then they shouldn't have a problem with a 24-70. Since they offer the same lens at F4 with IS then it seem to me it's more of a marketing technique more then anything to force people into buying more lenses in the same category.
Richard Franiec
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,544
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 521
Well, it could be a technical reason in achieving ultimate IQ of the lens where IS might interfere or so manufacturer is saying. Personally, I think that incremental improvements bring more cash from "upgraders" so it could be as well the marketing strategy.
This will last, of course, until someone like Sigma would match or leapfrog the EF-2470II in outstanding IQ with the addition of their OS in such lens. Contrary to the opinions that lens of such zoom range does not benefit from IS, I think that at especially long end of zoom it would. Did I mentioned more reasonable price?
Last edited:
hotdog321
Forum Pro
I agree. Personally, I think it is a real boneheaded move on Canon's part not to include IS. I, too, handhold at extremely slow shutter speeds sometimes and lust after a bit more stabilization.
I would suspect Canon of manufacturing an "upgraded" version of this lens with IS in the future in a cynical move to get even more money, but this version seems to be selling extremely well even at its present sky-high price.
I would suspect Canon of manufacturing an "upgraded" version of this lens with IS in the future in a cynical move to get even more money, but this version seems to be selling extremely well even at its present sky-high price.
David Hull
Veteran Member
I never buy into that conspiracy theory actually. I suspect that has to do with weight, cost or IQ.
M
meland
Guest
Well what needs to be understood that adding effective IS does not involve simply taking an existing lens design and adding an IS unit.
It is also easier to incorporate IS into a design that has a moderate maximum aperture and also somewhat more straightforward in telephoto, or telephoto zooms.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a very complex design and has 18 elements in 13 groups. Its resolution and resistance to flare are very good for a zoom. But to produce this as an IS design would mean completely re-designing its optical configuration, which would probably mean an even more complex design with even more elements. This in turn means greater difficulty in accurate assembly (and this is difficult enough as it is with a few early users complaining of softness probably due to minute decentering of certain elements). There would also be the penalty of additional weight, the potential of lower contrast and edge performance and certainly additional cost. For its target market which is primarily photo journalists I suspect the addition of IS was not considered a priority. Sure, some amateurs would like it - but are they prepared to pay for it? Probably not and so Canon have to consider how much of a market there really would be for such a lens.
Having said all that, Canon constantly evaluates demand for certain products and no doubt if they feel they are missing a significant part of the market they will try to address that. But with very high megapixel cameras around the corner I suspect their priorities are in making lenses that can actually deliver the required resolution rather than compromising that on a lens that arguably wouldn't benefit too much from the addition of IS in any case.
Slideshow Bob
Senior Member
I guess the only time where I think IS would be particularly useful on a WA lens is for museums. I haunt the aviation museums here in the UK with alarming regularity, and a 24-70 with IS would be hugely useful.
SB
SB
Richard Franiec
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,544
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 521
You don't have to buy into anything, of course. My observations are based on following Sxx/Sxxx and G series cameras "evolution". In the light of progress in smartphones imaging capability and Sony RX100/100II where are the C P&S now? Definitely not in the lead in popularity (1) and capability (2). Time for something revolutionary in this segment? I think it is and I also think that C (engineering) is more than capable to change existing order if they're allowed to fulfill the target audience wishes.
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
...they figured they could ask $2,300 for it, even without one.
PK
PK
M
meland
Guest
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum