DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Why the 24-70 / 2.8L II does not have IS.

Started Mar 29, 2015 | Polls thread
OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 45,641
Re: Other as in all of the above

Rick Knepper wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Let's hear your thoughts on why the 24-70 / 2.8L II does not have IS.

Heavier (a few ozs. at least), more expensive (a couple of hundred), lower image quality (conventional wisdom - may not be true), not needed (haven't missed IS one iota), none of which would prevent me from buying it if it had IS and was the only choice.

My personal opinion is that the 24-70 / 2.8L II could have been built with IS without it adversely affecting sales despite a slightly greater size, weight, and price.  However, I think Canon felt that the same number of people would buy a 24-70 / 2.8L II with or without IS, so there was no point in adding in IS from a profit perspective.

If the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC had had optics at least as good, I think that would have been a problem with Canon's decision, and if Sigma releases a 24-70 / 2.8A OS, that will put a dent in 24-70 / 2.8L II sales, but I don't think Canon considered that option, and, given Maeda's interview, even if they did, it would have had no impact in their decision.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow