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

Great Bustard wrote:

davel33 wrote:

As of now I am the only one to vote

"IS is not necessary in the 24-70mm focal range, especially at f/2.8 (if choosing this answer, please reply with a post discussing IS in the 24 / 2.8 IS, 28 / 2.8 IS, 35 / 2 IS, and the many asking for a 50 / 1.8 IS and/or 50 / 1.4 IS)."

Hmm.

Anyway I think that the 24-70 is a lens for people shots, its not a good walk around lens, limited range, its not long and not short at least on a crop and the weight. I shoot events for the most part and the 24-70 range works very well for this on a crop. IS is not that useful at this range for people shots, I very seldom use less then 1/60 shutter. I have and use the 35 IS and 50 1.4 but both are for different subjects. The 35 IS for low light (non people) for the most part, now many lenses can you mount on a Canon that have better then F2 and IS, yes there is a home in my kit for this lens. The 50 1.4 I use for portraits and IS is not needed but sometimes when room is limited the 35 IS gets the job.

I would bet that Canon thinks no one in their right mind would spend $2000 for a walk around lens or a lens to take pics of the grand kids, but some do as we all know.

Anyway for ME at least IS in a 24-70 is not a must, 95% of my subjects for this lens are people

Dave

So you only shoot people who are moving with the 24-70 / 2.8L II and don't shoot people at all with the 35 / 2 IS and 50 / 1.4? I didn't see that coming!

Di he actually say that? he can shot all sorts of subjects with primes he mentioned. he actually said clearly "for most part". For the part that he shots people he apparently doesn't have much use of IS and I concur with that observation.

You should definitely read more carefully posts that were kindly provided in response to your poll.