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
roby17269
roby17269 Senior Member • Posts: 2,395
Re: Why the 24-70 / 2.8L II does not have IS.

Great Bustard wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

I've no idea. They put IS on the 16-36 f/4L IS and the 70-200 lenses and even the f/4 version, but didn't on this flagship mid-range zoom. I suspect it must have something to do with keeping the optics insanely sharp at a relatively fast f/2.8 speed.

That wouldn't explain the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II, however.

Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about . . .

Well, if there's something about the optics of a 24-70 / 2.8 zoom that make IS degrade the image, whereas this is a non-issue for a 70-200 / 2.8 zoom, I'm all ears!

Well, to be fair, I've read reviews in the past that said that the 70-200 2.8 non-IS was slightly better than the IS version (mkI)... cannot say from first-hand experience since I've never used the non-IS version.

So, had Canon decided to upgrade the non-IS version to mkII as well, we might have seen some minor degradation due to the IS element.

Just speculating

-- hide signature --
 roby17269's gear list:roby17269's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Canon RF 50mm F1.2L USM +20 more
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