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

Spotted Cow wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Spotted Cow wrote:

jitteringjr wrote:

I voted other. Canon is going to make a lot more money by releasing the II first and then in 7-10 years releasing an IS version so all the pros have to upgrade twice to keep the best quality zoom.

And then out comes the Sigma 24-70 / 2.8A OS, matching, or beating, the performance of the 24-70 / 2.8L II at a lower price point.

Still, there are a decent number that will only buy Canon, so...

I can't wait for Sigma to come out with their 24-70mm f2.8 OS lens. I'm hoping that they announce their 70-200 f.2.8 OS at the same time.

I'd love a 200 / 2.8L IS from Canon, but I was looking more for a 100-300 / 4A OS from Sigma.

I can definitely see the appeal for a 200mm f2.8 IS lens. For me, I don't use my 200mm f2.8 enough to justify upgrading to a IS version. I do love the lens in many ways so I'm keeping it and of course with the 6D, it's so easy to bump up the ISO as needed to compensate for the higher shutter speed required with this lens.

Well, people seem to see the need for a 70-200 / 2.8L IS II, so if IS is desirable on that lens, it would seem even more desirable on a 200 / 2.8 prime.  And then there's the fact that the 200 / 2L IS, a stop faster, also has IS, so...

As far as the Sigma 100-300mm f4 OS lens, has there been rumors about it coming out or are you just saying you would love such a lens?

I haven't heard any rumors about it; it's just a lens I'd have an interest in.