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

To many of Canons' executives are past their expiration date!

i selected the "other reason", which is that it would have made the existence of the 24-70 f4.0 IS totally irrelevant while now canon enjoys revenue from both products! it is all about "MONEY"

syd

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...

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!

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!

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.

Still a heck of a good lens, tho. The IS would sure be useful sometimes, but not a deal breaker.

It was a deal breaker to me. I would have got the 24-70/2.8II (IS) if it had IS even at $2.5-3K. For the same reason I would gladly pay the same price (same as Canon 24-70/2.8II) for the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC if Tamron fixed the intermittent focus issue.

I don't make $$ with my photo so I don't have to justify for ROI. With a family of 4, vacations are expensive. I just add the lens into vacation budget and it's a "free" lens.

I forgot to mention that I enjoy taking video with my DLSR,  with video,  IS is extremely helpful.  That's the main reason why I really want IS in a lens.

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.

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.