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

Great Bustard wrote:

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

Because the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 does not have it either.

Yes, I am serious. Why give people a perfect lens if competition does not do it?

Leave sth to be desired and you may sell again.

My guess is, Canon asked working Pros, what the would need most in the 24-70L upgrade. IQ, build quality and reliability was high on the list. I guess most of the pro users of this lens do weddings or journalism, so IS is not very important.

So Canon put most effort in building a very robust lens with very good IQ. No budget left for IS, so the left out IS.

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. 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?

arbuz wrote:

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.

He said that he has no use for IS because he primarily shoots events in 24-70mm focal range, "IS is not that useful at this range for people shots", "95% of my subjects for this lens are people", and that he uses the 35 / 2 IS and 50 / 1.4 for "different subjects". So, the reason he doesn't need IS on a 24-70 / 2.8 zoom, then, is because the people he shoots are in motion and/or in enough light that the shutter speed can be high enough at base ISO.

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

Perhaps one of you can explain in a bit more detail, then, why IS is not needed for people photos in the 24-70mm range if not for the reasons I spelled out.

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.

Thomas Richter wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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

Because the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 does not have it either.

Yes, I am serious. Why give people a perfect lens if competition does not do it?

Leave sth to be desired and you may sell again.

...which I'd believe more if I thought Canon paid attention to Nikon.  Maeda made it pretty clear in his interview that Canon didn't pay much heed to what the competition was doing, and that makes sense when you look at what Canon does.  For example, when Canon made the 50 / 1.2L, there was nothing from Nikon to "warrant" it.  Same with the 24 / 2.8 IS, 28 / 2.8 IS, and 35 / 2 IS.

But even if the reason were as you say, then what would Canon do if Nikon had released a 24-70 / 2.8 VR soon after Canon put out the 24-70 / 2.8L II?

arbuz wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

arbuz wrote:

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.

He said that he has no use for IS because he primarily shoots events in 24-70mm focal range, "IS is not that useful at this range for people shots", "95% of my subjects for this lens are people", and that he uses the 35 / 2 IS and 50 / 1.4 for "different subjects". So, the reason he doesn't need IS on a 24-70 / 2.8 zoom, then, is because the people he shoots are in motion and/or in enough light that the shutter speed can be high enough at base ISO.

Who said anything about base ISO? People move regardless of lightning conditions.

My bad -- this is true.  IS has nothing to do with shooting scenes with motion.

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

Perhaps one of you can explain in a bit more detail, then, why IS is not needed for people photos in the 24-70mm range if not for the reasons I spelled out.

People do move. For the most part.

People are often relatively still, however, and for those times, IS would be rather useful in lower light situations, I should think.  Of course, if the people you are shooting are always in motion, then, sure, IS is of little to no use.

I do find it interesting that 95% of your photography with the 24-70 / 2.8L II is people, and that you use other lenses (e.g. the 35 / 2 IS and 50 / 1.4) for other subjects, thus my initial reply to your post.  Specifically, let's say the 24-70 / 2.8L II had IS.  Why would you shoot a static subject with the 35 / 2 IS or 50 / 1.4 unless you wanted a more shallow DOF?

davel33 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

arbuz wrote:

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.

He said that he has no use for IS because he primarily shoots events in 24-70mm focal range, "IS is not that useful at this range for people shots", "95% of my subjects for this lens are people", and that he uses the 35 / 2 IS and 50 / 1.4 for "different subjects". So, the reason he doesn't need IS on a 24-70 / 2.8 zoom, then, is because the people he shoots are in motion and/or in enough light that the shutter speed can be high enough at base ISO.

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

Perhaps one of you can explain in a bit more detail, then, why IS is not needed for people photos in the 24-70mm range if not for the reasons I spelled out.

You seem to stuck on the idea that people dont move, they DO.

Sometimes people move, sometimes they don't.  For sure, some people might only take photos of people that are always in motion.  However, if you like, I can provide more than a few examples of *candids* where people are not moving.

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.

I guess one thing I'm also thinking is the potential cost of a Canon 200mm f2.8 IS lens with better optics than the current 200mm f2.8. One of the things that's very attractive for the current 200mm f2.8 lens is its price. I'm not saying people won't pay much more for an IS version with better optics. Of course they will but...what do you think they will price it at?

Spotted Cow wrote:

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.

I guess one thing I'm also thinking is the potential cost of a Canon 200mm f2.8 IS lens with better optics than the current 200mm f2.8. One of the things that's very attractive for the current 200mm f2.8 lens is its price. I'm not saying people won't pay much more for an IS version with better optics. Of course they will but...what do you think they will price it at?

I don't think Canon's gonna make a 200 / 2.8L IS anytime within the next 5 years.