Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II Announced

[Postman158]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS

​

Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

I guess no IS in this version! What do you all think?

 

[EIngerson]

I think the one I have is just fine.

 

[Tony S]

I'll keep my original one... shoot, I wouldn't want to have to buy a new CP filter just because they decided to make it with a ring thread size of 82mm. Better work a lot better than the old one.

 

[o hey tyler]

I guess no IS in this version! What do you all think?

I think IS is next to useless on focal lengths shorter than 100mm.

What do you think?

 

[Postman158]

You're all presenting with very valid points! I just got my 24-70 f2.8L, and I love it, so I'm not too worried about number II yet.

 

[analog.universe]

I guess no IS in this version! What do you all think?

I think IS is next to useless on focal lengths shorter than 100mm.

What do you think?

I think Canon would not have released 24mm and 28mm primes with 4-stop IS if everyone thought as you do.

I can think of a few situations where I wanted IS on a short lens, but just a few... nowhere near enough to justify a max of f/2.8 in a prime. Seems cool to me on something like a 17-55 or 24-70 though, if you shoot the right subjects for it.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I don't understand the point of new/updated 2.8 primes in those focal lenths. I wanted a new 28 1.8 and maybe a new 20mm 2.8 but no.

As far as the new 24-70 not having IS, I'm fine with it. If it's as big a jump in IQ as the mark I vs. mark II 70-200 2.8 IS was then I'll probably upgrade eventually. Not right away though.

 

[o hey tyler]

I guess no IS in this version! What do you all think?

I think IS is next to useless on focal lengths shorter than 100mm.

What do you think?

I think Canon would not have released 24mm and 28mm primes with 4-stop IS if everyone thought as you do.

Well, I for one will not be buying those lenses. The inclusion of IS is just money down the toilet. I'd rather shoot a short fast prime on a tripod, especially if you're going to be hand holding at shutter speed SLOWER than 1/20s. If you're hand holding a full frame camera for 6/10ths of a second with a 28mm prime lens, you're going to have movement blur of everything else in the photograph (depending on the subject matter). I'd much rather crank my ISO and use a faster shutter speed.

You can think of a few instances where you wanted IS on a short lens, maybe to you that's worth the extra coinage to buy a lens with IS that's <100mm in focal length with IS for those specific few instances... To me, it's not. It's a waste.

Heck, 18-55mm kit lenses don't even need IS. I turned mine off on my T1i's kit lens when I had it, and never looked back.

This is just my personal opinion obviously... But every photographer got along just fine without IS, OS, or VR for longer than digital photography has been around.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I don't think IS is useless on less than 100 mm. Generally speaking, you could hand hold a 24mm at 1/30s. With ID, you could do it at 1/8s, allowing lower sensitivity and higher IQ.

True, it won't stop action, but that's only half of the equation.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

So...I axe ya...why did Canon put the IS on the 17-55?

 

[o hey tyler]

So...I axe ya...why did Canon put the IS on the 17-55?

Marketing ploy I'd reckon.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Does anyone think that $2,299 for this lens is rich?

 

[bentcountershaft]

Depends how good it is.

 

[ncpo35f1]

I'll consider upgrade if IS (why not ) is included.