# EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 10, 2011)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/ef-35-f1-4l-ii-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-on-january-3-2012-cr2/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/ef-35-f1-4l-ii-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-on-january-3-2012-cr2/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/ef-35-f1-4l-ii-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-on-january-3-2012-cr2/"></a></div>
<strong>Finally Coming?

</strong>Received word today that Canon has 2 lenses planned for announcement on January 3, 2012. Thatâ€™s a week before CES.</p>
<p>The 35 f/1.4L II and the 24-70 f/2.8L II are both mentioned. The source claims there is no IS in the 24-70.</p>
<p>The source has been right about lenses in the past, but Iâ€™ll keep it at [CR2] until I hear from others.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Wuudi (Dec 10, 2011)

*Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II*

Yikes, i was about to buy a used 35 1.4 this week. 
What could be so much better on the new one ? Should I wait now ?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 10, 2011)

I'd be interested in the 35mm L II, after Canon adjusted the AF on mine, it has been spectacular, but a better one yet would be interesting.

I'm in doubt about getting another 24-70 because after having five of the old ones that were not all that wonderful, I have switched to primes for low light use. 

Maybe if I had a 1D X, I could get away with f/2.8 in extreme low light, but then, a prime would still be better.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 10, 2011)

*Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II*



Wuudi said:


> Yikes, i was about to buy a used 35 1.4 this week.
> What could be so much better on the new one ? Should I wait now ?



Don't make a buying decision based on a rumor. If the used one is good and has accurate autofocus, you will loove it. The price of a new one will exceed $2,000, and you could buy two used ones for the price of a new model.


----------



## DJL329 (Dec 10, 2011)

*Re: EF 35 f/1.4L II*



Wuudi said:


> Yikes, i was about to buy a used 35 1.4 this week.
> What could be so much better on the new one ? Should I wait now ?



That depends. Do you *need* it now? You can't take a picture with a lens that _might_ get announced next month and take 3-6 additional months (or more) to arrive.


----------



## blarygake (Dec 10, 2011)

I really wish Canon would ad 5mm to the top end of the 24-70.
It just doesn't have enough reach on a full frame body.

I use the Tamron 28-75 and wish they would make a 24-75 as well.

OH WELL!


----------



## alipaulphotography (Dec 10, 2011)

Not sure how they'd improve either of these lenses significantly to make purchase worth it. I got my 35L beginning of summer and I really cant imagine it getting much better unless you particularly hate vignetting...

The saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 10, 2011)

My 24-70L isn't much more than a year old. I don't like the feeling of having bought something that soon and it being upgraded but my copy of the lens is really good so I don't know what much to complain about. I got a 16-35L II as well in my set and only some time after buying it, did I realize the original 16-35 f/2.8 was just as nice of a lens as the II version.


----------



## criza (Dec 10, 2011)

So what'll be the price of the new 35?


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

No IS on a new 24-70? Although, I wouldn't be surprised given they released 16-35 II well into the IS era in late 2000's _without_ IS. But I figured that's a wide angle zoom, probably used more in landscapes and wider scopes, with likely more light, so sorta makes sense to skip IS, to keep price/weight down for the function it is supposed to serve. 

But 24-70mm is a different beast that will find use in event photography, indoors, wedding, and low light situtations ... IS would be very handy... 

But Canon could do what they did with 16-35 II again without batting an eye and release a non-IS version in 2012!.

I will never understand Canon marketing I guess.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 10, 2011)

criza said:


> So what'll be the price of the new 35?



Higher! It will likely have more exotic glass, more elements, expensive lens coatings. I expect Northward of $2,000, maybe a $2195 MSRP.


----------



## DJL329 (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> No IS on a new 24-70? Although, I wouldn't be surprised given they released 16-35 II well into the IS era in late 2000's _without_ IS. But I figured that's a wide angle zoom, probably used more in landscapes and wider scopes, with likely more light, so sorta makes sense to skip IS, to keep price/weight down for the function it is supposed to serve.
> 
> But 24-70mm is a different beast that will find use in event photography, indoors, wedding, and low light situtations ... IS would be very handy...
> 
> ...



It's simple: we keep buying 'em! So long as we, the consumers, purchase the new versions with only incremental upgrades, they will continue that practice.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> criza said:
> 
> 
> > So what'll be the price of the new 35?
> ...



Based on EF 24II and EF85 II I will anticipate $1600 to ~$1800. It will likely come below EF 85 II, so I will suggest $2000 is the ceiling?


----------



## candyman (Dec 10, 2011)

Just curious:

I don't own a 24-70 lens. But what is it that you really want will be improved (if not IS) on the new 24-70 MKII that is worth upgrading and pay more than the new price for the current 24-70?


----------



## JR (Dec 10, 2011)

Darn! I just bought a 35 1.4L. I wonder if I should return it since I was planning to get the new one when it came out even if it was more expensive... ???



DJL329 said:


> That depends. Do you *need* it now? You can't take a picture with a lens that _might_ get announced next month and take 3-6 additional months (or more) to arrive.



Normally do we know how long it takes between lens announcement and availability? Are we suggesting these new lenses might not be available before June 2012? Does anyone has historical data that could hint at how long between announcement and "in store"?


----------



## coltsfreak18 (Dec 10, 2011)

candyman said:


> Just curious:
> 
> I don't own a 24-70 lens. But what is it that you really want will be improved (if not IS) on the new 24-70 MKII that is worth upgrading and pay more than the new price for the current 24-70?


The barrel distortion is relatively severe on the current incarnation, so that could be fixed. There can always be faster AF, corner sharpness, and vignetting control.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

candyman said:


> Just curious:
> 
> I don't own a 24-70 lens. But what is it that you really want will be improved on the new 24-70 MKII that is worth upgrading and pay more than the new price for the current 24-70?



That is a dangerous question that could devolve this whole posting to a flame war like the one on 7D and ISO vs MP themes. So lets not wander into it... 

Here is a bandaid and fig leaf that is not very conclusive on purpose but hopefully will not evoke too much emotion on any one side:

24-70 is a deservedly much accalaimed zoom lens. Its advantages are many including the f/2.8, the highly used general zoom range, and build quality just to name a few. Some users have noted it is a great lens but could be improved to be a _superb_ lens  

I wouldn't expect much more than what happened between 16-35 version I and II. No IS there either. 

Again, I hope this does not devolve into I love my 24-70 _as is_ flame war.


----------



## RC (Dec 10, 2011)

Yeah on the 35 1.4 II 8). This is the next lens on my list. Hope it has weather sealing!


----------



## RonQ (Dec 10, 2011)

OK! Now the question would be to ask, will the price of the current 24-70 drop? Will it be on the day Canon announces the lens, or the day of release?

Canon has the rebate in place on the 24-70 for $1209 good thru 1/9/2012â€¦.. I wonder, any idea everybody?


----------



## idigi (Dec 10, 2011)

Got 35mm 1.4 in May at it already paid for itself. So, if you need one now - get it! The price after rebate is great.

Since there is also a rebate on 24-70, it is possible that both will be renewed soon.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 10, 2011)

"What could they possibly upgrade"

LOOOL

Go out with a 24 1,4 mk I and II and the 70-200 2,8 IS mk I and II and you don't need to wonder about things like that. Jeez....

Or these, TS 24 I and II, 14 I and II. Why would Canon release an identical lens and slap a mkII on it?!


----------



## motorhead (Dec 10, 2011)

What with a 200-400 AND a mark2 version of the 28-70, 2012 is likely to be a very expensive year for me. Thats on top of the 5D2 I've only just bought!

I'm another who would have preferred it to come with IS I must admit.


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 10, 2011)

The 35L doesn't have much scope for improvement?

I can't see the benefit of IS in a 24-70 as it'll only add weight to a commonly used lens that doesn't require it.
I think for shooting people I never usually go slower than 1/60 otherwise folks blur.

With that in mind should I need to go slower I use a prime.

Edit, if anything a fast prime with IS would be really interesting for low light photography without a tripod.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

I can totally understand Canonâ€™s take on no IS for the 24-70 II, though this is a rumor at this point. 

Why?

The primary reason could well be because such a lens, with IS in the general zoom range has the potential to cut into a number of their revenue lines â€¦ 

The current 24-70L f/2.8 targets a specific consumer rung, who are willing to pay a good amount but not the bank. They are willing to choose a contracted focal range but a faster f/2.8 lens provided the pricing is not way too high. We are not talking about the well-heeled pros with all the L-primes in this range and beyond. The â€œdifferentialâ€ contender with longer focal range would be 24-105L, a peg down in the marketing line (I am not inviting a flame war here on merits of these two lenses, just where they fall in the Canon product line and pricing) which continues to be a good seller for Canon. 

If pricing on 24-70 version II is low enough to tread this fine line, with the faster f/2.8,*and IS,* it could cut severely into the 24-105L f/4 line _even_ with the longer focal range enticement. Hell, it may even cut into the sales of some of the much older non-L primes which are still on sale from Canon. No one wants to cut their own legs shorter.

Marketing and where to put a high-quality fast IS zoom in the price/consumer range may be the deciding factor here. They may do a 70-200 f/4 trick on us and release an IS and non-IS version, but thatâ€™s probably too hopeful.

Cynical, but a smart Canon &@#@@!!!


----------



## dbase (Dec 10, 2011)

newbie question

what is the difference between an IS and non IS image? can anyone show me an example?
if your shutter speed is fast enough, does IS even matter?


----------



## DJL329 (Dec 10, 2011)

JR said:


> Darn! I just bought a 35 1.4L. I wonder if I should return it since I was planning to get the new one when it came out even if it was more expensive... ???
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's usually around 3 months, but like the investment commercials say: 'past performance is no guarantee of future results.'  Hopefully, the 3 most _recent_ "L" lenses are *not* a bellwether for the next crop, as they have been on an odyssey...

Last August, Canon announced the 8-15mm f/4L fisheye lens, along with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II and 400 f/2.8L IS II telephoto lenses, all with anticipated releases in January 2011. Come November 2010, the release dates got pushed back to March 2011 due to problems with their new manufacturing plant. Then insert 2 natural and 1 nuclear disasters and the 8-15mm lens wasn't available until July. The 300mm is available, though inventories aren't great, while the 400mm is still listed as "New Item, Available for pre-order" at B&H.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 10, 2011)

dbase said:


> what is the difference between an IS and non IS image? can anyone show me an example?
> if your shutter speed is fast enough, does IS even matter?


Sure. If it's fast enough.
But if you're in a situation where you're forced to use a shutter speed that's just barely fast enough, the IS can help you nail what would have been an otherwise blurry shot from camera shake. In a case like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM , you're earning up to four stops. Massive difference. Especially at that length.


----------



## Flake (Dec 10, 2011)

Just a few short days ago I started a thread after meeting a couple of Canon reps, they were emphatic that the 24 - 70mm f/2.8L would not have IS if it's launched in the next few days then it would be highly likely that they'd been briefed about it.

The reasons for no IS were several, but primarily image quality, although cost size & weight, and the fact that Nikon didn't include IS in their 24 - 70mm revamp, plus the 24 - 105mm f/4 IS L. According to them too many issues with distortion purple fringing and sharpness in a lens which is intended to be the best zoom for IQ available.

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !


----------



## axismundi (Dec 10, 2011)

I can't believe this. It was just last week that I decided to sell my 24-105 f4 and yesterday I bought the 24-70 f2.8.
After reading this rumor here today I wonder if I should return it.
Maybe the II edition will be only slightly more expensive...
Also I'm afraid that the price of the I edition will drop dramatically once the II edition is released.


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 10, 2011)

Flake said:


> If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !


It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 10, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !
> ...



A 24-105 on a 1DX should manage most low light situations


----------



## ferdi (Dec 10, 2011)

I guess the current 24-70L will be discontinued with the release of a Mark II.
But will that also happen if the newer one has IS? Maybe not because of the huge price difference.

A good 2nd hand 24-70L goes for about USD 900-1000.
A new 24-70L is still USD 1300 (current B&H price).
If the 24-70L II will cost about USD 1800-2000...
then a 24-70L IS version will be just over USD 3000 I think (70-200L IS costs about 75% more than non-IS).

Ouch, I might need to sell my EF-S 17-55 just to afford the L+IS version. But I won't be using that lens anymore anyway after upgrading. If the new one is without IS then I will still think about it, but it better be worth it.

Also, since the 24-105L is just one year younger, do you guys think we can expect a Mark II of that one in Q1 2013?


----------



## Mark1 (Dec 10, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !
> ...



I read on a recent thread here that the reason the 24-70 doesnt have IS is because it's technically very difficult to achieve without dramatically increasing the overall size and weight of the lens. That's why Nikon haven't done it on their 24-70 either.

Presumabley the 17-55 2.8 IS has smaller glass due to it's reduced image circle and therefore is easier to put IS on it and keep the size of the lens reasonable. 

Personally I see the 24-70 as more of a studio zoom and the 24-105 IS as an outdoor low-lighter. Don't need IS in the studio. It's horses for courses I suppose.


----------



## japhoto (Dec 10, 2011)

I have the 24-70L to go with my 7D and yes, I'd very much like to have IS on it and 2.8 aperture.

The lens is capable of wonderfully sharp images, I'm not denying that, but unfortunately only in very good light (if handheld).

I am pixel-peeping here, since even though some say that 18Mp APS-C photos should be viewed at 1:2 to get an idea of the "sharpness", I always use 1:1. This is because I know that I can get (quite easily) sharp images with my 70-200L II when handheld, but not with the 24-70L. So it's either very good light or a tripod with this lens, which I don't like when this could be a good lens for photo-walks.

So if an image isn't sharp at 1:1 I usually bin it and that makes "keepers" few and far between with this lens. I'd also like to use IS instead of bumping the ISO since most of my subjects aren't moving.

There's also quite a bit of CA, distortion and the AF is inconsistent, so yeah, on top of the IS, I see a lot of improvements that could happen with the Mk II.


----------



## Zuuyi (Dec 10, 2011)

I will be getting a 24-70 mk2 when it comes out, I was going to get the Tamron 28-75 but I will just pony up and get the Canon since it will be the standard for a decade.


----------



## Flake (Dec 10, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !
> ...



There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time! Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens. In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm


----------



## bigblue1ca (Dec 10, 2011)

I was gung ho to buy the 24-70 in October until I read the rumours about the Mk II being release soonish. I'm not in a big rush, so I can wait, but none the less it would be nice to have the 2.8 with the IS. I like to hand hold in marginal conditions a lot it seems and I've been very impressed with the results of my 70-200 2.8 IS.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 11, 2011)

Flake said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > Flake said:
> ...



A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations

I wish people would get out of complaining about lack of IS and think how they can manage without.


----------



## 92101media (Dec 11, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.





briansquibb said:


> A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations
> 
> I wish people would get out of complaining about lack of IS and think how they can manage without.



Maybe so, but the cost of the 1DX body alone is likely to be out of the price range of all but the most dedicated enthusiasts (or those with large amounts of disposable income) and likely, dare I say it, out of the price range of most casual event photographers too.

On the other hand, while certainly useful, especially in edge cases in conditions right at the limit and/or at longer focal lengths, IS is a relatively recent technology (introduced approx. 15 years or so ago), and photographers managed before then, so it's worthwhile considering all the possible options available e.g. larger aperture (prime if necessary), adding light (reflectors or flash, if allowed), slower shutter speed (if possible without blurring; multiple shots if situation allows to get one sharp shot out of a couple; using a monopod or tripod if practical), bumping to higher ISO if not too noisy, relocating subject if practical etc.


----------



## AJ (Dec 11, 2011)

A key reason for f/2.8 is being able to shoot selective focus and blur background. Can't do that with IS or high iso.

As for the current 24-70, it seems that there's plenty of room for improvement. Have a look at the photozone review. Klaus hates the field curvature thing.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

I'll take one of each...

I bought my 35L nearly a year ago, and it's a great lens. But I'd like weather sealing, and slightly sharper corners wouldn't hurt. 

I've been sorely tempted in recent days by the low price of the 24-70mm. I've resisted mainly because my funds are earmarked for the 1D X (and sufficient for that and accessories like an L-bracket, but that's it). Buying the 1D X will set up the dominoes - sell 5DII and 35L, which should come close to covering the 24-70L II and the 35L II. 



Flake said:


> There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time! Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens. In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm



Yep - that'll work just great with moving subjects in dim light. Often, that very stop from f/4 to f/2.8 makes the difference in shutter speed necessary to stop _subject_ motion, for which IS is of no help. 

A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.



In which case IS probably wont be needed then ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.
> ...



Exactly. If it's in there, great - IS is nice to have at any focal length. But if not, that's ok, too.


----------



## niccyboy (Dec 11, 2011)

I haven't used 35mm primes in the past... and i have just bought the Fuji x100 (with the fixed focal length of 35mm equiv)... and i must admit i find it a little awkward so far. 

As for IS on the 24-70, i think that would be extremely handy for video, but personally i find the extra stop of light and the sharpness of the mk1 version over my 24-105 IS. (although i've mentioned in other posts i got a bit of a lemon)..

From what i've read on this forum and others is that Canon has to make a commercial decision between increasing costs (due to complexity and technology changes inside the lens) and providing an improved lens at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Neither will produce 100% happy customers as people will whinge about cost or lack of IS no matter what they produce.... but i think that they will sell more $1500 mk2's than $3000 IS's...


----------



## gmrza (Dec 11, 2011)

niccyboy said:


> I haven't used 35mm primes in the past... and i have just bought the Fuji x100 (with the fixed focal length of 35mm equiv)... and i must admit i find it a little awkward so far.
> 
> As for IS on the 24-70, i think that would be extremely handy for video, but personally i find the extra stop of light and the sharpness of the mk1 version over my 24-105 IS. (although i've mentioned in other posts i got a bit of a lemon)..
> 
> From what i've read on this forum and others is that Canon has to make a commercial decision between increasing costs (due to complexity and technology changes inside the lens) and providing an improved lens at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Neither will produce 100% happy customers as people will whinge about cost or lack of IS no matter what they produce.... but i think that they will sell more $1500 mk2's than $3000 IS's...



Two of the main markets for the 24-70mm are press and wedding shooters. Since both of these groups are typically shooting people, they need to maintain shutter speeds at which, on a full frame camera, IS is not really relevant with a 24-70mm lens. Thus, these two groups mostly could not really care about IS on a 24-70mm lens.

Aside from that, you are probably spot on that Canon will sell many more $1500 lenses than $3000 lenses.

My main wish for the 24-70mm is for Canon to fix the field curvature of the current lens.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 11, 2011)

Hoping against hoping that the 24-70 gets IS. I know most people think it's a bad idea but I believe it's a terrible idea to re-release the same lens without IS only to just fix up some minor things, etc. Why not just buy the mkI version that's a lot cheaper and still a good/great lens instead of forking out another $400-$700 (rough estimate) on a mkII?


----------



## akiskev (Dec 11, 2011)

EF 24-70 f/2.8L II won't have IS.
EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS will have IS ;-)

I must admit that I got a bit surprised when I saw a CR2 article about 24-70 II.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 11, 2011)

akiskev said:


> EF 24-70 f/2.8L II won't have IS.
> EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS will have IS ;-)
> 
> I must admit that I got a bit surprised when I saw a CR2 article about 24-70 II.



The Canon push for higher iso means that IS for shorter lens becomes less and less relevant. It is easier for Canon to design sensors for higher ISO - and then put that sensor in multiple bodies - than it is to design and build lens each lens with IS. 

It is my view that anything under 100mm wont need IS so Canon can focus on image quality from the lens. I dont notice any such clamour to get Zeiss to add IS ....


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 11, 2011)

A lens announcement in January won't give you anything to shoot with until the release later...wouldn't be too surprising for any pre-CES lens announcements to see availability in Q3 or Q4 2012, or maybe even later.

No IS on the 24-70mm f/2.8 is weird.


akiskev said:


> EF 24-70 f/2.8L II won't have IS.
> EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS will have IS ;-)


Come on, you know what CRguy intended. It's just to mean "the successor to the 24-70mm f/2.8," nothing more.


----------



## Radiating (Dec 11, 2011)

An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?

Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant. 

A 24-70mm would be the best hand held lens you could make. It would be 2/3rds of a stop better than an f/1.2 lens. Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all. 

Without IS this lens will probably sell 1/10th of the number of copies it would otherwise. Higher ISO will in no way compensate for lack of IS, which gives you 4 stops more. It is impossible to compensate for losing 4 stops - getting one stop is a revolution. 4 stops is a massive difference.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 11, 2011)

Radiating said:


> An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?
> 
> Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.
> 
> ...



Only if you are shooting in the dark.

I was shooting last night in the near dark at 1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40/1d4.

So what would an extra 4 stops buy you? Motion blur from the subject? Lower ISO - which we have already said would be not needed?

Why would you be livid? When do you need 4 stops extra now?


----------



## omgitslong (Dec 11, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?
> ...



"1/30, f/8.0, iso 12800 with my 17-40"
Try shooting that with the 5D Mark II


----------



## heheapa (Dec 11, 2011)

Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?
I won't upgrade if it's with IS but f/2.0L will get my support 

Instead, 35L upgrade is more interesting. If there is improved glass + weather-shielded, I will be seriously interested. ;D


----------



## whatta (Dec 11, 2011)

> Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?


a good IQ f2.0 zoom would really make difficult to justify many primes, so even if it was possible in an acceptable size, I doubt they would do it.


----------



## Radiating (Dec 11, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?
> ...



Well if current technology is good enough for you that's nice. That's not an argument for living in the stone age. Your oddly specific situation is a good counter example but there are a million situations where IS is beneficial such as nearly every situation where IS has ever been used to effect on an f/4.0 lens. 1 stop isn't a big difference so I'm sure IS on an f/2.8 lens is as useful as IS on an f/4.0 lens. 

The main draw for me is that this would help consolidate my lens collection and add flexibility for tight situations. Technology is there to help you get the shot. Once it stops doing that it is pointless. A lens that adds more flexibility both by having to change and carry fewer lenses and by getting better low light performance is what is ultimately best serves photographers.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 11, 2011)

Radiating said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



Perhaps you would like to quote a 'real' example then.

My situation I would say was pretty common for low light shooters - this would cope with concerts, parties etc . Note that I was shooting at f/8 so the f/2.8 or f/4 is not an issue. You will no doubt have noticed that my 'f/4' lens is non IS - and it did not need it. At 17mm that was a pretty tight situation. We are not debating low light here (with the f/2.8) but adding IS onto a short lens. Why not push for IS on the 50 f/1.2 as well while you are at it? 

You say I am living in the stone age? Just because I dont need a technological prop to get a sharp image? Before I moved to the 1D4 I had low light issues with the 50D/7D which meant that IS (on my 24-105) was used often. However I have moved on into high ISO technology and on to the 1DX or simmilar - which is going to make IS obsolute for short lens - at the same time making them cheaper and with higher IQ.


----------



## ferdi (Dec 11, 2011)

heheapa said:


> Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?



I don't think there are many photogs that are also heavy-weight champions.
A f/2.0 version is likely to be more than twice the weight of the old brick (it got that nickname for a reason).
You have my vote for a 35-70L f/2.0 if it's the same weight as a 24-70L f/2.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

heheapa said:


> Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?
> I won't upgrade if it's with IS but f/2.0L will get my support



It would need more than your support..._carrying_ a 24-70mm f/2 lens would likely require the support of two people. Ok, I exaggerate, but really, it would be neither practical nor cost-effective for Canon to produce such a beast of a lens.


----------



## japhoto (Dec 11, 2011)

Radiating said:


> An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?
> 
> Seriously that would be a horrific tragedy. If Nikon releases a 24-70mm VR pro lens I will switch in an instant.
> 
> ...



No, you're not alone with this one, because I really really don't see the point in releasing this lens without IS.

Also I don't get why people are so reluctant towards this lens having IS, why is that exactly?

If the MkII is only optically improved, but without IS, I certainly wouldn't bother with it since the lens as it is now is optically not-that-bad to cough up the price difference. If it has IS, I'm much more interested in it.

I can see the argument that the IS system is difficult to design for this lens, but I bet there have been bigger obstacles along the way for Canon.

If it's the weight addition that concerns people, the old 100mm macro was 600g and the new L macro is 625g. Ok, it's a prime, but the weight addition is close to nothing. The 70-200mm 2.8 without IS is 1310g and the IS II is 1490g, a bit bigger difference, but it doesn't concern me a bit.

It's a bit harder to compare the 24-70L weight-wise, but it's now 950g, so add IS to it, ditch the metal construction (cold to hands, possible condensation & expansion when temperature changes, weight addition). If cars and boats can be made from other materials than metal, why should a lens be any different.

The people who are saying that IS is useless in focal lengths under 100mm must have solid steel hands since at least for me it's really easy to get blurry photos with this lens when hand holding (even on the wide end). Either that or they are not concerned about IQ they are getting.

Let's say it's a four stop IS and take away 1 stop since it's possible that four is "marketing speech". A cloudy day and I'd like to have f/8, so yes, it's possible to pump up the ISO to compensate and get a shutter speed to get sharp images, but why in the world would I want ISO 800 when I could have ISO 200 and get the same result? Maybe even ISO 100 if the IS worked really well.

Above is just an example, but I really don't get why people want an optically well behaving lens, but throw away the benefit of a greater resolving capability by not having IS and getting just that small amount of shake or bumping up the ISO so that it negates the resolution.

This is not a problem in studio or when you shoot moving subjects (although I would argue that when panning, IS is a great help). But as a walk-around lens it's not great unless it's a bright day.

And at briansquibb, why do you think that a 50mm 1.2 shouldn't have IS? Especially when shooting at 1.2, I think a hybrid IS could help a lot with a shallow depth of field and if you want more dof, then IS would definitely be a welcomed addition. All in all, why the hostility against IS?


----------



## omgitslong (Dec 11, 2011)

japhoto said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > An I the only one who is beyond livid about a 24-70mm f/2.8 without IS?
> ...



ISO 3200 -> 200 is 4 stops. 800 -> 200 is only 2 stops.


----------



## japhoto (Dec 11, 2011)

omgitslong said:


> ISO 3200 -> 200 is 4 stops. 800 -> 200 is only 2 stops.



Sorry, my bad, I knew I missed something


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

japhoto said:


> No, you're not alone with this one, because I really really don't see the point in releasing this lens without IS.
> 
> Also I don't get why people are so reluctant towards this lens having IS, why is that exactly?
> 
> ...



Not sure it's hostility, just an acknowledgement that IS is not a panacea for getting good shots. As stated, it doesn't stop subject motion, and I do think the most common users of the 24-70mm lens are shooting people. Briansquibb is correct in that the shutter speeds necessary to stop subject motion (1/60 s generally) are sufficient to eliminate camera shake at short focal lengths. 

As to why not just include it anyway, there may be technical reasons given the reverse zoom design of the 24-70mm lens. Cost is also a factor - consider the price differences between the non-IS and IS versions of the 70-200mm zooms, where IS nearly doubles the cost. As was stated earlier in this thread, Canon would likely sell a lot more $1800 non-IS lenses than $3200 IS lenses.


----------



## ping_media (Dec 11, 2011)

Damn, never knew the 24-70 could get this heated. I work with a wedding photog who has a 24-70 and the new 70-200 in his kit, as well as the 16-35. However, he mainly uses his L primes most of the time. the only time he really uses the zooms is when he needs the really short end of the 16-35 (all thought the 14L, 24L is on his list for next purchases) and the really long end of the 70-200. He actually hates using the 24-70 because he feels "lazy" and because his 35L, 50L get much better results, and he can blow the background completely out for portraits. I'm an avid prime user myself. The only time I use a 70-200 is when I shoot basketball here at school. Anyone else out there advocate the use of primes rather than a 24-70, even for event photos?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

ping_media said:


> Anyone else out there advocate the use of primes rather than a 24-70, even for event photos?



Sure...if you have two bodies and/or a second shooter. Else, the flexibility of a zoom is often required.


----------



## japhoto (Dec 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> japhoto said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're not alone with this one, because I really really don't see the point in releasing this lens without IS.
> ...



Thanks for the answer, I don't know if it's hostility, but this subject seems to divide people in two entirely different categories.

I myself (coming from Olympus which had in-body IS) would like to see IS in every single lens available. I do think Canon IS works better, mainly because the IS effect can be seen through the viewfinder.

I'm also a bit of a perfectionist, so yes, as I stated before, I judge my photos at 1:1 and if it isn't sharp at that magnification, then it's usually not sharp enough for me. Sometimes I break this rule, but only for photos that go for example on my blog at 800px wide. And it still bothers me when I know that the shot isn't sharp 

You bring up a valid point about the reverse zoom construction, so that might be a reason behind it for Canon, but then again, (even though it is an ingenious system), is it necessary. Cost is of course a big factor, but I don't know how bad are the sales for the 70-200II despite of the high pricetag (I should know since I own one).

All I can say is that I truly wish that the new lens will have IS, but even if it doesn't I'm not switching systems because of if. Other option would be the 24-105 IS II if it comes out with the new 5D (if that day ever comes mind you).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 11, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> Not sure how they'd improve either of these lenses significantly to make purchase worth it. I got my 35L beginning of summer and I really cant imagine it getting much better unless you particularly hate vignetting...
> 
> The saying "if it aint broke, don't fix it" comes to mind.



Just compare the 24-70 to say 24 1.4 II on FF and you'll have a hard to NOT seeing how the 24-70 could get much better. Sharper near the edges at ANY aperture and a ton less distortion. Plus a good Tamron 28-75 copy is every bit as sharp as many to most copies of the 24-70L (AF isn't the same speed though by any stretch).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 11, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> No IS on a new 24-70? Although, I wouldn't be surprised given they released 16-35 II well into the IS era in late 2000's _without_ IS. But I figured that's a wide angle zoom, probably used more in landscapes and wider scopes, with likely more light, so sorta makes sense to skip IS, to keep price/weight down for the function it is supposed to serve.
> 
> But 24-70mm is a different beast that will find use in event photography, indoors, wedding, and low light situtations ... IS would be very handy...
> 
> ...



It does seem shocking since that is a range I really would appreciate having IS on and it would be a major extra selling point. The only thing I can think of is that they had to go to a sort of design that simply left no room to fit in IS. If this design means it can fully match the 24 1.4 II at landscape apertures and at least be close wide open then I'd say it definitely made sense to leave out IS though. If not, then it really seems foolish, what is the point almost (other than them getting to now charge 2x as much).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 11, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> I can totally understand Canonâ€™s take on no IS for the 24-70 II, though this is a rumor at this point.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



If that was the only reason they left it out and it wasn't for technical reasons (maybe a premier design doesn't let IS unit fit, look at say 85L how could you fit IS into that design, for instance) then I could see them sitting on the shelves and Canon losing nearly their entire development costs on it and deservedly so.
If they also cripple the new 5D3 and Nikon then goes to the ends with the D800 and releases a 24-70 IS that has top quality it could get ugly hah.
But I can't believe that even Canon as they have become would be quite so cynical as to leave out IS simply for the reasons you state.


----------



## Radiating (Dec 11, 2011)

As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.


----------



## unkbob (Dec 11, 2011)

blarygake said:


> I really wish Canon would ad 5mm to the top end of the 24-70.
> It just doesn't have enough reach on a full frame body.
> 
> I use the Tamron 28-75 and wish they would make a 24-75 as well.



I do find it amusing when Tamron 28-75 users say the Canon 24-70 just doesn't have that extra 5mm on the long end that they need.

FYI - The Canon 24-70 L has MORE REACH at the 70mm end than the Tamron 28-75 does at 75mm. I own both and have tested this. The Tamron is a pretty horrible lens, feels like a toy from a christmas cracker, focus ring is a joke, soft @2.8 and that 75mm is misleading.

Having said that, the 24-70 isn't brilliant. Wish I could afford to update it when the new version appears.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> heheapa said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious. Shouldn't EF 24-70 f/2.0L be more make sense for the upgrade?
> ...



+1
As it is, an awful lot of people gripe about the size and weight of the Canon 24-70 2/8 version.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 11, 2011)

Radiating said:


> As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.



True, the old rule was based on people of average hand steadiness so many will be shakier AND it was based on 35mm 4x6" print sharpness I believe which is a far cry from trying to maximize from one of the higher density sensor DSLR bodies for larger prints.

That said if putting IS in it would've meant a different design with more distortion and worse edge quality than maybe that trade off for just 1 stop over the 24-105 IS would become questionable for some. I'd rather it compete with their L primes at landscape apertures and be solid wide open with no IS than mediocre 24-105 quality plus IS. Of course not everyone will see it that way.


----------



## unkbob (Dec 11, 2011)

Radiating said:


> As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.



Thank you. I wish people would quit ignoring the video side.

Perhaps what Canon really needs is a new category of lens, tailored to that particular industry, so "L" lenses would be for photographers and "C" would be for cinema, with IS and no focus breathing.


----------



## Ryusui (Dec 11, 2011)

Radiating said:


> Canon is a maddening brand to work with and they don't seem to listen to their customers at all.


Just because they may not listen to everything you want in a lens/body doesn't mean they're not listening to their customers "at all". Obviously they're listening to customers. They're still selling merchandise, aren't they? From my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), they're still among the top in DSLR manufacturers.

You and millions of others want IS in a 24-70. Perhaps there are even more who do _not_ want it. You can look around this forum, or hundreds of others if you like to try and make a score sheet. But bottom line, it won't compare to Canon's consumer research; add to that whatever they know about the R&D of making a 24-70 IS. For whatever reason, I guess Canon just feels it unnecessary and/or unfeasible to make a 24-70 IS. Or at least at this time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

unkbob said:


> Perhaps what Canon really needs is a new category of lens, tailored to that particular industry, so "L" lenses would be for photographers and "C" would be for cinema....



Ummm...like this, perhaps? http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/cinema_lenses


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 11, 2011)

unkbob said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > As an FYI IS makes images even at a shutter speed of 1 divided by your focal length noticeably sharper. It's also nessesary for hand held video without a rig. I think for almost any photographer IS would be a selling point.
> ...



Well I dont want a 24-70

I carry two bodies mostly with a combination of 17-40, 24-105, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 plus 135 f/2 and 70-200 f2.8 II

I shoot mostly at f5.6/f/8 as I need the DOF. Shooting portraits in low light is daft. Shooting still objects then the tripod/monopod/flash come out. Shooting moving objects gives issues with motion blur at low shutter speeds. Perfect IQ at high ISO is impossible to achieve so sharp focus is the one area which is needed.

Canon's direction is to improve high ISO to allow faster shutter speeds - one stop at 1/60 means 1/125 which is more than enough for <100mm lens


----------



## unkbob (Dec 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps what Canon really needs is a new category of lens, tailored to that particular industry, so "L" lenses would be for photographers and "C" would be for cinema....
> ...



Ha, yeah I guess so. Although those lenses will be silly money I expect. They're also fully manual and lack IS, right? So not ideal for everyone. I personally use AF a lot for video on my 5D2 so I can start shooting with minimal delay, although if the 5D2 had a higher resolution screen or EVF reliably nailing focus manually would be easier. Of course, you can zoom in but that takes away valuable seconds from the shot.


----------



## JR (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Well I dont want a 24-70
> 
> I carry two bodies mostly with a combination of 17-40, 24-105, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 plus 135 f/2 and 70-200 f2.8 II
> 
> ...



isn't there some benefit though of IS when we shoot video? I totally agree we dont need IS with 24-70mm focal range to take still picture, but in video mode if we use hand help, it would be useful? I know the 24-105 can do that, but I would like one zoom in the focal range that can excel at still picture and video - but then again maybe Canon wants me to buy two lens for this! ???


----------



## pipinu (Dec 12, 2011)

*EF 24-70 f/2.8L II*

This new lens is overdue for too long. I have been waiting for it for over 12 months. Now I opt for buying the I probably within 20 days. Could anyone explain the major enhancement of II? Is it worth waiting for II out? Just saw http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/ef-35-f1-4l-ii-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-on-january-3-2012-cr2/, I bet II will be announced right after I buy I

Any advise?


----------



## Radiating (Dec 12, 2011)

I think releasing this lens without IS is a mistake. It will cut out several key demographics:

- videographers
- those who are looking to shoot in low light
- amateur prosumers who need all the help they can get with fast lenses and IS
- people on crop bodies looking for a high end walk around lens other than the 17-55mm
- everyone shooting at or slower than, 1 / focal length.
- most importantly: those looking for an upgrade to the 24-105mm 


Simply put Canon could make a "must have" lens that would be an instant hit for anyone or one that isn't.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

Radiating said:


> I think releasing this lens without IS is a mistake. It will cut out several key demographics:
> 
> - videographers
> - those who are looking to shoot in low light
> ...



These people would be SO disappointed to buy a $2000 lens to find that they get pictures with motion blur when they think that IS will buy them tack sharp images. Think how many returns there would be because the image was 'soft' as they took pictures of people or pets at 1/30. 

Higher ISO performance on modern bodies means higher shutter speeds which in turn means that ISO is no longer needed for short lens.

I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:

- the f2.8 helps those looking to shoot in low light/shallow DOF
- the IQ should be better than the 24-105 (which is actually very good in firld use)

IS buys nothing for these users - it would only be a marketing gimic. In the budget, prosumer ranges IS has a use as the users dont buy bodies with high ISO capability so IS is needed for lens such as the 55-250. The 24-105 only has IS as it was designed in the days where bodies struggled to get more than ISO 400 so the argument was to shoot at ISO400 and rely on IS for speeds at 1/80 or so ( but still fast enough to get rid of motion blur).

To illustrate what I mean here is a picture at 1/30 - tack sharp except where there is motion blur. Even using the formula of 1/focal length this should work -it does except the subject moved. Imagine how I would have felt if I had upgraded to a 24-70 with the magic IS and got exactly the same blur .....


----------



## Radiating (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > I think releasing this lens without IS is a mistake. It will cut out several key demographics:
> ...



You seem to have these delusional ideas about how Canon implements IS and how people use it. IS is not a party trick that is going to completely dissapear when Canon gets its high ISO performance down. In fact as someone versed in the physics of cameras I can tell you IS will be beneficial until the end of time. IS is not going away. I am confident also that the vast majority of people using a $2000 lens will know how IS works. You really do not seem to understand the strong points of IS and when to use it and who needs it. It is very useful on a wide lens and I use it all the time at 24-50mm so do many people. For example there are these things called still life photos which have no motion blur, I take several of these at night all the time which I get paid for. Furthermore when you combine IS, faster lenses and high ISO you get a breakthrough in low light performance, that pushes the limits of technology, which is why a lens like this would be significant. To avoid pushing the limits of technology will make Canon a dinosaur besides gimping a great lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

Radiating said:


> You seem to have these delusional ideas about how Canon implements IS and how people use it. IS is not a party trick that is going to completely dissapear when Canon gets its high ISO performance down. In fact as someone versed in the physics of cameras I can tell you IS will be beneficial until the end of time. IS is not going away. I am confident also that the vast majority of people using a $2000 lens will know how IS works. You really do not seem to understand the strong points of IS and when to use it and who needs it. It is very useful on a wide lens and I use it all the time at 24-50mm so do many people. For example there are these things called still life photos which have no motion blur, I take several of these at night all the time which I get paid for. Furthermore when you combine IS, faster lenses and high ISO you get a breakthrough in low light performance, that pushes the limits of technology, which is why a lens like this would be significant. To avoid pushing the limits of technology will make Canon a dinosaur besides gimping a great lens.



Old school shooters like me do understand what IS is all about and how new shooters abuse it - we see them in our photoclub every week.

Still life photos - tripod or the like and turn off IS is Canons recommended approach. 

When are you going to give us a real life example of where IS will really help and there are no alternatives? I have shown you how it would not help street shooters, sport shooters, concert shooters, wedding shooters etc. 

What is your response? - to give personal abuse when you have no idea whom you are talking to and therefore cannot possibly substantiate your remarks with fact

The facts as you have presented them is that is if you turn up with the wrong equipment you want this magic lens to compensate. The cost of this magic lens will be mega bucks.

At least Canon will still be in business as a high IQ 24-70 at a reasonable cost will sell like hot cakes, a high IQ 24-70 IS at double the price wont sell to the average prosumer (they will probably go with the 24-105). So Canon have focussed their energies on the high ISO route instead where everyone benefits from their existing investment in lens etc.

You are so focussed on low light had it not occurred to you that there a lot of people wanting to take pictures on f/5.6, f/8 @1/125 @iso6400? Nope you just want too avoid carrying a support to take static items in the dark.

Smell the coffee and think of another way of acheiving what you want. Heaven forbid using muliple speedlights in the dark - try 3 - one on the hotshoe, two free standing. Nothing you cant light up then - and you will get change from avoiding IS on ONE lens - and a MUCH better picture as a bonus.


----------



## torger (Dec 12, 2011)

I find IS to be very useful when photographing people at events. I'm often photographing situations when people are fairly static so even a 1/30 shutter speed is not so affected by motion blur. There's also often situations where it is nice with some motion blur but want all static parts sharp.

I also think that holding the camera still is a talent that is quite hard to improve significantly, either you can hold your hand still (and you could work as a clockmaker), or you can't. I don't have clockmaker hands and I need 1/100 even for shorter focal lengths to get them reasonably sharp. For me it is more likely that a 200mm image using the 70-200/2.8 IS II gets sharp at 1/50 than a 50mm at 1/50 using my 50/1.4 prime (it is a pity that the Av + auto-ISO mode cannot be configured to work for us shaky-hands).

Hand-held sharpness is also a very relative term, they never get as sharp as tripod with mirror up. I haven't done any formal tests but I would think that there's a shutter speed range, perhaps 1/100 - 1/250, where IS makes a "sharp" picture even sharper, and that's valuable too. Modern digital sensors are capable of higher resolution at low light than film, so it takes more to max out what the camera can do.

If the 24-70 II comes without IS I will likely not buy it, then I rather continue use primes in that range as I do today.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

torger said:


> (it is a pity that the Av + auto-ISO mode cannot be configured to work for us shaky-hands).



I dont know what camera you use but the 1D4 and the 7D work best on manual and auto ISO.

Set the shutter speed and the aperture and let the iso adjust. I find that 1/30 on the 17-40 is shake free.

Regular motion blur starts to disapear at about 1/50 so by 1/80 you are getting good IQ from shorter focal lengths.

Yes I have shake free hands


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 12, 2011)

It doesn't make sense to me to re-release a lens without IS, I've said it before and am saying it again. Fixing up a few minor things/adjustments? As someone mentioned earlier Canon will lost business and losing a lot of the demographics. People don't just take photos these days with their cameras and fork out thousands of $$$ _just _ for pics (some people do though), quite a lot of people make videos and short films and such. I think having IS on a 24-70 lens will only improve it's features. I can picture someone typing out a long paragraph disagreeing with me about having IS on this lens lol.

I mean if you _don't_ want the IS just get the mkI version if you do want IS (like me) get the 24-70 2.8 IS (if they release it with IS).


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have these delusional ideas about how Canon implements IS and how people use it. IS is not a party trick that is going to completely dissapear when Canon gets its high ISO performance down. In fact as someone versed in the physics of cameras I can tell you IS will be beneficial until the end of time. IS is not going away. I am confident also that the vast majority of people using a $2000 lens will know how IS works. You really do not seem to understand the strong points of IS and when to use it and who needs it. It is very useful on a wide lens and I use it all the time at 24-50mm so do many people. For example there are these things called still life photos which have no motion blur, I take several of these at night all the time which I get paid for. Furthermore when you combine IS, faster lenses and high ISO you get a breakthrough in low light performance, that pushes the limits of technology, which is why a lens like this would be significant. To avoid pushing the limits of technology will make Canon a dinosaur besides gimping a great lens.
> ...



if you are standing on something moving or vibrating and are shooting something else that is stationary then IS is king and a tripod cannot help you


----------



## whatta (Dec 12, 2011)

btw, could someone tell us which were the last 5 non L prime lenses with year? if I remember well, canon is not so keen on refreshing non L primes.. thanks


----------



## photogaz (Dec 12, 2011)

Seriously, what is up with all the people suggesting IS is pointless in short lenses? Do you ever use a tripod on short lenses? Ofcourse you do. I love doing walk around stuff in low light and sometimes IS will give me that extra room to shoot stuff in low light.

I hope this lens has IS but I really can't see it doing so.


----------



## torger (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > (it is a pity that the Av + auto-ISO mode cannot be configured to work for us shaky-hands).
> ...



Manual+auto ISO is my typical choice for low light photo when using the 7D, it's nice (the standard APS-C zooms also have IS by the way). This mode is unfortunately not available on the 5Dmk2 which I also use. With a really tight camera strap and some careful relaxation I too can get pictures sharp around 1/50-1/30, but I just miss too many of them, so I usually want no slower than 1/100. My guess is that I am a bit shakier than the average person though, I just can't help it .


----------



## japhoto (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Old school shooters like me do understand what IS is all about and how new shooters abuse it - we see them in our photoclub every week.
> 
> Still life photos - tripod or the like and turn off IS is Canons recommended approach.
> 
> ...



I guess you're one of the lucky who have "clockmaker" hands, but I still really really can't understand your attitude towards IS.

First of all, how do the new photographers "abuse" the IS system? Just using the word abuse makes no sense when the system is designed to aid photographers to get sharp images.

I can understand that they might not understand how it doesn't stop motion blur for example, but what it does quite effectively is stopping the shake coming from the photographer itself.

The next thing I would argue is that a shutter speed of 1/focal length isn't nearly enough anymore. Firstly if you're shooting APS-C, I'd multiply it by 1.6 and with high density sensors (7D, 5DMkII, 60D...) I'd multiply it by 2.6 to get really sharp images on a pixel level without IS. So why on earth wouldn't IS help here even on shorter focal lengths?

What about bumping up the ISO then, the low ISO noise of my 7D is bad enough, so every single thing to enable me to go down on ISO is welcomed, but not going up. I'll ask this again, why do you want a lens that's optically great and then bump up the ISO to effectively decimate the achievable resolution?

On with a few examples:

-Someone already said that when taking photos from a platform that's shaking (a ferry for example), tripod won't do you any good.
-Wedding shooters, wanting motion blur on the people, but not to the whole picture.
-Sports shooters, wanting to do a panning shot where IS helps a lot.
-Nature photographers, wanting to blur the water, but not the surroundings.
-When working close to the MFD of a lens when the magnification is greater.

And generally to anyone who want better IQ when hand-holding the camera.

Yes, I can use my tripod, but even though it is a carbon fiber tripod, it's heavy and large, so there are places where I can't use it or the situation would be over before getting the tripod set up. By that I mean for example a bird shot, but that's usually with a longer focal length (not always though).

Also I wouldn't take my tripod in a busy public event where I'm not shooting the people, but "still life" (the Tall Ships Races from this summer comes to mind). The tripod was also almost unusable at the local botanical garden where the pathways are quite narrow. The result is that the hand-held 24-70 shots are almost all blurred with a few "acceptable" ones but almost all photos taken with the 70-200II IS are sharp even on a pixel level.

I won't argue about Canon taking the high ISO route (and it's great to have such clean images at higher ISOs), but I still would use IS much rather than bumping up the ISO. Mind you that I seldom shoot people or anything moving at least on the shorter focal lengths.

And why are you fixated on the fact that IS only helps when it's dark? Using smaller apertures in daylight (to achieve more DOF) brings the problem around just as quickly. Why bump the ISO when I can go with ISO 100 and a longer shutter speed?

Things are different when you are going to a specific spot and have a specific goal & a clear vision about the photograph you want to take. Then the IS isn't necessary, I'll surely bring my tripod and maybe even my flashes with softboxes and studio stands, but the situation I'm trying to explain here is the day-to-day usage of a lens, photowalks etc. and especially if you're not a professional photographer (although I'm pretty sure the professionals shoot for fun sometimes also).

Also, "Nothing you cant light up then" - I can think of multiple things I can't light with speedlights or even studio strobes, but I guess you only think about shooting people. Maybe you should open up your mind to the fact that there are a lot of people shooting everything but moving subjects and they would like to do that sometimes without lugging around a van full of gear.

The price point is a good point though, because I can't see the IS version of this lens being cheap. Only the tests and first hand experience with the lens would show if it would actually be worth the price difference.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

I just love the way that the argument has turned around so that it is me fixated with low light 

All that I have ever put forward is:
- for short lens a shutter speed of < 1/80 is needed else motion blur can become an issue.
- Canon are going for high ISO to allow higher shutter speeds, one stop makes a big difference to 1/30
- I have said that there are other ways of getting a low speed shot such as using a tripod - perhaps I should have also listed all the other supports such as monopod, beanbags, SWBO shoulder etc etc to enable a longer shutter speed 
- the consequence of adding IS would probably reduce Canon's sales due to the increased price

Remember we are looking at future directions not today's issues

I have now been labelled as anti IS - not so, it has its place like all tools. You will probably spot that I actually have some IS lens - however it isn't the golden egg that will get high IQ shots in bad situations. Chances are if you are having problems with a non (short) IS lens then you will have problems with an IS lens if it is low light

I do remember stating very early on that there are a lot of people (me included) that shoot in poor light at f5.6/f8 that need to be catered for.

Perhaps all those really upset that the 24-70 wont be getting IS should also be campaigning for IS in all the other lens of this range like the 50 f/1.2 or the other short primes.

Anyway just for those that are demonising me as an anti IS person fixated with low light shots - here is a photo taken at 1/30 with an IS lens taken at iso 100


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:
> 
> - the f2.8 helps those looking to shoot in low light/shallow DOF
> - the IQ should be better than the 24-105 (which is actually very good in firld use)
> ...



And yet...Nikon put VR into a 16-35mm lens costing north of $1K and thus not intended for the 'consumer' market for which a lens like the 55-250mm is attractive. So, does Nikon have no clue?

Granted, for some IS amounts to a crutch. Anyone who claims that it obviates the need for a tripod is an idiot (e.g. KR). But for those who understand it's uses and it's limitations, it's another tool in the toolbox, just like good high ISO performance. 

Personally, I'd like to see IS in more lenses in the shorter focal length range. It's in the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, a 'fast' lens of an APS-C-adjusted focal length quite similar to the 24-70mm, and also a lens costing north of $1K and not in the consumer class. 

Sure, I'd even like it in the 50mm f/1.2L...why not? Ok, I can think of one reason - decreased IQ. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkI is the worst-performing of the 70-200mm options, and despite being newer than the non-IS verison, it's not as good, optically. So, if the inclusing of IS results in an IQ hit, leave it out. But the MkII of that lens clearly shows excellent IQ is possible with IS (as do the supertele primes, of course). It's a tool, but a useful one.

I'm sure Canon can run the sales estimates and determine which version - more expensive IS or cheaper non-IS - would yield greater profit, and that's the one they'll make. But from a consumer standpoint, I'll pay more for IS in shorter lenses. IF that means a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is $2500, fine. 




briansquibb said:


> I have yet to hear a real life justification for IS in such a short lens:



I have yet to hear viable a justification for _not_ including it... (besides the possibility of a technical problem).


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have yet to hear viable a justification for _not_ including it... (besides the possibility of a technical problem).



You said it yourself - cost and IQ


----------



## japhoto (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I just love the way that the argument has turned around so that it is me fixated with low light
> 
> All that I have ever put forward is:
> - for short lens a shutter speed of < 1/80 is needed else motion blur can become an issue.
> ...



Hey briansquibb,

I might have read wrong the statement you made about low light, so sorry if I made you the "darkness fixated" photographer here 

I'd still argue that say for the 24-70L coupled with 7D, I'd like to be somewhere around 1/200 to 1/250 to be confident that I get a crisp shot. That's for the long end though, maybe around 1/100 would be sufficient enough for the wider end.

So instead of bumping up the ISO here (and still be worried about camera shake), I'd rather use IS.

Small example, I'm metering 1/80 at f/4 and ISO100, so instead of going to 1/250-320 at f/4 and ISO400, I can happily take the shot with that shutter speed and not even worry too much about motion blur.

Canon is undeniably improving the ISO, but why not have best of both worlds, high ISO + IS?

And yes, I got you even before with the different ways of improving low shutter speed shots, but just walking around they aren't always possible to utilize.

Reduced sales are a double-edged sword, price increases are never too welcomed, but then again if you gain IS and optical improvements, I think many will cough it up. So if they make it optically as good as the 70-200II and with IS, I bet it would be a big seller.

I also agree that we and Canon are looking at the future and it so seems that the Mp race isn't over, which also means smaller pixels. This requires optical improvements, but I'd say it also would benefit greatly from having IS. The 1Dx might be crazy in low light and with high ISOs, but Canon will probably have to answer Nikon if they roll out with 36Mp full-frame and that camera might not be as good with high ISOs + the sensor will show even slightest camera movement during the shot.

I even agree that IS is a tool among other tools and that it isn't a "magic bullet" or a "golden egg", but it has improved a lot of my shots in let's say "challenging" situations. It even improves shots taken in good situations, so I'd welcome it with opened arms.

You stated that shooting in poor light at f/5.6-8 needs to be catered. In what way adding IS to the 24-70L would not cater for that situation?

And yes, ideally I'd like to see IS even on the 8-15mm fisheye or the 14mm f/2.8L. Not to mention longer focal lengths. The only downside being the cost, but I don't see any other disadvantage in it otherwise.

Nice panning shot btw.


----------



## japhoto (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet to hear viable a justification for _not_ including it... (besides the possibility of a technical problem).
> ...



Again, I'd say that the 70-200II has proven both of those things wrong.

Not of course the fact that the price would increase substantially, but the point that even if it does, people will still buy it.

As for the IQ, not many people see anything wrong with the 70-200II IQ and it has IS...


----------



## axismundi (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm still not sure - buying the current 24-70 now is safe in terms of good/money or stupid idea?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

axismundi said:


> I'm still not sure - buying the current 24-70 now is safe in terms of good/money or stupid idea?



I would wait until Jan 3 to decide


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 12, 2011)

I liked the 24-70, just not enough to keep it. Had a few different copies, one of them stood out more than the others.

As for the new one, I could care less about IS, but I'll say this: One of the sharpest zooms I've ever used was the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (28-80 FF equivalent I think..) and I think alot of it had to do with the IS. So I can see its potential benefit on an L lens with a similar range, but its not a dealbreaker for me. I know the cost will be higher with IS so I'll give the VII a try either way.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 12, 2011)

axismundi said:


> I'm still not sure - buying the current 24-70 now is safe in terms of good/money or stupid idea?



The fact that it's on sale for around $1100 right now doesnt hurt, and considering it's been $1399 in the last few years I would say you're fine. Id say youd still be able to get $1k out of it in a year


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

japhoto said:


> As for the IQ, not many people see anything wrong with the 70-200II IQ and it has IS...



I believe in IS for longer lens - especially for panning.

I find hand shooting with the 400f/2.8 hard work (that pan was handheld) and the tripod + gimbal doesn't work for me for panning.

If the current (Adorama) price is $1300 then by historical inference the IS version would be some $2500+. Now if we do the same for the 16-35 then the price would increase by some $1400. So to add IS onto these two lens would get close to the upgrade to a 1DX, which would happily accomodate 1 or 2 stops to eliminate any need for IS.

So the question would be: Do you

- buy a 1DX and a 16-35 + 24-70

_*or*_

- buy a 5DII and a 16-35IS + 24-70IS

I have already made that decision by moving to the 1D4 in the interim and will end up with a 1D4 and a 1DX - how about you?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> So the question would be: Do you
> 
> - buy a 1DX and a 16-35 + 24-70
> 
> ...



I would buy a 1D X, 16-35 IS, and 24-70 IS, if those lenses were available. But as you agreed above, if there's an IQ hit, then I'd skip the IS.

I'm not sure that IS will add as much as that - keep in mind that the IS versions of the 70-200mm lenses are also weather sealed, which likely adds something to the cost difference, too. But there's really no other basis for comparison, as other examples of non-IS vs. IS for the same focal length(s) also add the L-treatment.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not sure that IS will add as much as that - keep in mind that the IS versions of the 70-200mm lenses are also weather sealed, which likely adds something to the cost difference, too. But there's really no other basis for comparison, as other examples of non-IS vs. IS for the same focal length(s) also add the L-treatment.



The 2 instances that came to mind are the 70-200 which basically doubled the prices in both cases.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> The 2 instances that came to mind are the 70-200 which basically doubled the prices in both cases.



Well, the f/2.8 IS MkII is double the price, but the more relevant comparison is the f/2.8 non-IS vs. the f/2.8 IS MkI, where the difference was around a 50% increase. So, we have n=1 50% increase, and n=1 100% increase, and both added weather sealing in addition to IS, whereas the 24-70 is already a sealed lens. Regardless, Canon would charge what they think the market will bear...


----------



## niccyboy (Dec 12, 2011)

Hahaha what a thread. Bring on jan 3!!

I will definitely buy the 24-70 regardless of IS as I love my current one, and i like new toys...although I'm not spending over 2k for it, I can wait..



I think to summarize.... We all WANT IS if we can have it, some of us just dont want it enough to justify a possible large price rise or iq loss...

I don't think IS has ever been a negative inclusion on any L lens... Just whether the price is right vs the specific photographers needs.


----------



## Radiating (Dec 13, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> If the current (Adorama) price is $1300 then by historical inference the IS version would be some $2500+. Now if we do the same for the 16-35 then the price would increase by some $1400. So to add IS onto these two lens would get close to the upgrade to a 1DX, which would happily accomodate 1 or 2 stops to eliminate any need for IS.



I think you are confused about IS again. IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit. Easily $250 or so for the module and upgraded lens optics. This is based on several hours of research into the spare parts prices of similar lenses. Canon would probably introduce the lens at $2000 no matter what but the price would soon fall to $1600. Canon probably in either scenario would eat the cost of IS. So there would be zero price change. To them it is likely more about if the additional sales from including IS justify the reduced profit that would result.

As for the 1Dx having 1-2 stops better ISO. That is a fanciful proposition. A half stop would be the most you could expect, which is still biblical. The photo detectors in cameras are already gathering near their maximum theoretical number of photons. It is just impossible to get much more out of them. In fact since the 20D Canon's pixels have improved a half stop only in efficiency. The real improvement of the 1Dx is in noise reduction which trickles down to all cameras through updates to RAW processors.

If you want to talk strict price comparisons for IS vs non-IS:

Lens introductory prices adjusted for inflation and exchange rate:

70-200mm f/2.8 $3008
70-200mm f/2.8 IS II $3005
70-200mm f/2.8 IS $3630

70-200mm f/4.0 $1675
70-200mm f/4.0 IS $1817

The intro price for the 24-70mm f/2.8 adjusted for inflation and exchange was $1893, based on the historical data I presented this pegs it around $2000 with IS. If you look at adjusted historical data for many other lenses Canon has upgraded without adding IS over the years, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate they have nearly identical prices at intro. So that supports my original assertion that no matter what the lens will cost the same varying maybe $100-$300 if not $0 with IS.

I think maybe Canon wants to milk the market more before they release the IS version. The problem is that Canon needs an IS lens like this NOW for videographers. There are absolutely no image stabilized fast normal lenses available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2011)

Radiating said:


> IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit. Easily $250 or so for the module and upgraded lens optics. This is based on _several hours_ of research into the spare parts prices of similar lenses.



Perhaps not a productive use of time? If it only costs $250 or so, why does Canon charge $635 for the 70-200mm f/4L and $1200 for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. The cost of the parts is irrelevant. They charge what the market will bear. A 32 GB iPhone 4S has $207 in parts, but Apple gets paid $750 for that phone. Conversely, the Kindle Fire about the same as an iPhone 4S to produce, about $201, and Amazon is selling them for $199.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 13, 2011)

I am also sure IS costs them more in development costs, R&D, and a whole lot more in Quality Assurance out the door, as well as spoilage and rework. Pricing is a lot of what the market will bear, but a lot of it is also more than just the cost of parts and labor of the final product


----------



## axismundi (Dec 13, 2011)

If the 24-70 II is announced on jan. 3 , when will it be in stock for sale?
3 months?
What's your guess / vote?


----------



## JR (Dec 13, 2011)

axismundi said:


> If the 24-70 II is announced on jan. 3 , when will it be in stock for sale?
> 3 months?
> What's your guess / vote?



I asked that same question earlier and was told it could take up to 3 months. Canon may time the availability of these new lenses with their new body. I would say the earliest would at least one month delay, so somewhere between 1-3 months we should see those lenses in store hopefully...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 13, 2011)

Radiating said:


> I think you are confused about IS again. IS in no way adds $1400. It costs Canon very little to add it without any IQ hit.



I think you need to start reading my posts more carefully. I said the selling price would double based on historical precedence.

Perhaps you think it is constructive to make derogitory personal comments which are based on supposition?


----------



## japhoto (Dec 13, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> So the question would be: Do you
> 
> - buy a 1DX and a 16-35 + 24-70
> 
> ...



Sorry about the absence, I've been a bit busy with "real life stuff".

Well in an ideal situation I'd say that 1Dx + 16-35IS + 24-70IS would be the way to go, but as it so happens, I don't have that much money.

I'm shooting with a 7D now and figuring out if I want a second hand 5D MkII or a used 1Ds MkII. This would be my second body since I'm not ready to give up my 7D. So yeah, I'm going in a different direction in a way and yes, IS would help me to overcome some of the current issues (referring to your point about future).

In any case I'd spend willingly a lot more in lenses than I would in bodies. It's great that you have the money to go with 1D MkIV or the new 1Dx, but if I don't find a substantially better paying job, I can't justify dropping that amount of money in a body. I always think that lenses outlive the bodies by a fair margin, so that's why they are a better "investment" so to say.

I also don't think better ISO performance to be a "magic bullet" or a "golden egg" like you mentioned about IS.

Regarding the IQ taking a hit when IS system is added, I'd ask how substantial the IQ loss is. The only way to know this of course if Canon decides to release the lens with and without IS when they can go head to head. If the new lens doesn't have IS and it's optically superb and if it has IS, it's probably still optically better than the current model, but we won't know how much better it would be without it.

The only thing we can do is test it out and see if it's a better lens than the current one. And even if we knew the "amount" of IQ loss and it's not substantial, I'd still go with the IS model.

I'm not going to speculate how much higher would IS push the price since I'm pretty sure the actual parts wouldn't cost much to Canon, but added complexity in the manufacturing, R&D etc. will have to be covered.

This is of course only a part of the final pricing, since I think it's safe to say that almost everything that has something to do with photography has a fairly large profit margin built in. Sure the material costs are high and R&D and manufacturing isn't cheap, but when the "suggested price" for the 70-200II is 2925â‚¬ here in Finland and it's constantly "on sale" at 2499â‚¬ and there's a margin for the retailer, margin for the importer (which is controlled by Canon), I'd say that there's a healthy margin still in it for Canon.

So yes, new coatings, adding IS etc. will bring the actual cost up a certain amount, but as neuroanatomist said, it's more what the market can be expected to pay for it than anything else. And in case of a new or re-designed lens there's a golden opportunity to push the margin to say fix the facilities and get a bigger slice for the stockholders. It would be interesting to see what the actual manufacturing costs are and also the price-point for the first distributor. That could be a real eye-opener for a lot of people...or not...


----------



## jweu (Dec 13, 2011)

Will we get any MTF data sheet with more that 30 line pairs per mm? 60 Lines pairs per mm are even less that the resolution of the 15MP!

EF 24-70 is should be much better at F/4 than EF 24-105. Will canon publish any data about that?


----------



## japhoto (Dec 15, 2011)

Today I was photographing in a dimly lit hangar with my 7d & Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and man did I want the lens to have IS.

I was at about f/1.6-4 depending on the light and ISO 160-640, again depending on the light.

So not surprisingly there are a bunch of blurry photos (I do take multiple shots of the same subject to have even one sharp one). All "still life", so yeah, I would have wanted IS today.

Not to mention if I had 24-70mm lens that only goes down to f/2.8. So bring it on at least to lenses that are f/2.8, but I wouldn't mind seeing them in "fast primes" as well.


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

> Today I was photographing in a dimly lit hangar with my 7d & Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and man did I want the lens to have IS.


do you use AFMA with your sigma lens? if yes, how much? thanks


----------



## japhoto (Dec 15, 2011)

I'd be happy to answer your question, but first I'll have to ask, what is AFMA?

The only thing I could think of is Auto Focus Micro Adjustment, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, I do have +3 dialed in, but then again, that's just for this lens/camera combination.


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

japhoto said:


> I'd be happy to answer your question, but first I'll have to ask, what is AFMA?
> 
> The only thing I could think of is Auto Focus Micro Adjustment, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, I do have +3 dialed in, but then again, that's just for this lens/camera combination.


you have answered, thanks 

As you can see I have the same lens and it is my first superfast lens, but I don't know yet how much I miss afma.. certainly not all of my photos are "keeper", but I have not done a proper test. For me the focus looks ok if look at the camera screen at 10x magnification for the center with center AF point (which is the only f2.8 btw).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2011)

whatta said:


> As you can see I have the same lens and it is my first superfast lens, but I don't know yet how much I miss afma.. certainly not all of my photos are "keeper", but I have not done a proper test. For me the focus looks ok if look at the camera screen at 10x magnification for the center with center AF point (which is the only f2.8 btw).



Likely with a 30mm lens, you'd only notice an issue with very close subjects. Even then, at 5' distance, you've got almost 6" of DoF - so if you're focusing on a person's eyes, for example, there's a bit of leeway. Longer lenses show AF issues more readily.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations



One concern I would have would be AF accuracy. On a current 1-series body, the center AF point is high-precision with an f/4 lens, but on the 1D X you need an f/2.8 lens to get the high-precision center point functionality.


----------



## photogaz (Dec 15, 2011)

whatta said:


> > Today I was photographing in a dimly lit hangar with my 7d & Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and man did I want the lens to have IS.
> 
> 
> do you use AFMA with your sigma lens? if yes, how much? thanks



I think this perticular lens doesn't suffer from issues like other Sigmas. I love it and have even kept my 30D when I moved to Full Frame just to still be able to use the 30mm Sigma.


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations
> ...


but it works in EV -2 
btw what does EV 0 mean in practice?

it is not in your great article.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Canon-EOS-DSLR-Autofocus-Explained.aspx

thanks


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2011)

whatta said:


> but it works in EV -2
> btw what does EV 0 mean in practice?



Technically, EV 0 is a 1 s exposure at f/1.0 and ISO 100. So, not very much light. 0 EV equates to 0.125 cd/m2 (or about 1/8 the 'brightness' of a typical candle flame). A real-world approximation of 0 EV would be to set your monitor to full brightness and look at a black patch - typical monitor black-points range from 0.1-0.3 cd/m2. 

But the amount of light is only part of the story, in terms of a practical application. The AF system depends on contrast, too. The -0.5 EV spec of most Canon cameras, or the -2 EV spec of the 1D X, is based on that level of illumination of a target of maximum contrast (i.e. the border between a black patch and a white patch). Very few real-world scenes are like that, and with dim illumination contrast is reduced. Typically, the AF assist lamp will activate at light levels in the EV 3-4 range and lower. Perhaps that will be even lower on the 1D X.


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> whatta said:
> 
> 
> > but it works in EV -2
> ...



thanks a lot! I suggest putting it into your article.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations
> ...



If I read the blurb correctly the F/4 would get the same treatment as the current 1 series.

I find that the 5DII with the 24-105 works fine. I suspect it depends on the definition of low light we are using. I am thinking f/5.6, 1/125, iso3200. 

I have a chuckle when I see people wanting IS because their lens hasn't got it and then find they are only using iso400. This is when the addage of putting money into the glass rather than the body is possibly wrong - put money into the body so that you can take pictures at the lowest light with a reasonable dof and reasonable shutter speed. In todays terms that would be the 5DII and the 1D4 for low light as I defined it.


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


for you low light means EV 12 then

for me EV 7-8 I would say (f1.6, 1/60 iso800, that is how low I can go with my current cam+lens)

http://www.giangrandi.ch/optics/lenses/expcalc.html


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 15, 2011)

whatta said:


> for you low light means EV 12 then
> 
> for me EV 7-8 I would say (f1.6, 1/60 iso800, that is how low I can go with my current cam+lens)
> 
> http://www.giangrandi.ch/optics/lenses/expcalc.html



Basically a standard low lit room like you might get in a wedding reception. This means taking moving subjects would not have motion blur.

For anything still life at really low light it would be tripod/support and manual focus. I find a keyring sized maglite works wonders for focussing


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

whatta said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I was wrong with the calculator, it did not use iso. a better one:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Exposure_01.htm

so I meant EV 4-5 and you EV 7.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I find that the 5DII with the 24-105 works fine. I suspect it depends on the definition of low light we are using. I am thinking f/5.6, 1/125, iso3200.



From CPN Europe 1D X Explained: "_The camera has a newly developed high-precision AF system with 61 user selectable AF points, 41 of which are cross-type points, and five dual cross-type points for extra precision._" The 5 dual-cross points are the f/2.8 sensitive points. With an f/4 lens, the center point acts as an f/5.6-sensitive cross-type AF point on the 1D X. On the 1D IV, the center point was an f/4-sensitive cross-type (vertical line f/4, horizontal line f/8).

But, you're correct in that the high-precision part applies only with f/2.8 and faster lenses on current 1-series and the 1D X. Thanks for pointing that out.



briansquibb said:


> I suspect it depends on the definition of low light we are using. I am thinking f/5.6, 1/125, iso3200.



That's at least 3-4 EV more light than I'd consider 'low light' even for shooting people. Maybe I just need brighter lights where I'm shooting moving people?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's at least 3-4 EV more light than I'd consider 'low light' even for shooting people. Maybe I just need brighter lights where I'm shooting moving people?



I think of low light as being the point where I cant easy read - probably the minimum here would be about f/2.8, 1/60, iso3200 which is fine with a 50mm if shallow DOF is OK . Very low light when it is nearly dark and need some extra light to focus - this definition may change with the 1DX as I can see that iso12800 might give good results as the 1D4 is just about OK to iso6400.

The difficulty with very low light is the focussing as contrast drops AF struggles more


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> whatta said:
> 
> 
> > but it works in EV -2
> ...


from canon:
"As part of this increased sensitivity, the EOS-1D X can now focus in even lower light levels than the EOS-1D Mark IV. Using a single central AF point with an f/2.8 lens, the EOS-1D Mark IV could focus in light levels of EV -1. However, *the EOS-1D X is able to focus in EV -2, which is the equivalent of shooting under the light of the full moon*."


----------



## JR (Dec 15, 2011)

whatta said:


> from canon:
> "As part of this increased sensitivity, the EOS-1D X can now focus in even lower light levels than the EOS-1D Mark IV. Using a single central AF point with an f/2.8 lens, the EOS-1D Mark IV could focus in light levels of EV -1. However, *the EOS-1D X is able to focus in EV -2, which is the equivalent of shooting under the light of the full moon*."



This would also mean the new 1DX will have the same AF sensitivity to low light then the new D4 which was also spec at EV -2 by CR...sound promising!


----------



## Gumbum (Jan 4, 2012)

Sooo...I guess not


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 4, 2012)

Maybe CR can have more granular CR ratings. Intuitively, CR2 sounds too close to CR3, although Craig has made it clear that CR2 means a good rumor from a known source only.


----------



## bobthebrick (Jan 4, 2012)

You never know. It could be a typo and actually be something like the 13th, which is when CES is isn't it?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 4, 2012)

The same source says "lenses in January"... I'll be posting about this soon.


----------



## dolina (Jan 4, 2012)

I would prefer a 135, 180 Macro or 400/5.6 update over a 24-70.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 4, 2012)

dolina said:


> I would prefer a 135, 180 Macro or 400/5.6 update over a 24-70.



.... the 180 macro would be greatly improved with IS as would the 400 f/5.6

Not too sure what would be beneficial for the 135 :-\


----------



## dolina (Jan 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I would prefer a 135, 180 Macro or 400/5.6 update over a 24-70.
> ...


IS on the 135 and 400/5.6 would be a dream. 135 at 1.8, 1.6 or 1.8 would be heaven. ;D


----------



## handsomerob (Jan 5, 2012)

dolina said:


> IS on the 135 and 400/5.6 would be a dream. 135 at 1.8, 1.6 or 1.8 would be heaven. ;D



An even faster 135mm would be heaven indeed, as long as the AF-speed doesn't take a hit with all that glass.
f/1.8 sounds about right (like the superb Zeiss 135mm).


----------

