# 24-70 II with IS



## James Munney (Oct 22, 2013)

Sorry, List, but I can't remember the discussion(s) regarding the inclusion of IS on the next iteration of this lens. Is it going to happen, and if so, what would be your best guess as to when.
Thank you.
Regards,
James


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 22, 2013)

The conclusion is that no one knows, but its very unlikely to happen. Canon tested IS and decided that they would go without it. I have the lens, and IS certainly is not needed.


----------



## Ruined (Oct 23, 2013)

A patent has been filed for it officially, and there was a rumor one was in prototype testing with the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II.

Personally, I believe it will definitely arrive and not too far in the future. I think its just part of Canon's marketing strategy to sell people the 24-70 II without IS first for a couple of years, then sell them the IS version again when they are ready. There is nothing magical about the 24-70 range that makes it impractical to do IS on, but there is a financial benefit to releasing as many iterations as possible and have people continually upgrade.

Here is the patent for the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L IS:
http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-21

Releasing innovative lenses when the time is right is what will keep Canon on top. 24-70 IS is an example of that. If you have something else that works I would hold off for the IS version, because image stabilization is *always* useful to have unless you carry a tripod/monopod with you everywhere. Necessary, no, but useful heck yeah.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 23, 2013)

Ruined said:


> A patent has been filed for it officially, and there was a rumor one was in prototype testing with the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II.
> 
> Personally, I believe it will definitely arrive and not too far in the future. I think its just part of Canon's marketing strategy to sell people the 24-70 II without IS first for a couple of years, then sell them the IS version again when they are ready. There is nothing magical about the 24-70 range that makes it impractical to do IS on, but there is a financial benefit to releasing as many iterations as possible and have people continually upgrade.
> 
> ...



I agree

The "IS" version is currently in Canon treasure box.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 23, 2013)

Ruined said:


> A patent has been filed for it officially, and there was a rumor one was in prototype testing with the same 82mm filter size as the 24-70 II.
> 
> Personally, I believe it will definitely arrive and not too far in the future. I think its just part of Canon's marketing strategy to sell people the 24-70 II without IS first for a couple of years, then sell them the IS version again when they are ready. There is nothing magical about the 24-70 range that makes it impractical to do IS on, but there is a financial benefit to releasing as many iterations as possible and have people continually upgrade.
> 
> ...



I agree.

Probably within the next 5 years or whenever Sigma release one that trumps the current Canon 24-70L II, as they seem to be on course for at the moment, wichever is the soonest. 

Don't forget that there was a was a 10 year gap between the MK1 and MK2 canon lenses!

Grant


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 23, 2013)

It is coming.
Canon wanted to see if you would buy a Non IS version for $2200 before they release a $3500 IS version.
It would have been hard to go from a $1400 version 1 to a $3500 version II IS. Much easier now that they have you prepared.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 23, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> It is coming.
> Canon wanted to see if you would buy a Non IS version for $2200 before they release a $3500 IS version.
> It would have been hard to go from a $1400 version 1 to a $3500 version II IS. Much easier now that they have you prepared.



Cynical, but accurate methinks


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 23, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> It is coming.
> Canon wanted to see if you would buy a Non IS version for $2200 before they release a $3500 IS version.
> It would have been hard to go from a $1400 version 1 to a $3500 version II IS. Much easier now that they have you prepared.


Canon does estimate the selling cost, and includes it when deciding which version to produce. They also have pro's evaluate the prototypes and see which one they prefer. While a IS version might be preferable on a consumer grade crop body, its not necessary on a FF body. The 17-55mm IS is the equivalent crop lens.
I've used mine now for thousands of shots and never missed IS at all. Only when I get to about 200-300mm does IS really become a help. I don't see any need for it on my 135mm L either.

However, if IS sells, it will happen eventually, but not soon, since Canon is not pushing out new products because of the economy. The 70D is a good body, but its not selling, people are hanging on to their pocketbook.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

Oh yes ... this lens is on the way ... exactly like the 100-400 II


----------



## Eldar (Oct 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > It is coming.
> ...


I totally agree. I see people arguing for IS even on wide angle lenses. I enjoy IS from the 70-200 and upwards. Below that it has never been an issue. Maybe it´s because I didn´t have IS for the first 25 years I was doing this.
If I shoot dead subjects, in very poor light, I normally use a tripod. If not, something is moving and there is a limit to how slow the shutter speed can be. I have not shown any Parkinson symptoms yet, so hopefully I can carry on like this for a few more years.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



It seems I am always shooting something in low light. It seems that shooting in the late evening or inside without a flash is something I am always doing. Sure motion blur and such is a problem but I could see a use for IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I see people arguing for IS even on wide angle lenses. I enjoy IS from the 70-200 and upwards. Below that it has never been an issue. Maybe it´s because I didn´t have IS for the first 25 years I was doing this.
> ...



As long as the only real penalty for including IS is the cost of the lens (and not reduced IQ), I think it's totally worth it. Most of the time, I shoot people and have a minimum shutter speed of 1/125 s when using my 24-70/2.8L II. But occasionally, I want to take a low light shot of a static scene, and 4 stops of IS would mean the difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 800 - that's worth the price of admission, to me. I'd rather have it and not need it, then not have it when it would come in handy.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 23, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> It is coming.
> Canon wanted to see if you would buy a Non IS version for $2200 before they release a $3500 IS version.
> It would have been hard to go from a $1400 version 1 to a $3500 version II IS. Much easier now that they have you prepared.


If the price tag of the Canon 24-70mm IS is 3500, Sigma and Tamron will really appreciate Canon to help their business.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 23, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> It seems I am always shooting something in low light. It seems that shooting in the late evening or inside without a flash is something I am always doing. Sure motion blur and such is a problem but I could see a use for IS.



I also shoot in low light often. Many CR people may be PROs, so they always get light sources most of time. I only take pictures for family, friends and some events, IS is really useful for me.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 23, 2013)

When Canon launched the 24-70 II didn't they state that the lens doesn't have IS in order to optimise IQ. 

If I'm right and they did state this is there any truth in it ?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> When Canon launched the 24-70 II didn't they state that the lens doesn't have IS in order to optimise IQ.
> 
> If I'm right and they did state this is there any truth in it ?



Yes I believe they did state this, but then do you believe everything a salesman tells you?


----------



## brad-man (Oct 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



_Exactly_. Image stabilization is _always_ welcome at any focal length whether it's needed or not. I won't part with my Tamron SP24-70 until Canon or Sigma can whomp it!
Folks that disagree can hang out in the Ken Rockwell "tripods are no longer needed" camp


----------



## Eldar (Oct 23, 2013)

brad-man said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...


Eeehh ... In that case we should be in the "we need a tripod camp" should we not?? Since we´re trying to cope without IS ...


----------



## brad-man (Oct 23, 2013)

Eeehh ... In that case we should be in the "we need a tripod camp" should we not?? Since we´re trying to cope without IS ... 
[/quote]

I _am_ in that camp. I have six of the damn things


----------



## J.R. (Oct 24, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Eeehh ... In that case we should be in the "we need a tripod camp" should we not?? Since we´re trying to cope without IS ...



I _am_ in that camp. I have six of the damn things 
[/quote]

Whoops, I have four and I thought that was a bit much. IS is welcome though!


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 24, 2013)

cliffwang said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > It is coming.
> ...


Especially when sigma bust out the 24-70 f2 OS


----------



## pwp (Oct 24, 2013)

cliffwang said:


> I also shoot in low light often. Many CR people may be PROs, so they always get light sources most of time. I only take pictures for family, friends and some events, IS is really useful for me.


While I don't especially miss IS on my 24-70 f/2.8II, there are times when it would deliver a higher percentage of keepers. More keepers the better. As someone who shoots for my living, I certainly don't necessarily have perfect light all the time...the shooting environments vary enormously depending on the project. 

Some people have very steady hands and IS is less of a tangible advantage. My (obviously) non-IS 135 f/2 gets very little use and will be sold soon, the 70-200 f/2.8isII does all the work in this range. If my 16-35 f/2.8II had IS, I'd be attempting different, currently no-go shots.

It may not be right at the top of everyone's wish-list, but I'll tick the box for IS every time; why deny yourself any potential creative or business advantage?

-pw


----------



## J.R. (Oct 24, 2013)

pwp said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > I also shoot in low light often. Many CR people may be PROs, so they always get light sources most of time. I only take pictures for family, friends and some events, IS is really useful for me.
> ...



I would guess IS is needed more by the Pro Photographers who are shooting for long durations. I would not imagine myself not yearning for IS if I were shooting 5-6 hours straight. Being a hobbyist though, I can take it easy


----------



## pwp (Oct 24, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I would guess IS is needed more by the Pro Photographers who are shooting for long durations. I would not imagine myself not yearning for IS if I were shooting 5-6 hours straight. Being a hobbyist though, I can take it easy


Whether you will benefit from IS or not has nothing at all to do with the duration of a project, it's 100% about the type of project and the style of images you want or your client requires. 

IS is just another handy tool. The value of IS has no divide between professional or hobbyist, at the right moment it can just help smooth the way.

-pw


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 24, 2013)

My 2c:

A. Canon has an EF 24-70mm f/4 and - as noted above - equivalent focal range EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 with IS. This means Canon thinks IS on that focal range useful, possibly for some photographers' need, definitely it's bottom line.

B. Canon has four 70-200mm lenses, 2 w/ IS & w/o, which means both Canon and it's customers find it useful to have a choice. In this case, the differentiating factor is price. Why not do the same with 24-70mm lenses, with the differentiating factor being IQ?

As Tamron is already selling a 24-70mm f/2.8 vc, stealing sales Canon could make by releasing a similar lens, my guess is Canon thinks that between it's f/4 IS, f/2.8 IS-less, and Tamron f/2.8 vc, it can't make a profit from turning it's prototype into a selling lens.

That could be due to characteristics of the lens (say price/performance point too low to compete with the Tamron), lack of available manufacturing resources, or whatever, but if Canon was confident it could release one soon, I would expect a development announcement to keep some photographers from buying the Tamron. Not seeing such announcement, I don't expect to see an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS anytime soon.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 24, 2013)

pwp said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I would guess IS is needed more by the Pro Photographers who are shooting for long durations. I would not imagine myself not yearning for IS if I were shooting 5-6 hours straight. Being a hobbyist though, I can take it easy
> ...



I was actually thinking of wedding shooters. Long shoots, tired arms and fading light


----------



## TexasBadger (Oct 24, 2013)

When the 70-200 f/2.8 L came out the non IS version was sharper than the IS version. I would suspect this will always be true no matter what focal length.


----------



## tron (Oct 24, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> When the 70-200 f/2.8 L came out the non IS version was sharper than the IS version. I would suspect this will always be true no matter what focal length.


I am with you on that ... partially!

Canon introduced the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which corrected this!

However, it has done this by almost doubling the cost (compared to the non-IS lens)

By the way the 70-200 2.8 L (which I used to have until it was stolen) was the first zoom I used with fixed lens quality (judging from large B&W prints back in the 90s).

For now, your comment applies to the 300mm f/4 series lenses too.

The f/4 non-IS lens is reported sharper than the IS version. Although I do not have the IS version
I have compared 300mm f/4L non-IS lens with EF1.4XII extender and found it sharper that the 100-400 L lens. This implies a very sharp 300mm f/4L non-IS lens. Now, if Canon introduce a 300mm f/4L IS II things will change again...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 24, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > When Canon launched the 24-70 II didn't they state that the lens doesn't have IS in order to optimise IQ.
> ...



Unhelpful. 

But despite the apparent high level of technical expertise on CR no one seems to have a better answer.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 26, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



When it was released everyone was crying because it didn't have IS. (as was heavily rumored)
I think Canon just threw this out stop some of the complaints.

I am not sure you can relate sales strategy and technical expertise.

This is what Bryan at TDP said in his review;

"Canon omitted image stabilization to achieve the absolute ultimate image quality possible with the least-complex design."

I do remember reading Canon releases that said the same.


----------



## Ruined (Oct 27, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> When Canon launched the 24-70 II didn't they state that the lens doesn't have IS in order to optimise IQ.
> 
> If I'm right and they did state this is there any truth in it ?



Personally I think that is baloney and was marketing aimed at people on the fence to help them justify spending the money for the non-IS version. The Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, and it also has one of the most advanced IS systems! The 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is also razor sharp and has IS, too.


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 27, 2013)

as good as the Canon 24-70 II is... a nice lens

the missing I.S. ...is covered by '_errors and omissions..._' clause in their insurance.

I bought and returned the 24-70 II ...almost sharp enough @ 70... not quite... for the price
BUT the missing I.S. just killed it for me.....
it would be used RIGHT WHERE the I.S. needs to kick-in.... so I get that shot....
silly not to have this available..

I will wait..
and that may include a new Sigma 24-70-ish range too.......the 35 f1.4 wiped my (sold) 35L ....
Sigma knows how to please...

I believe Canon issued the non-I.S. first because it wouldn't sell...later
when the one with I.S. was available

just my thought

TOM


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 7, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> I believe Canon issued the non-I.S. first because it wouldn't sell...later
> when the one with I.S. was available



I'm really hoping this is the case. I've been thinking about trading in my fairly new 24-105 5D3 kit lens towards a 24-70 II, but considering the hit I'll take on the trade-in, I feel compelled to keep using it in the hopes that a 24-70 II with IS is in the nearish future. The "ish" after "near" is a concern though.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2013)

Mitch.Conner said:


> TommyLee said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Canon issued the non-I.S. first because it wouldn't sell...later
> ...


I wouldn't worry. It will take less that 10 years... probably ;D


----------

