Am I missing something??

[Digital_Clarity]

I currently have a cropped sensor camera with 17-55mm f2.8 IS though I'm looking to upgrade to full frame.

A similar focal length equivalent on FF would be ideal but there's nothing in Canon's line-up that has f2.8 AND image stabilisation, or am I missing something?

For example;
Canon 24-70mm f2.8 no IS
Canon 24-105mm f4 with IS

It's making me think twice about forking out large amounts of money for something that may not perform as well under low light conditions (though I get the feeling I might be wrong about this!). I understand ISO performance is better on FF but surely this doesn't outweigh an extra 2 stops gained through larger aperture and IS?

Enlightenment would be appreciated!

 

[Lostgear]

A crop sensor is is all you need for amateur togging. Full frame is for pros doing portrait or landscape. Portrait using lighting therefore no issues with slow shutters and landscapes using a tripod, therefore no need for is. I don't think fast and stabilised lenses work for pros, if they want a fast lens use a prime.

I do keep hearing rumours of a new 24-70 F2.8 is though!

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Why would you need IS on such a short focal lenght lens ? wouldn't the improved high ISO handling cancel out the IS ? - if f2.8 is not good enough i usually just use a 50mm f1.4 or the 85mm f1.8

 

[goldenlight]

With a larger, heavier body, provided you have the strength to lift it you should find it inherently more stable anyway.

 

[Digital_Clarity]

A crop sensor is is all you need for amateur togging. Full frame is for pros doing portrait or landscape. Portrait using lighting therefore no issues with slow shutters and landscapes using a tripod, therefore no need for is. I don't think fast and stabilised lenses work for pros, if they want a fast lens use a prime.

I do keep hearing rumours of a new 24-70 F2.8 is though!

I'm not sure I agree with some of the points above Adam... Full frame isn't just for portraits and landscapes, it's certainly used by a majority of wedding, event and sports photographers where low light and fast shutter speed is a definite concern! Fast, stabilised lenses are what any tog would want so it's not that they wouldn't work surely?
Primes are great but lack the ability to compose quickly so don't suite everyone, I'm just surprised there isn't a Canon L series mid range zoom with f2.8 and IS on the market.
I can't imagine the 24-70mm f2.8 IS is going to be cheap though!

Why would you need IS on such a short focal lenght lens ? wouldn't the improved high ISO handling cancel out the IS ? - if f2.8 is not good enough i usually just use a 50mm f1.4 or the 85mm f1.8

For the same reason I want IS on my 17-55mm f2.8, it helps you get the shot in difficult lighting conditions!

The question of whether IS is needed on a lens isn't really what I'm getting at, it's more a question of why it appears on the EF-S lenses but not the L series EF? :shrug:

 

[woof woof]

Soz guys but these first few replies make absolutely no sense to me at all.

Full frame is for pro's doing portrait or landscape?
Portrait = use lighting so IS isn't required?
Landscape = use a tripod?
IS not needed at such a short focal length?
A big heavy body and lens are more stable? What???

What bizarre comments, IMVHO of course.

What about available light shooting or shooting where a flash isn't allowed?
What about instances when you'd miss the shot setting up a tripod or where a tripod isn't allowed?
What about the latest cameras with their high mp sensors showing up any camera shake more clearly than older cameras and what about occasions when you don't want DoF as thin as a sheet of paper?

It's true that we probably managed for years without IS but if you go back far enough we all had rickets and died at the age of 42 but times change and we make progress. I'd like IS on all of my lenses regardless of focal length and that's one area in which Sony wins over Canon and Nikon but one day I hope that the market leaders offer in body IS too or at least IS on all lenses. Until that happens there might not be an equivalent to a 17-50mm f2.8 IS lens.

I think that the reason we have IS on APS-C standard lenses is possibly something to do with marketing and some manufactures having in body IS at entry level and Canon and Nikon wanting to stay competitive.

I suppose that the market for 24-70mm f2.8 zooms costing £800+ is possibly more limited and less competitive with many perhaps even most buyers sticking to Canon or Nikon. I suppose if Sigma brought a 24-70mm f2.8 IS out and it sold like hot cakes Nikon and Canon would bring one out too.

 

[18-270]

I don't find any need for IS on my 24-70 because of it's focal length, and to be honest I turn it off on the 70-200 if I'm shooting above 320th because it speeds the whole thing up! If you really want "IS" "VR" or "VC" or "steady shot" then get the tamron 17-50?

 

[18-270]

I think that the reason we have IS on APS-C standard lenses is possibly something to do with marketing and some manufactures having in body IS at entry level and Canon and Nikon wanting to stay competitive.

Just a quick one on that point, the IS in the body of the Sony system is handy but no were near as effective as having a full optical IS system because the Sony does it via the CCD and is not what I'd call pin sharp.

 

[woof woof]

Opinions vary. Some think that the system works very well indeed and is every bit as good as lens IS.

I've never tried it myself but the thought of having IS on all of my fast primes is a nice one and not one that any manufacturer other than those with in body IS currently offers.

For those that believe that lens IS is superior there could be an off switch on the camera body to turn the in body IS off.

 

[TriggerHappy]

I've got the Nikon 105mm VR and I'd say VR is off for 99% of my shots. That lens tends to be the lens I leave on my camera and sees the most use for a whole range of subjects. I also have the 17-55mm Nikon which doesn't have VR and I can honestly say that not once have I been in a situation where I've wished that I had VR at my disposal.

VR has its place, and it's a nice tool to have to fall back on, but too often it's used as an excuse to forego proper camera technique. If you make yourself a stable platform then camera shake shouldn't be a problem down to very slow speeds, especially with wider angle lenses. The number of shots I shoot at sub 1/30th of a second is very low and at that speed I'm never going to be shooting an event that will disappear in the time it takes to set up a tripod or monopod, or even find a something solid to support the camera.

I'd sooner pay less and make do without VR unless I'm using a lens over 200mm where it obviously has a far greater purpose.

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Soz guys but these first few replies make absolutely no sense to me at all.

IS is no use at all if your subject is moving.........

IS will not help focusing in poor available lighting........


if i cant get a high enough shutter speed to stop camera shake using a higher ISO then i stick on some faster glass or go home - were talking 70mm max focal lenght here.

higher MP on a crop sensor will show camera shake more, but thats to do will pixel density - which is not currently a issue with FF.

IS can be useful but its lack of availability on a shorter focal Length lens for a FF body is not really a issue.

 

[goldenlight]

Soz guys but these first few replies make absolutely no sense to me at all.

A big heavy body and lens are more stable? What???What bizarre comments, IMVHO of course.

.

Yes, within reason it is true. Whenever you release the shutter, however gently, you are exerting a force on the whole camera. For every action there is a reaction and a heavy camera has more inertia to minimize the reaction than a lighter camera. Also balance comes into the equation. A heavy body that balances well with a heavy lens will be more stable than the same lens with a lighter body. A lot, of course, depends on the photographer's shutter technique - some are more clumsy than others. There are limits, obviously, and a weight combination that exceeds your strength to support comfortably will definitely be counter productive.

It's not a substitute for IS, I know, but it is a factor and I think perhaps we were all struggling for a reason that Canon doesn't supply the glass wanted by the OP. Maybe there is a case for in body IS after all, even if it is marginally less effective.

Certainly in Olympus Land you can have your cake and eat it in this respect; fast zooms such as 14-35mm f2 and 35-100mm f2 and in body IS. But of course that doesn't help if you require full frame sensor quality. What a conundrum.

 

[HoppyUK]

You can do slightly more with the 24-105L 4 on full frame than you can with the 17-55 2.8 on a cropper.

In terms of focal length, that lens is equivalent to 27-88mm on full frame, and the depth of field you get is equivalent to f/4.5 (f/number x crop factor).

So the 24-105L has more range and less DoF, plus the 5D2 has at least a stop advantage in ISO over any crop camera.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

A crop sensor is is all you need for amateur togging. Full frame is for pros doing portrait or landscape. Portrait using lighting therefore no issues with slow shutters and landscapes using a tripod, therefore no need for is. I don't think fast and stabilised lenses work for pros, if they want a fast lens use a prime.

I do keep hearing rumours of a new 24-70 F2.8 is though!

Sorry Adam, but i have to disagree with you here. I use full frame and still have a need for IS especially with some of the wildlife i do with slow shutter speeds etc IS also helps with slow speed panning for motorsports (in my limited experience)

Saying fulll frame is for pros and crop for amateurs is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. I know many many pros who use crop bodies and i know many amateurs who use Full Frame. Saying Pro's don't need IS because they have full frame is misleading and again a huge sweeping generalisation

 

[boyfalldown]

I can never understand why people want IS on mid range zooms. It adds weight and expense to a lens and doesn't solve the issue of subject movement anyway. For landcapes you'll be using a tripod and for any sort of low light people work you'll have the shutter at speeds where camera shake shouldn't be an issue to avoid them moveing

 

[HoppyUK]

I can never understand why people want IS on mid range zooms.

I find the potential to hand-hold at, for example, 1/4sec instead of being stuck at 1/30sec extremely useful.

It adds weight and expense to a lens and doesn't solve the issue of subject movement anyway.

Not usually it doesn't. The lens in question, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, is over 100g lighter and more than £100 cheaper than the identical spec Nikon lens, without VR.

For landcapes you'll be using a tripod and for any sort of low light people work you'll have the shutter at speeds where camera shake shouldn't be an issue to avoid them moveing

Why do you need a tripod for landscape? I can't remember the last time I used one for that. Shutter speeds are generally hand-holdable even without IS.

If you need a higher shutter speed to prevent subject movement, a tripod is obviously no help for that either.

 

[boyfalldown]

I find the potential to hand-hold at, for example, 1/4sec instead of being stuck at 1/30sec extremely useful.

Not usually it doesn't. The lens in question, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, is over 100g lighter and more than £100 cheaper than the identical spec Nikon lens, without VR.

you're not comparing like with like, any otherwise identical lens will by heavier and more expensive with VR or IS just by dint of having a VR unit in it.

Why do you need a tripod for landscape? I can't remember the last time I used one for that. Shutter speeds are generally hand-holdable even without IS.

If you need a higher shutter speed to prevent subject movement, a tripod is obviously no help for that either.

I never suggested using a tripod for shots with moving subjects in - just pointed out you'd need a shutter speed which would negate the advantage of VR.

Tripods for landscape - each to his own I guess.

 

[aligibbs]

Avoiding all the comments on IS, needed or not. You have to choose from the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 no IS or the Canon 24-105mm f4 with IS if your going to go full frame. That's what there is.... There is rumour of a 24-70mm F2.8 with IS, but that's been going around a while.

 

[woof woof]

Dogfish - "IS is no use at all if your subject is moving........."

My one and only IS lens has selectable IS which allows me to track moving subjects.

"IS will not help focusing in poor available lighting........"

I don't think that anyone suggested that it would. It will however give you more options regarding what aperture and shutter speed to use.

"if i cant get a high enough shutter speed to stop camera shake using a higher ISO then i stick on some faster glass or go home - were talking 70mm max focal lenght here."

I was shooting the other day at 50mm, ISO 3200 and f1.4. If I'd had IS maybe I'd have had more creative choices without having to resort to an aperture which gave me minimal DoF.

"higher MP on a crop sensor will show camera shake more, but thats to do will pixel density - which is not currently a issue with FF."

But times move on. We now have cameras which are pushing the limits of the lenses available so why not have better lenses? As for mp, as far as I know no APS-C camera can yet match the resolution of the high mp count full frame cameras so I'm confused by your comment that it's not an issue for full frame.

"IS can be useful but its lack of availability on a shorter focal Length lens for a FF body is not really a issue."

But it is if you're hitting the limits of what your kit is capable of.

Sorry to reply line by line but I can really only see two arguments against IS. It may add to cost but as the technology becomes available and matures prices should drop and it may add to weight but again as the technology improves and matures the weight could drop. Or if lenses weigh too much we could just go for in body IS.

The argument that it's just not needed seems irrelevant to me as some people clearly would like it and yet at the moment the only choice for Nikon and Canon users would be to switch systems. If every lens (or every body) had IS those who wanted to use it could and those who saw no need for it could turn it off.

 

[boyfalldown]

Dogfish - "IS is no use at all if your subject is moving........."

My one and only IS lens has selectable IS which allows me to track moving subjects.

sorry to snip the rest of your post, I don't understand how this would work? Focus tracking yes, IS tracking I don't get?

 

[goldenlight]

Why do you need a tripod for landscape? I can't remember the last time I used one for that. Shutter speeds are generally hand-holdable even without IS.

For a finely detailed landscape you will always obtain a slightly sharper image for huge enlargements if the camera is mounted on a good quality, sturdy tripod.

But that's only part of it. A tripod is also indispensible for framing and fine-tuning the composition precisely.

It allows you to step back and consider your composition without having to concentrate on holding the camera in a certain position.

You maintain that exact position whilst making any neccesary adjustments to the camera settings.

It enables you to use a spirit level to ensure the horizon is absolutely level.

It helps prevent you getting chronic back ache with low angled shots.

When trying to capture fleeting light in some cases you could be waiting a considerable time. When the sun breaks through for that split second only you will be ready to trip the shutter without having to worry about recomposing first and risk missing the shot.

If you bracket exposures each shot will be identically framed, which is an advantage if tone mapping or blending in pp.

If you still use ND grad filters it's almost impossible to use them correctly without a tripod.

Finally, a tripod makes you slow down and think more about exactly what you want from the scene, rather than shooting indescriminately. I would expect to get a better overall result using a Four Thirds camera with a tripod than another photographer using Full Frame without a tripod.

 

[aligibbs]

+1 for Goldenlight's post

 

[woof woof]

boyfalldown...

My one IS lens is a 70-300mm and it allows me to select what IS I want. It allows the user to pan horizontally and just have the IS work on vertical movement.

 

[HoppyUK]

sorry to snip the rest of your post, I don't understand how this would work? Focus tracking yes, IS tracking I don't get?

[Edit: crossed with poster.] I think he may be referring to the panning mode, which disables the IS in one dimension to it doesn't try and correct for the deliberate panning movement.

It in no way corrects for subject movement, which IS cannot do. As we know.

As for IS adding cost and weight, well, does it? The evidence for that is very hard to find, bearing in mind that so very few lenses are available in identical IS and non-IS versions.

The popular Canon 70-200L IS lenses for example are completely different optical designs, with more elements and better performance, plus things like weather sealing and circular diaphragms, compared to their non-IS counterparts.

Out of interest, I just checked the only lens I can think of off the top of my head that is currently available in IS and non-IS versions - the Canon 18-55 kit zoom. Although the IS version is a different (and much improved) optical design, the construction is the same. And you're right, the IS lens is a whole 10g heavier and 4mm longer.

The non-IS lens doesn't seem to be availble separately so I couldn't find a price comparison, but since the IS version still only costs £125 it can't be much less.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

For a finely detailed landscape you will always obtain a slightly sharper image for huge enlargements if the camera is mounted on a good quality, sturdy tripod.

I don't accept that at all. Because it's untrue.

Furthermore, a tripod is no guarantee of sharpness. Good technique gets you that, with or without a tripod.

But that's only part of it. A tripod is also indispensible for framing and fine-tuning the composition precisely.

It allows you to step back and consider your composition without having to concentrate on holding the camera in a certain position.

You maintain that exact position whilst making any neccesary adjustments to the camera settings.

It enables you to use a spirit level to ensure the horizon is absolutely level.

It helps prevent you getting chronic back ache with low angled shots.

When trying to capture fleeting light in some cases you could be waiting a considerable time. When the sun breaks through for that split second only you will be ready to trip the shutter without having to worry about recomposing first and risk missing the shot.

If you bracket exposures each shot will be identically framed, which is an advantage if tone mapping or blending in pp.

Finally, a tripod makes you slow down and think more about exactly what you want from the scene, rather than shooting indescriminately. I would expect to get a better overall result using a Four Thirds camera with a tripod than another photographer using Full Frame without a tripod.

Fair comment. But it has absolutely nothing to do with IS or any sharpness related issues of any kind.

You can turn IS off

TBH I'm a bit bewildered by those people that argue against IS. The benefits are real and substantial, in real world everyday picture taking. And the cost, whatever tiny and insigniicant price there may be to pay in terms of money or weight, just seems completely insignificant.

 

[woof woof]

goldenlight, that's all in an ideal world but sometimes you simply can't use a tripod, maybe they're not allowed, and sometimes using a tripod would simply take too long.

 

[woof woof]

I think this is probably a bit like the sensor cleaning argument of a year or two ago. Before Nikon and Canon introduced it many said that it was a gimmick, that it didn't work and that dust just wasn't a issue. Now however it's an expected feature on a new DSLR.

Maybe in the future all bodies will have IS and if Nikon and Canon don't offer that maybe they'll have been pushed along the road to ensuring that all new lenses have it by the competition. Maybe if that day comes we'll all look back and wonder how we managed with our 50 and 85mm lenses when we didn't have IS and rue all those shots we missed or that ended up ever so slightly oof.

 

[aligibbs]

TBH I'm a bit bewildered by those people that argue against IS. The benefits are real and substantial, in real world everyday picture taking. And the cost, whatever tiny and insigniicant price there may be to pay in terms of money or weight, just seems completely insignificant.

Hrm, I would disagree at the cost part. I know there aren't direct comparisons, but the 70-200mm F4 lens is £510ish, or £900 odd for the IS version, that's a huge price difference.

 

[goldenlight]

goldenlight, that's all in an ideal world but sometimes you simply can't use a tripod, maybe they're not allowed, and sometimes using a tripod would simply take too long.

For landscapes? :shrug:

 

[HoppyUK]

Hrm, I would disagree at the cost part. I know there aren't direct comparisons, but the 70-200mm F4 lens is £510ish, or £900 odd for the IS version, that's a huge price difference.

The IS versions are not 'versions' at all. They are completely different lenses! As explained above. They might have a similar spec and look similar from the outside, but inside there's a whole lot more going on than just IS, and multiple other benefits for the extra cost.

So, putting aside those 70-200s for a moment, what other examples of significant extra cost and weight for IS/VR lenses are there?

 

[goldenlight]

[Edit: crossed with poster.] I think he may be referring to the panning mode, which disables the IS in one dimension to it doesn't try and correct for the deliberate panning movement.

It in no way corrects for subject movement, which IS cannot do. As we know.

As for IS adding cost and weight, well, does it? The evidence for that is very hard to find, bearing in mind that so very few lenses are available in identical IS and non-IS versions.

The popular Canon 70-200L IS lenses for example are completely different optical designs, with more elements and better performance, plus things like weather sealing and circular diaphragms, compared to their non-IS counterparts.

Out of interest, I just checked the only lens I can think of off the top of my head that is currently available in IS and non-IS versions - the Canon 18-55 kit zoom. Although the IS version is a different (and much improved) optical design, the construction is the same. And you're right, the IS lens is a whole 10g heavier and 4mm longer.

The non-IS lens doesn't seem to be availble separately so I couldn't find a price comparison, but since the IS version still only costs £125 it can't be much less.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me.



I don't accept that at all. Because it's untrue.

Furthermore, a tripod is no guarantee of sharpness. Good technique gets you that, with or without a tripod.



Fair comment. But it has absolutely nothing to do with IS or any sharpness related issues of any kind.

You can turn IS off

TBH I'm a bit bewildered by those people that argue against IS. The benefits are real and substantial, in real world everyday picture taking. And the cost, whatever tiny and insigniicant price there may be to pay in terms of money or weight, just seems completely insignificant.

Scenario: It's pre-dawn and I have a composition at 70mm that requires maximum DOF so I'm using f22 on Full Frame. At ISO 200 that gives me 1/2 sec shutter speed, which is fine on a tripod, but hand held, even allowing 4 stops gain for IS that's really, really pushing it. OK I can up the ISO to 400, probably 800 in this case but already I'm starting to compromise on quality and this isn't even an extreme example.

As far as IS is concerned for general photography I'm a huge fan. I have Parkinson's and I simply couldn't do without IS now.

 

[boyfalldown]

[Edit: crossed with poster.] I think he may be referring to the panning mode, which disables the IS in one dimension to it doesn't try and correct for the deliberate panning movement.

It in no way corrects for subject movement, which IS cannot do. As we know.

yes - understood now.

As for IS adding cost and weight, well, does it? The evidence for that is very hard to find, bearing in mind that so very few lenses are available in identical IS and non-IS versions.

The popular Canon 70-200L IS lenses for example are completely different optical designs, with more elements and better performance, plus things like weather sealing and circular diaphragms, compared to their non-IS counterparts.

Out of interest, I just checked the only lens I can think of off the top of my head that is currently available in IS and non-IS versions - the Canon 18-55 kit zoom. Although the IS version is a different (and much improved) optical design, the construction is the same. And you're right, the IS lens is a whole 10g heavier and 4mm longer.

The non-IS lens doesn't seem to be availble separately so I couldn't find a price comparison, but since the IS version still only costs £125 it can't be much less.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Of course it does - a direct comparision is hard to find, but think about it for a second. You're adding an IS units that have to both weigh and cost something........you may be able to offest the weight and cost losses in improved lens design in other way or the costs may also be hidden with other improvements, weather sealing and new coatings for example but that doesn't mean they are not there

[
TBH I'm a bit bewildered by those people that argue against IS. The benefits are real and substantial, in real world everyday picture taking. And the cost, whatever tiny and insigniicant price there may be to pay in terms of money or weight, just seems completely insignificant.

thats to you but I find it amazing that people are prepared to pay for or carry something without a benefit to them. IS or VR at focal lengths below 70mm has no advantage for me - simply because my subjects movement will become an issue at shutter speeds where IS will provide a benefit. I neither wish to pay for or carry something that doesn't give me a benefit. There is no real and substantial benefit at wide-mid focal lengths for me

Hugh

 

[woof woof]

goldenlight - Of course for landscapes.

What if a tripod isn't alowed? What if carrying one just isn't an option? What if there simply isn't enough time to set up a tripod before you miss the shot?

I myself find a tripod to be a very limiting thing at times. But, maybe you don't go well off the beaten track, or to places where tripods aren't allowed and maybe you don't want to capture a fleeting moment.

Horses for courses I suppose but I'll give you this and ask you not to judge the quality as it's a download from a low res shot from photobucket as I'm at work and therefore don't have access to the original shot...

Believe me when I tell you that I wouldn't have been able to carry a tripod that day.

 

[Kanine]

Bang on, Woof woof.

Plus how many people like carrying a tripod? You're travelling, you may have no idea how far you'll be walking and you just fancy a wonder...lugging a tripod about is my idea of hell! UNLESS you know exactly the shot you have in mind i.e. you will DEFINITELY be shooting landscapes at dusk OR waterfalls, then I wouldn't want to take a tripod 'just in case' for most places! Also, setting tripods up in populated places where there are people milling about is a no no!

 

[woof woof]

From a popular Canon rumours site...

"· 14th An image in a collection on a Danish site [p51 of the pdf at Zoom] is tagged as being taken with a 1Ds3 and 24-70 2.8L IS
· 6th A report (thanks) that we are to see
EF 60 f/2.8 H-IS USM Macro, EF 200 f/4 H-IS L Macro, EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS - shipping by September."

So who knows what the future may bring????

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

Dogfish - "IS is no use at all if your subject is moving........."

My one and only IS lens has selectable IS which allows me to track moving subjects.

But it wont freeze a moving subject and allow you to take a sharp image

"IS will not help focusing in poor available lighting........"

I don't think that anyone suggested that it would. It will however give you more options regarding what aperture and shutter speed to use.

You can have as many options as you like but if it wont focus there useless.

"if i cant get a high enough shutter speed to stop camera shake using a higher ISO then i stick on some faster glass or go home - were talking 70mm max focal length here."

I was shooting the other day at 50mm, ISO 3200 and f1.4. If I'd had IS maybe I'd have had more creative choices without having to resort to an aperture which gave me minimal DoF.

What were you shooting and what shutter speeds were you getting ?

"higher MP on a crop sensor will show camera shake more, but thats to do will pixel density - which is not currently a issue with FF."

But times move on. We now have cameras which are pushing the limits of the lenses available so why not have better lenses? As for mp, as far as I know no APS-C camera can yet match the resolution of the high mp count full frame cameras so I'm confused by your comment that it's not an issue for full frame.

I was responding to your comment "What about the latest cameras with their high mp sensors showing up any camera shake more clearly than older cameras "

The OP was talking about a FF body - so not a issue.


"IS can be useful but its lack of availability on a shorter focal Length lens for a FF body is not really a issue."

But it is if you're hitting the limits of what your kit is capable of.

If your hitting the limits on such a short focal length fast lens on a FF body i would guess you will have other issues that will impact IQ and negate any benefits IS would give you

.

I think IS/VR is excellent on longer focal length lens i just cant see any real benefits on a fast short focal length lens

It Canon / Nikon thought it would let them sell more lens's then the 24-70mm IS would have been release ages ago

 

[woof woof]

Our views are so different on this we're never going to convince each other.

I personally think that the market is going my way and that in the future IS will become the norm. It may be that you'll never see an advantage but I and other may well. There's room for all in photography and there's always an off switch.

 

[goldenlight]

goldenlight - Of course for landscapes.

What if a tripod isn't alowed? What if carrying one just isn't an option? What if there simply isn't enough time to set up a tripod before you miss the shot?

I myself find a tripod to be a very limiting thing at times. But, maybe you don't go well off the beaten track, or to places where tripods aren't allowed and maybe you don't want to capture a fleeting moment.

Horses for courses I suppose but I'll give you this and ask you not to judge the quality as it's a download from a low res shot from photobucket as I'm at work and therefore don't have access to the original shot...

Believe me when I tell you that I wouldn't have been able to carry a tripod that day.

Well, I have been off the bearen track a bit in my time. I've climbed all the English and Welsh 2000 ft summits and over half the Munros before injuries and other priorities in my life took over. I often carried 35mm, medium format , camping gear and a Benbo Mk 1 tripod. In retrospect I wouldn't recommend that, though, because that's how I wrecked my knees!

Here is a picture that is the exception that proves the rule. I had waited for several hours on the summit of Lingmoor Fell for the sun to illuminate the larches in the view across to the Langdale Pikes. I still had some way to go so eventually gave up. Several hundred feet below my chosen viewpoint the sun burst through. I knew I wouldn't have time to do it properly so I ditched my pack and the Benbo and raced back up to grab this shot. I was fit in those days!



On the other hand I could not have managed this shot of dawn over the Buttermere Valley from the summit of Haystacks, where I had camped overnight at Innominate Tarn, without a tripod.

 

[mipevo6]

Just to be controversial

I think you folks are missing the point

Hopefully all of us here are or would like to be photographers....

How many people buy an entry level SLR

Never use it out of the green square mode
Never buy another lens
Wouldn't know what a shutter speed was unless it's something that runs you over ;-)
Wouldn't know what an aperture was unless they fell in it
etc..

For them IS sounds like a nice to have...
It might rescue some shots for them....

We ran a beginners course @ work the other day and had quite a few people that fit into the above....

One size doesn't fit all.....

Light blue touch paper... Run away.....

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

I think IS/VR is excellent on longer focal length lens i just cant see any real benefits on a fast short focal length lens

Before I moved to the 5Dmk2 I had a 40D with the 17-55 IS. The combination of the f/2.8 (high performance centre point AF enabled) and the IS meant that not only could I get focus in low light I could hand-hold the camera too. It isn't always desirable to have shallow the shallow DOF of the max aperture, although this is of course dependent on the focal length and subject distance too.

Now that I have the 5Dmk2 and 24-105, there has been some occasions when I just couldn't get the AF to lock because of lack of available light. F/4 just didn't cut it. However, there has been occasions when there has been sufficient illumination at the point of interest which has enabled focu,s and with the aid of IS enabled me to take the shot, in an otherwise very dark scene.

However, the compromise of f/4 and, the inclusion of IS, and the extra focal length of the 24-105 won for me and my shooting style/subject matter.

It Canon / Nikon thought it would let them sell more lens's then the 24-70mm IS would have been release ages ago

As inferred above, all zoom lens design is a compromise. A 24mm wide end (and 70mm long end), f/2.8 aperture and IS will produce a big old heavy lens, and a likely very expensive one. Hence not one that is going to sell massively especially when there are popular, cheaper and existing none VR/IS ones available.

For me, I see the major compromise in the design of the 24-105 was IS in lieu of an extra stop of aperture while accommodating a longer focal length in a manageable package.

As an aside, it is for this reason it annoys me when people automatically assume that the the 24-70 is better than the 24-105 based solely on the extra f-stop. They both have a place depending on what is important to the individual 'togger.

 

[Lostgear]

OK OK enough. My post seems to have stired up a hornets nest! Lets see if we can close this out. The OP's question was "why is there no fast, standard IS zoon in the Canon L line-up"

Answer, because their is no call for one, it does not make sense to anyone who has some knowledge of photography. ie Canon (egg truely on face for when Canon announce the 24-70 L is)

Surely if it did make sense, one would be available?