Whatever happended to the 24-70 F2.8L IS?

I had a 17-55 (obviously with IS) when I had my 450D. I had to accept I would lose IS when I went to ff with the 5D Mark II and the 24-70. Do I miss IS? I think so, however I have noticed that the higher ISO capability of the 5D, the lack of the 1.6x crop factor and the 5Dii's better AF have massively increased my 'hit rate' when it comes to getting shots in focus time after time.

So, do I miss IS? In reality probably not but in my mind, yes I do!

That said, the IS on the 70-200 f4 IS is SO good that I can hand hold sharp shots at 200mm at 1/15s, sometimes 1/10s.

If a 24-70 IS were to be released tomorrow would I rush out and buy it? If there was no difference in IQ over the original then probably not.
 
I think those that know and use it know that IS cannot stop nor correct for any subject motion. It's only use currently is to correct camera movement particularly at slower shutter speeds or in the case if Mode 2 corrects up and down motion as you pan the camera at slow speeds.... the motion of the subject makes no difference.

Regards the tripod use, mordern IS compensates for that but yes if on it may induce motion in the image as the IS oscilates to correct motion that may not be there - so normally better to switch off.
IS doesn't track the subject either - the AF tracks the subject the IS corrects camera movement.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
I suspect that it is more of an issue to crop users than FF users.
Click to expand...

Why would that be the case? the cropped sensor doesn't in itself magnify more.
 
What would you want to shoot hand held at 1/10 - 1/15s ??, even trees move faster than that







;)
 
mrgubby said:
What would you want to shoot hand held at 1/10 - 1/15s ??, even trees move faster than that...
Click to expand...

I've shot indoor architecture (cathedrals and churches) and haven't been able or allowed to set up tripods and so I've had to go with higher ISO's and very slow shutter speeds handheld. The best I've managed was 1/6sec at ISO800 and it was lovely and sharp... I even sold the shot to an American camera magazine! :)

Si

2280755840_387906c026.jpg
 
I think the ;) at the bottom of his post meant he said it tongue in cheek..
 
Spiritflier said:
I've shot indoor architecture (cathedrals and churches) and haven't been able or allowed to set up tripods and so I've had to go with higher ISO's and very slow shutter speeds handheld. The best I've managed was 1/6sec at ISO800 and it was lovely and sharp... I even sold the shot to an American camera magazine! :)

Si
Click to expand...

Trixster said:
I think the ;) at the bottom of his post meant he said it tongue in cheek..
Click to expand...

What I was getting at (tongue in cheek) was that unless the subject of the shot was static then low shutter speeds really add much to the equation :)
 
IS is useful on any lens, wide, short, medium, long or humongous. There are people out there that need to take photographs from moving vehicles etc,...
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
It doesn't but using the guideline of for sharp hand-holdable shots of shutter speed = 1/(focal length x crop factor), the long end of a 24-70 on crop would need a (nearest) shutter of 1/125th while on a (nearest) 1/60th may be manageable.
Click to expand...

My question would be why multiply by the crop factor? 1/focal length is all I've ever worked to with my crop cameras.
 
EOS_JD said:
My question would be why multiply by the crop factor? 1/focal length is all I've ever worked to with my crop cameras.
Click to expand...

Because it's nothing to do with focal length, it's to do with magnification.

The correlation between focal length and shutter speeds on full frame is merely a coincidence. For all other formats, a correction factor must be applied, ie the crop factor.

Taking an extreme example, you wouldn't be able to hand hold a 50mm lens on a compact at 1/50sec, as it's going to be around the equivalent of 250mm in terms of magnification/field of view.
 
If that is indeed true then this should mean the prices of the 24-70 drop majorly.... hmmmm I might have to change my buying decision now :thinking:
 
trencheel303 said:
If that is indeed true then this should mean the prices of the 24-70 drop majorly.... hmmmm I might have to change my buying decision now :thinking:
Click to expand...

Not sure prices would drop. Have prices of the old Canon 100 2.8 macro dropped since the L IS version arrived? Maybe it depends whether it's a MkII or a completely new lens.

I'm wondering if Canon might really push the boat out and make it a 24-85L 2.8 IS, and improve performance while reducing the weight with some exotic glass like fluorite found in the MkII 70-200. That'll be £2k then... :(
 
A bit confused by this thread :thinking: :)

So do we think a 24-70 MKII (with or without IS) is still on the cards this year sometime?

I've held off buying a 24-70 because of this...
 
Freester said:
A bit confused by this thread :thinking: :)

So do we think a 24-70 MKII (with or without IS) is still on the cards this year sometime?

I've held off buying a 24-70 because of this...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on that. The rumour mill has been very unreliable lately. Anytime within the next two years I'd say. Depends what Canon are up to - prolly busy making compacts.

Nobody predicted the Canon 7D in its final form. Or the 100L macro. When the 70-220L 2.8 MkII arrived, everybody said "What? Why?" and now they're sold out everywhere.

If you want a 24-70L now, I wouldn't hesitate. Pretty sure that when it does get replaced, the new one will be a lot more money.
 
I want Canon to give me a 17-200mm F2.8 L IS USM :D

In the meantime, I'll carry on being happy with my 24-105mm.
Si
 
Cheers HoppyUK some sensible advice there (apart from the bit advising me to spend more money :lol:).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top