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

pearce_jj

pearce_jj

Messages
1,854
Edit My Images
Yes
Seeing the rumours thread on the 5D.III reminded me, nothing ever seemed to materialise on the above? Did I miss it?
 
I assume Canon realised that anyone laying out £1k+ for a lens would know how to hold it properly so canned the idea.

Bit pointless is such a short lens.
 
puddleduck said:
I assume Canon realised that anyone laying out £1k+ for a lens would know how to hold it properly so canned the idea.

Bit pointless is such a short lens.
Click to expand...

IS isn't about knowing how to hold a lens properly. IS is used for correcting angular movement of the camera in correlation to the subject.
 
Bendihossan said:
IS isn't about knowing how to hold a lens properly. IS is used for correcting angular movement of the camera in correlation to the subject.
Click to expand...

And could be useful for people like me who have bad shakey hand days.
 
trencheel303 said:
And could be useful for people like me who have bad shakey hand days.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't, but the person I was replying to was implying that IS on a £1k+ lens is pointless because of the price tag and that it would be used by professionals.

What I'm saying is that IS is used to correct for movement regardless of whose holding the camera; it's there to correct for subject movement.
 
maybe they were gonna put on the same IS on it from the 70-200 2.8 IS I and then realised they can make a lot more money out of it by throwing in the IS from the new 70-200 and charge 1500 or so for it. Personally I think IS in that focal length is a bit unnecessary. Otherwise, why not have IS in the 17-40? as lot of the focal length from that lens falls within the 24-70 range. How about a nifty fifty with IS? What i'd rather see is canon pull their finger out and make the 24-105 F4 into a 2.8 IS or no IS, and can then do away with the 24-70 2.8 completely and stop making us choose aperture or focal length.
 
I would have thought by now one of the third party manufacturers would have designed an IS to fit behind the lens like a teleconverter. In the meantime the nearest thing we have is the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4.
 
Strangways said:
I would have thought by now one of the third party manufacturers would have designed an IS to fit behind the lens like a teleconverter. In the meantime the nearest thing we have is the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4.
Click to expand...

the only way they could do it is if canon made one and they reverse engineered it :lol: which begs the question, if they reverse engineer canon lenses, why are a lot of them so far off the mark?
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
Now that would be one chunky lens! I would buy one in a heartbeat though.
Click to expand...

if anyone can, canon can, certainly not the lesser grade Noink that aspires to be a DSLR manufacturer. :D
 
Bendihossan said:
I'm not saying it isn't, but the person I was replying to was implying that IS on a £1k+ lens is pointless because of the price tag and that it would be used by professionals.

What I'm saying is that IS is used to correct for movement regardless of whose holding the camera; it's there to correct for subject movement.
Click to expand...

IS is nothing to do with subject movement
 
Chaz Photos said:
IS cannot correct Subject movement It Corrects Camera Movement......
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have been clearer: it's there to correct the sensor's angular motion with regards to subject movement. It's there to correct for the motion by varying the optical path to the sensor but obviously doesn't correct the actual movement.
 
Bendihossan said:
I'm not saying it isn't, but the person I was replying to was implying that IS on a £1k+ lens is pointless because of the price tag and that it would be used by professionals.

What I'm saying is that IS is used to correct for movement regardless of whose holding the camera; it's there to correct for subject movement.
Click to expand...

Dur, I was backing up your point silly... :bonk:

Also, IS does not correct subject movement. Wish it did though.
 
Bendihossan said:
Depends on the implementation, it could just favour one plane more of the other or just use the one like you say.
Click to expand...

... but it still doesn`t correct subject movement, it stops the IS kicking in where it`s not wanted. If you used mode 1 you would get a "jerky" image (if you know what I mean).
 
chilliz said:
... but it still doesn`t correct subject movement, it stops the IS kicking in where it`s not wanted. If you used mode 1 you would get a "jerky" image (if you know what I mean).
Click to expand...

It's there to correct for the motion by varying the optical path to the sensor (or film) but obviously doesn't correct the actual movement.

Ie: if the subject is moving left through the frame the IS will track and move the optical path of the light coming through the lens with the subject.
 
I'm going to start a rumour about a 24-70 f1.2 cos I have a 'friend' who works for Canon and he says it is definitely coming and no word of a lie, like.

You heard it first....

Graham
 
Bendihossan said:
It's there to correct forIe: if the subject is moving left through the frame the IS will track and move the optical path of the light coming through the lens with the subject.
Click to expand...

You could leave the lens cap on and the IS would do exactly the same thing. It compensates for spatial movement of the camera (and hence lens). It has no awareness whatsoever of what is happening in the scene or with the 'subject'.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
You could leave the lens cap on and the IS would do exactly the same thing. It compensates for spatial movement of the camera (and hence lens). It has no awareness whatsoever of what is happening in the scene or with the 'subject'.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, if you put a body and a lens on a tripod and leave IS on during a long exposure you'll get movement in the image where there was none (because the camera was on a stable tripod). IS is used to correct for spatial movements of the light coming through the lens regardless of whether it's the camera that's moving of the subject.

If I'm in a plane flying side-by-side another plane looking out the window trying to take a photo of the other plan then both the plan I'm in and the other one are moving. But the IS will still work.

But we've got way off topic here. Lets get back to rumours about a possibly new 24-70, eh?
 
Just come across this on CR:

EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
More murmurs from one person saying they’ve touched the new 24-70 IS. It is set for a summer launch with availability in October/November.
Click to expand...
 
It sounds to me like you've dug yourself into a hole by stating something that blatantly isn't true and are just too self important to realise you've made a boo boo and admit it. As for that plane analogy, wtf? The IS will only correct the vibrations from the plane you are on - or at least, it will try its best. It will do jack to prevent any movement of the subject plane - high shutter speed does that. Image stabilisation corrects vibrations from behind the equipment- not what is in front of it. Feedback from the IS can cause problems during panning or on tripod which is why many new lenses accommodate for that.
 
trencheel303 said:
It sounds to me like you've dug yourself into a hole by stating something that blatantly isn't true and are just too self important to realise you've made a boo boo and admit it. As for that plane analogy, wtf? The IS will only correct the vibrations from the plane you are on - or at least, it will try its best. It will do jack to prevent any movement of the subject plane - high shutter speed does that. Image stabilisation corrects vibrations from behind the equipment- not what is in front of it. Feedback from the IS can cause problems during panning or on tripod which is why many new lenses accommodate for that.
Click to expand...


but what about wikipedia? :D
 
I've not dug myself a hole at all. Let's just agree to disagree and get back on topic please.
 
if the subject is moving left through the frame the IS will track and move the optical path of the light coming through the lens with the subject.
Click to expand...

This isn't what IS does. IS just compensates for movement of the whole scene relative to the camera. Imagine taking a picture of a guitarist in low light, the guitar and surrounding scene may come out sharper with the help of IS, however the faster hand movement (the subject, if you like) will not.


This is my understanding anyway.
 
Bendihossan said:
Not necessarily true, if you put a body and a lens on a tripod and leave IS on during a long exposure you'll get movement in the image where there was none (because the camera was on a stable tripod). IS is used to correct for spatial movements of the light coming through the lens regardless of whether it's the camera that's moving of the subject.
Click to expand...

The behaviour of older (none tripod sensing) IS on a tripod has nothing to do with 'spatial movements of light coming though the lens'. It is caused by the deficiencies in the IS implementation.

The conventional IS in canon lenses rely on a accelerometers which detect angular pitch and yaw disturbances of the lens. The new 100mm F/2.8 macro IS has improved hybrid IS which also compensate for linear disturbances.

The light coming through the lens has nothing to do with it, if you shutter speed is wrong for what is happening dynamically in the frame then blur will still occur.

Bendihossan said:
If I'm in a plane flying side-by-side another plane looking out the window trying to take a photo of the other plan then both the plan I'm in and the other one are moving. But the IS will still work.
Click to expand...

It will still work as the IS should be filtering the low frequency angular (and potentially linear) disturbances of the planes motion but still compensating for the higher frequency disturbances of your shaky hand.

Bendihossan said:
But we've got way off topic here. Lets get back to rumours about a possibly new 24-70, eh?
Click to expand...

Not really off topic as it informs the debate as to whether IS is really necessary on the 24-70 in the first place. I suspect that it is more of an issue to crop users than FF users.

Has anyone with current 24-70, who is using it on FF, missed or wished for IS? I would be interested to know.
 
Nifkin said:
Ergo, with IS you can freeze action even with a 1/10 of a second exposure? Cool. :naughty:
Click to expand...

If your panning is up to it, why not? IS helps but it's by not a means to and end. Think I've stirred up enough trouble so I'll just leave this thread alone now in the hope that perhaps it'll get back on topic...sure I've said this more than once? :thinking:
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
It will still work as the IS should be filtering the low frequency angular (and potentially linear) disturbances of the planes motion but still compensating for the higher frequency disturbances of your shaky hand.
Click to expand...

That's the badger I was getting at! Just couldn't put it into words. You seem to have a much better understand of this than most (including me) :lol:
 
Bendihossan said:
That's the badger I was getting at! Just couldn't put it into words. You seem to have a much better understand of this than most (including me) :lol:
Click to expand...

I should come clean, my day job is stabilised sighting and vision systems for military vehicles (this beasty as a recent example). Albeit the systems involved are a little more sophisticated and bloody expensive.

Excuse the blur on this example, no IS on this shot but it wouldn't of helped anyway as I was rather close and the reflex action when they go bang is to to jump!
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
I should come clean, my day job is stabilised sighting and vision systems for military vehicles (this beasty as a recent example). Albeit the systems involved are a little more sophisticated and bloody expensive.

Excuse the blur on this example, no IS on this shot but it wouldn't of helped anyway as I was rather close and the reflex action when they go bang is to to jump!
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, obviously not knowledge wasted! That's a very well timed shot too!
 
There's no need to put IS in lenses anymore... Just take a look at THIS and you'll be all sorted! :D

Your shaky hands will never be a problem again... Honest! ;)

Si
 
Thanks for all the input and banter on this all - so the net upshot is that it probably never was, but might be :)
 
17-55mm has it, Nikon 16-35mm has it so why not? I would very happily take sharp freehand photos at 1/15s if the light is low, or to stop down, or to use lower ISO. Using 1/200s to get 100% pin sharp photos at these lengths isn't exactly great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top