Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 31, 2009, 8:12 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Why not have both (higher ISO speeds and stabilization)? ;-)

Even low cost kit lenses from Canon and Nikon are stabilized now. So, if I were a camera manufacturer, I'd add it to my premium lenses like the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8, too.

Just because some Canon lenses with IS may be hundreds of dollars higher than some lenses without it, doesn't necessarily mean they can't add it for a *lot* less money and still make good profit on the lenses.

From my perspective, it's better to have it than not to have it, since that allows more flexibility in more shooting conditions. As already pointed out, the Canon 24-70mm lens is probably due for a remake anyway, since 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses from Nikon, Sony and Sigma now outperform it from tests I've seen. So, adding IS would make sense to me.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 8:31 AM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Also, keep in mind that Canon made a decision to include IS in it's EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens for cameras using APS-C size sensors. I suspect that including IS was a smart marketing move by Canon and helped to sell more of them than if they'd launched it without that feature. That's speculation, but I think more buyers are probably looking for that feature now in lenses.

So, including the same feature in the 24-70mm f/2.8L would be a good idea from my perspective, so that users of full frame cameras have a stabilized lens with a similar angle of view range and brightness when compared to it's counterpart for cameras using APS-C size sensors.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 8:48 AM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The 24-105mm f/4L also has IS. So, it looks like the 24-70mm f/2.8 is becoming the exception in some of the better zoom lenses (or even newer kit lenses) offered by Canon with wide to normal focal lengths available.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 9:00 AM   #14
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

Except I don't believe anything come for 'free'...

IMO keep it simple is my motto, the more elements one adds to a lens (for IS) the more one has to correct for them... With the Zeiss, Sigma and Nikkor already setting the high bars it's already difficult to surpass let alone addiing IS and exceed them in IQ - I'll have to see...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
The 24-105mm f/4L also has IS. So, it looks like the 24-70mm f/2.8 is becoming the exception in some of the better zoom lenses (or even newer kit lenses) offered by Canon with wide to normal focal lengths available.
Have you compare the CA, the distortion and vignetting of this lens to the Sigma?

Last edited by NHL; Oct 31, 2009 at 9:03 AM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 9:04 AM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I have seen that mentioned with some Canon lenses (the complexity of IS causing lower IQ compared to the same lens without it). I think I remember seeing the opposite for one of Canon's lenses. So, I'm not so sure the IS is a big issue with IQ, depending on the design of the lens.

Even if many shooters wouldn't take advantage of it very often, depending on what they shoot, from a marketing perspective, I think it would be in Canon's best interest to include it in any remake of the 24-70mm f/2.8, so that it falls in line with of a number of other newer lenses that have it built in.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 9:14 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL View Post
Have you compare the CA, the distortion and vignetting of this lens to the Sigma?
Here's a review of the latest Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 HSM lens with the Canon, Nikkor and Sony/CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses with some data in various areas. I think you've probably seen this one already:

http://www.lenstip.com/172.1-Lens_re...roduction.html

There are pros and cons to any of them. The Sony/CZ appears to be the best in most areas, followed by the Nikkor. The Canon tends to lag a bit in areas I'd be concerned about like sharpness at wider apertures (which I'd be more concerned with over CA or distortion at wider apertures in most cases).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 12:08 PM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

That's not what I meant...

The 24-105 that you listed as example with IS practically trails the old Sigma 24-70 in all areas (from distortion, vignetting to CA), and not just sharpness:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/18...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/31...review?start=1

They need to do better than this with their new lens (IS just makes it harder) - Theses points are already well taken in others Nikon forums
-> Sony got it right... their optical path is the simplest (i.e. no IS)

Last edited by NHL; Oct 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2009, 2:05 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default

I guess I just trying to understand why Canon would offer IS on their:
EFS 18 - 55
EF 28 -135
EF 24-105

But not their 24-70 nor their 16-35?

Is IS just deemed truly not necessary for shorter focal lengths OR is it just just a corporate choice?

Is IS harder to incorporate on shorter focal lengths?
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2009, 3:40 PM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

It's anyone guess... IMO you could ask the same question to Nikon
(The Sony's folks got lucky as their IS is built into the camera so they got both 24-70 and 16-35 and all other lenses stabilized for free)

The question I have for you is what do shoot at 1/15, 1/8 or 1/4s beside landscape (i.e. static)?
-> If you do shoot landscape then the tripod is a necessary evil as one want to close down for improved sharpness and greater DOF for nightscapes. I can't think of any serious landscape photographer taking their chance on IS at sub-seconds shutter speed

Keep in mind that both the 24-70 and the 16-35 trail the competitions (Nikon's 14-24 is another excelllent example) and Canon's FF landscape photographer have been exploring for alternative for quite a while: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/
So in my view improving their line up at this time is more critical for Canon to catch up with the competition than try to put in IS (which is not really necessary) and miss their IQ target...

I can understand the need for IS in EF-s lenses because theses cameras have poorer ISO performance, and the 24-105 and 28-135 may have a use for IS at their longer focal lenght (i.e. 105 and 135) within still usable shutter speed ranges

Last edited by NHL; Nov 1, 2009 at 4:07 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2009, 4:20 PM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I'm not convinced that they couldn't add it and improve IQ at the same time, given improvements in software used for lens design, manufacturing tolerances, etc . I don't think you can really jump to any conclusions in that area based on the inclusion or exclusion of IS in some of the existing lenses. Look at the latest Canon 18-55mm kit lens as one example, (it's much better optically than the older one without IS, but I doubt the addition of IS is the reason).

Canon probably knows whether or not they can achieve optical quality as high with it (or not), as I can imagine they've looked at a number of designs for any future upgrade or remake (if it's even a high priority with them). If it wouldn't degrade optical quality, I'd probably add it (giving them a feature that the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 doesn't have for photographers that may want to use it in some conditions). Given that this a premium grade lens, I'd want an advantage in every area I could find one in.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:55 PM.