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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 29, 2009, 2:29 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 629
Default IS for the 24-70 L series

Is Image Stabilization in a Canon lens a difficult thing to accomplish in a 24-70 focal length?

I like my 24-70 2.8f lens, but I wish it has I.S. I know the 24-105 has IS, but it's a 4.0F.

Has Canon talked about a IS version of the 24-70? Why wouldn't they offer that?

Thanks!
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 29, 2009, 2:59 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

FP,

Canon doesn't announce or discuss upcoming lenses. Adding IS to ANY lens requires the lens be re-designed. So, it's not like adding a step to an existing assemply process. Given that, Canon has to balance re-designing the 24-70 with any new or other lens re-works they have. It becomes a question of how to spend their R&D $$$. Will a re-designed 24-70 2.8 bring in more additional revenue than spending the same $$$ on a different project? Who knows?

However, the 24-70 is long in the tooth. Because it is a widely used lens by professionals I think it's probably on the short list for a re-working. It doesn't compare so well against the competition in terms of sharpness, and now that Sigma has an HSM version of their 24-70 2.8 I think Canon will be moving on a mkII. Having said that, there's non guarantee the new version would have IS. You could probably expect IS to add a $400-500 premium to the price of the lens. So, again, it comes down to whether Canon believes they'll make more money selling more units of non-IS versus units of IS version. I doubt they'd keep the old version and just add a new version because of the sharpness issues the current lens has. Anyway, just my two cents.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 3:31 PM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO IS on a 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't make any sense...

-> My A900 has IS built-in to the body so all its lenses have IS including the CZ 24-70; However f/2.8 is EV-8(1/30s @ ISO-100) on a 24mm (or EV-9 for 70mm) so it's not really needed especially if you can use ISO 400-800 on the camera - That's Xmas tree light territory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

It makes more sense at the long end and why it's more logical to have it on a 24-105 (especially for the 105mm and f/4 end !)
In my view IS for a 24-70 f/2.8 will make for good for marketing point but a typical photographer would probably never require it... based on the EV values

Last edited by NHL; Oct 29, 2009 at 3:38 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 3:45 PM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL View Post
IMO IS on a 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't make any sense...
The attached (uncropped) photo was using a Hand Held Nikon D3 with a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S Lens, with the aperture wide open at f/2.8 at a shutter speed of 1/10 second at IS 25,600, zoomed in to it's longest focal length of 70mm.

Now, the D3 is a larger and heavier camera. So IMO, it's a bit easier to use compared to lighter cameras at shutter speeds that slow (because the larger and heavier body adds a bit of stability when camera shake from squeezing the shutter button and more may impact photo quality, depending on how steady you can hold the camera, and how "smooth" your trigger finger is for pressing the shutter button.

But, a stabilized lens would be an even better bet when using shutter speeds that slow with that focal range on most other camera models.
Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 4:08 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

What about subject movements where no IS is going to help???

Once pass that stage a tripod is almost a must for night scene where one would need to close the aperture down anyway for the DOF...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 4:32 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That's a matter of timing (where you're capturing the least amount of movement for the shutter speeds you have available with a given system if you can't use a flash).

Why have to worry about both blur from subject movement and blur from camera shake at the same time?

It's hard enough worrying about trying to grab a photo every once in a great while at shutter speeds that slow without any subject movement, much less trying to capture photos with multiple people all still at the same time, and needing to worry about camera shake, too (I'd take the camera shake part out of the mixture if possible). ;-)

Take this one as an example (uncropped, ISO 25600, 1/13 second and f/2.8) . With a lighter camera, I'd want stabilization.
Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2009, 4:43 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Jim - there's no doubt IS CAN be beneficial at shorter focal lengths. The real question is - is it WORTH THE PRICE at those shorter focal lengths? For their L lenses I really think you'll see a continuance of that $400-500 premium. The 24-70 2.8 sells for $1400 right now. Simply re-designing it and upgrading it I would expect the price to go up to $1600. Add IS to it and the price jumps to $2000. Nikon's is $1800 so it's POSSIBLE Canon could sell it for the same $1800 price tag. But, especially with the economy, that's a lot of gambling on enough people paying for anti-shake. And when you get into the $1400-2000 range you're into higher end shooters who are a little more educated about anti-shake (for example the 70-200 2.8 continues to be a great seller because people realize IS isn't beneficial all the time). So while your shots are a great example of it's benefit, how many people are really needing that capability? Sports shooters don't need it. For wedding work, it's not that beneficial since you're typically working with longer focal lengths for ceremony work and for other work you've got the flash. The real question is the photojournalist. THat's the crowd that would have to weigh in on whether they'd be willing to pay for the IS. Wedding, photojournalist and pro sports are the 3 biggest markets of this lens. FOr 2 out of the 3 I don't see the benefit but if it's beneficial for the third then I could see a stronger argument for it.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 3:44 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Jim

I think you're crazy!

Anyone can shoot @ 1/15s to prove a point, but if someone income depends on it I wouldn't recommend this especially when capturing multiple subjects someone is bound to move - Even @ 1/30s one can still capture the fingering of the guitar (on your 2nd image) or the drumsticks (in the 1st shot) movements

To illustrate my point, 1/8s with IS (... f/4 I need the DOF)
-> The standing chef moved - i.e. shutter speed below 1/30s with IS is not practical at all for a 24mm :


Last edited by NHL; Oct 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2009, 5:09 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHL View Post
Jim

I think you're crazy!
My wife might agree with you. ;-)

Quote:
Anyone can shoot @ 1/15s to prove a point, but if someone income depends on it I wouldn't recommend this especially when capturing multiple subjects someone is bound to move - Even @ 1/30s one can still capture the fingering of the guitar (on your 2nd image) or the drumsticks (in the 1st shot) movements.
It's not just to prove a point. I like to capture images where ever I go, so I have memories to share with others, and I don't always like to lug a tripod around.

If you want to take photos in light that low without a flash (and sometimes, you can't use one, depending on the establishment and how annoying they think it may be to guests), then it's better to have stabilization than not have it, especially since a tripod can attract a lot of attention and they may not want that attention. ;-)

For example, you commented on these photos taken in a local restaurant at higher ISO speeds that I posted right after I got my Sony A700 (taken with a 100mm f/2), and they were all using shutter speeds slow enough that they would benefited from stabilization, even if I would have been using a shorter f/2.8 zoom. ;-)

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/so...low-light.html

Sure, a few are going to have a bit of motion blur at slower shutter speeds. Do I care? Nope. I doubt most others do either. ;-)

The main reason I used the D3 images, is that I happened to have a few of them already downsized on my newest PC, because I used one in an article about this camera recently here:

Pushing the Limits: The Nikon D3

I've got loads of photos taken in similar conditions that I've never bothered to post here. I should probably do that kind of thing more often.

Also, blur from subject movement is not always a bad thing, as it can help to depict motion. For example, this is one of my favorite photos from a Mother's Finest Concert a while back (taken with a KM Maxxum 5D wearing a $79 Vivitar 70-200mm f/2.8-4 AF lens that I was using for the first time).



And, BTW, some of the photos I took there have been used commercially in Regional Music Magazines, despite a bit of blur. ;-)
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2009, 8:56 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Jim

Can we limit the discussion to this lens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor View Post
Is Image Stabilization in a Canon lens a difficult thing to accomplish in a 24-70 focal length?
I like my 24-70 2.8f lens, but I wish it has I.S. I know the 24-105 has IS, but it's a 4.0F.
Has Canon talked about a IS version of the 24-70? Why wouldn't they offer that?

IS in general is beneficial - No argument here...

My problem is the required IS shutter speed on the 24-70 f/2.8 (since Sony seems to be the only one offeriing this as it comes for free with rhe camera). We're dealing with 1/15. 1/8, or 1/4s here and not the higher effective shutters range available to the longer focal lenghts!

I too shoot in dark venues and subject movement is a warranty:





-> IMO instead of spending the $$$$ on a non-existant 24-70 IS the money is better invested on a better ISO camera which will buy the more effective shutter speeds (which you seems to be doing fine with the D3 without IS)

Last edited by NHL; Oct 31, 2009 at 8:59 AM.
NHL 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 10:01 AM.