Why no IS on the 24-70 L, etc?

[mcoupeadam]

I'm looking to pick up a 24-70 L for my DRebel but I'm wondering if I'll miss not having IS. I assume since this is amplified at telephoto ranges that it only becomes a real problem after 150-200mm?

Any info is appreciated! I hope to have the 24-70 L and the 70-200 L 2.8 and be ready for anything. (unless it involves fisheyes or wide angles)

Adam

[timmyquest]

I know i personally have no issues with shaking images at 20...even 70mm. This is why, at least thats what my guess is.

[defordphoto]

The lens isn't long enough to warrant IS. I think the shortest lens with IS is the 28-135 right?

[amit]

I'm looking to pick up a 24-70 L for my DRebel but I'm wondering if I'll miss not having IS. I assume since this is amplified at telephoto ranges that it only becomes a real problem after 150-200mm?

Any info is appreciated! I hope to have the 24-70 L and the 70-200 L 2.8 and be ready for anything. (unless it involves fisheyes or wide angles)

Adam

Image Stability becomes an issue when the shot is over 90- 120, therefore in most cases you wouldnt find IS to be a standard feature for anything lower. Also, lenses below 90 are fairly light weight (comparitively) though this is changing lately.

[John57]

I have a 24-70L and had a 28-135IS for use on a 10D..... I used the IS on the 28-135 when taking photos near the 135 end and when lack of light and the aperture on the lens couldn't provide a suitable shutter speed. The 24-70 on the other hand just doesn't need IS; if you are worried about camera shake you can go to f2.8 or up the speed. I've never found the lack of it a concern when using this lens . If you added IS it would also make the lens even heavier - which I wouldn't want.

The 70-200 f2.8 does benefit alot - in my opinion - from IS and it is well worth spending the extra to get it. My wife is a freelance and uses these two lenses 90% of the time with super results.