Will Canon ever make a 24-70 with IS?

[|)\/8]

If not, why?

[kidfiji]

they probably do have it in mind, it's just that they haven't gotten to it yet.

[Subimatt]

I hope so...

[mikekelley]

If it aint broke, why fix it?

[Wilt]

If it aint broke, why fix it?

They make four 70-200L lenses, don't they :confused:

[sleibrand]

If it aint broke, why fix it?

Nice rule of thumb. But it is broke.

[alt4852]

They make four 70-200L lenses, don't they :confused:

i'm glad you got that in before the torch and pitchfork carrying crowd comes and refuses to see the 17-55 as proof that it's useful for the focal length range, and the 70-200's as proof that canon is more than willing to manufacture multiple models of the same focal length at different price points at the same time.

not saying it'll happen, but there are so many people on these forums that like to assert how well they can predict the future and canon's capabilities or intentions.

[tkbslc]

They make four 70-200L lenses, don't they :confused:

Good point. So we need a 24-105 non-IS for $600 and a 24-70L IS for $1700 to complete the series.

[Wilt]

Good point. So we need a 24-105 non-IS for $600 and a 24-70L IS for $1700 to complete the series.


You caught on! ;)

[timnosenzo]

Pretty sure that only Canon knows what they will and won't make. ;)

[davidnholtjr]

If not, why?


Does not really need IS IMO. If one can't shoot a lens with those small FL's without IS, then they should use a monopod or tripod.

[Wilt]

Does not really need IS IMO.

If IS is not necessary on an f/2.8 short tele lens, I could not have made this shot...
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_2543-neutral.jpg

APS-C Canon 40D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS at 55mm, at 1/13 f/2.8, ISO 1600 .
If shot on FF, it would have needed 88mm f/2.8 IS to get 1/13 sec. f/2.8 ISO 1600 or an equally noise free ISO 6400 (so 1/50 could be used).

[tkbslc]

Does not really need IS IMO.

I tend to agree, but how far can we take that. Does any lens really need IS? It is a photographic aid, just like Autofocus and auto-exposure. Does a camera really need an LCD, even. Why not just review the images on your PC later. Just saying you can take the need thing pretty far and pretty soon you end up with a pinhole camera and a stopwatch.

[tkbslc]

If IS is not necessary on an f/2.8 short tele lens, I could not have made this shot...
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/IMG_2543-neutral.jpg

APS-C Canon 40D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, at 1/13 f/2.8 ISO 1600.
If shot on FF, it would have needed 88mm f/2.8 IS to get 1/13 f/2.8 ISO 1600 or an equally noise free ISO 6400...which a 5D Classic hasn't got.


Sleeping baby could probably have been handled with a longer exposure on a tripod or a bounced flash. That looks like a crib, so maybe even resting the camera on the crib side for support. People managed to get shots before IS and even before fast ISO, so it can be done.

[Digital Aurora Photography]

I currently own the 24-70mm non-IS and if the IS version came out, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
I'm sure I would need to mortgage my house though to pay for it...

Ohh well choices.

[_aravena]

Yeah, I've done enough low light shots at about the FL and what not without the need for IS. may have made it easier, but definitely not easier on my wallet.

[tkbslc]

I think Sigma missed a GIANT opportunity when the released their new 24-70 HSM and did include OS. This was just a few months ago and they had the tech. That would have been an excellent lens that many would have easily chosen over the L. Instead, the Sigma 24-70 HSM is a pretty good competitor, but not enough savings.

[Wilt]

Sleeping baby could probably have been handled with a longer exposure on a tripod or a bounced flash. That looks like a crib, so maybe even resting the camera on the crib side for support. People managed to get shots before IS and even before fast ISO, so it can be done.

Bounced flash would have ruined the ambience of the shot. It was not in a crib, there was nothing to rest the camera on to take that same angle. Tripod was not available because the visit was not anticipating the need for low light shots in the middle of the day.

I am a photographer with 40+ year experience and lots of background in low available light shooting at f/1.4 ...all the lenses in my OM arsenal are f/1.4 - f/2.8 so i know available light shooting techniques, including push processing film to ISO 1600 ratings. Digital is magical for pushing the ceiling upward in low light sensitivity with little compromise in quality. Yet IS is the one thing than prevents me from making the leap to FF, since a 24-70mm IS does not exist today, and I have 17-55mm IS on my 40D.

[tkbslc]

Bounced flash would have ruined the ambience of the shot. It was not in a crib, there was nothing to rest the camera on to take that same angle. Tripod was not available because the visit was not anticipating the need for low light shots in the middle of the day.


I was not dismissing the usefulness, only that there are generally workarounds if you are prepared. I love my IS zooms, a LOT. :)

[mikekelley]

Nice rule of thumb. But it is broke.
What about it is broken?

[iAMB]

I think IS would be great...just not the price. I think the reason for the 70-200 having 4 version of it, is the versatility that it has. It is one lens that everyone can grab ahold of, crop and fullframe users alike. It has the capability of going from a walkaround lens, to a portrait lens, to being used as a total telephoto lens. Many f/2.8 users do not need the IS since it might always be on a tripod or monopod, while others need it for handheld use. Same for the the f/4 as it is rated to be the sharpest lens that Canon makes whether it is IS or not. The 24-70 definitely has its limits in usage. I would love to see an IS version, but they have many other lenses to work on first, i think, before this one gets the major overhaul. I think IQ would need to be greatly increased in order for the IS to come with it, which is hard to do since the IQ is already fantastic

[mikekelley]

They make four 70-200L lenses, don't they :confused:


Because IS is infinitely more useful on a 200mm lens.

And probably because they saw how popular their 70-200s are.

I bet they sell 4x as many 70-200s as 24-70s.

[ed rader]

Nice rule of thumb. But it is broke.


nikon recently updated its 24-70 and it doesn't have VR. seems like a perfect opportunity for canon to get a leg up.

what i'd like to see is a newly designed 24-70L with conventional zoom action and normal petal hood. maybe that would improve copy variation. IS would be nice too but not necessary for me.

ed rader

[czeglin]

"Use a tripod"

You're kidding, right? If you can't imagine low-light situations where it's inappropriate or cumbersome to bring a tripod, you aren't thinking very hard. And this is coming from a guy who brings his tripod on all hikes, including overnights.

[pwnguin]

Could you imagine how much heavier the lens would be with IS?

[Wilt]

Because IS is infinitely more useful on a 200mm lens.

And probably because they saw how popular their 70-200s are.

I bet they sell 4x as many 70-200s as 24-70s.

More useful on a long tele I will not dispute...I can shake with the worst of them at the least convenient time, too! :)

But IS is of immense use even at wide FL, as exemplified by this series at 17mm (equiv. to 28mm on FF)

1/25 sec., 1/12, 1/6, 1/3 left to right, no IS on top row, with IS on bottom row, these are all crops taken from a section of the complete frame...

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/17mmIS.jpg

[ed rader]

Because IS is infinitely more useful on a 200mm lens.

And probably because they saw how popular their 70-200s are.

I bet they sell 4x as many 70-200s as 24-70s.


canon can gauge the usefulness of IS sales on a lens this length by looking at sales of its 17-55 IS. you are seeing third party variations now too because people want IS lenses of this length.

canon sells more 70-200Ls because the 24-70L is an EF lens and there are better choices for the majority of cameras it sales which are ef-s.

also, the 24-105L competes with the 24-70L and one reason it does so well is because it has IS.

ed rader

[sleibrand]

What about it is broken?

The IS doesn't work.

[Wilt]

Could you imagine how much heavier the lens would be with IS?

160 grams or 5.6 oz., judging by the 70-200 f/2.8L, but only 54 grams or 1.9 oz judging by the 70-200 f/4L !

[alt4852]

Because IS is infinitely more useful on a 200mm lens.

And probably because they saw how popular their 70-200s are.

I bet they sell 4x as many 70-200s as 24-70s.

infinitely more useful on a 200mm? that's an awfully bold statement. i have IS on my 70-200mm. this may be shocking, but i keep it on when i'm at 70mm because it is just as useful at the short end as it is on the long end. i bet you're the same type of person that scoffs at the 135mm ever getting IS while stating that it is useful at 200mm.

i'm not saying that IS is NEEDED on the 24-70, but it'd definitely be welcome at the right price since the current version is my workhorse and anything that makes shooting venues easier will always have a place in the market. does my 70-200 NEED image stabilization? no. but it sure as hell is useful when the situation calls for it.

ps: i bet they could sell 4x more 70-200's because there are 4x more model variations. ;)

canon can gauge the usefulness of IS sales on a lens this length by looking at sales of its 17-55 IS. you are seeing third party variations now too because people want IS lenses of this length.

canon sells more 70-200Ls because the 24-70L is an EF lens and there are better choices for the majority of cameras it sales which are ef-s.

also, the 24-105L competes with the 24-70L and one reason it does so well is because it has IS.

ed rader

pretty much. the IS is a primary factor a lot of people choose the 24-105L.

[sleibrand]

I tend to agree, but how far can we take that. Does any lens really need IS? It is a photographic aid, just like Autofocus and auto-exposure. Does a camera really need an LCD, even. Why not just review the images on your PC later. Just saying you can take the need thing pretty far and pretty soon you end up with a pinhole camera and a stopwatch.

Come on, do you REALLY need the stopwatch. The pros can do exposures to within 1/10 of a second without any aids. :lol:

There are times when I want to shoot short focal lengths at slow shutter speeds. Yes a tripod would help in some situations, yes adding light would work in some. But if there was a FF equivilent to 17-55 IS then I would have the flexibility to chose what works best for me.

IMO, the ideal situation would be just like the 70-200's as pointed out earlier - offer 24-70 IS and non-IS and let people choose.

[alt4852]

IMO, the ideal situation would be just like the 70-200's as pointed out earlier - offer 24-70 IS and non-IS and let people choose.

i think the only thing canon aims to lose would be half of their 24-105L market. ;)

..although i'm guessing a lot will still keep it for it's light weight and extra reach on the long end.

[oaktree]

I like my 17-55/2.8 IS on my cropper. Gets me shots I probably wouldn't be able to get without IS.

What I'm waiting for is an IS version of the 17-40/4L.

[RandyMN]

Seems to me that we are talking about cost verses necessity.

Obviously camera shake is more critical as the angle of view gets narrower, so in a sales market of supply and demand, how many will feel the added benefit of having IS is worth the extra price?

Obviously there are those here that will pay for it, but Canon marketers must feel there are more important issues to compete with before putting IS on wider angle lenses.

I know one thing that will make it happen more quickly, and that is how much of the competition has done this already? I don't know, but it is a competive market and canon wants to keep their share.

[mikekelley]

infinitely more useful on a 200mm? that's an awfully bold statement. i have IS on my 70-200mm. this may be shocking, but i keep it on when i'm at 70mm because it is just as useful at the short end as it is on the long end. i bet you're the same type of person that scoffs at the 135mm ever getting IS while stating that it is useful at 200mm.


I do not currently own any IS lenses...and I don't scoff at any lens without IS. So...assume more please.

[Wilt]

Seems to me that we are talking about cost verses necessity.

Obviously camera shake is more critical as the angle of view gets narrower, so in a sales market of supply and demand, how many will feel the added benefit of having IS is worth the extra price?

.

Canon made the mistake of putting IS into its kit lenses at a very small price premium over the non-IS lens price (unlike the $500-600 premium higher in the lens line up).

[RandyMN]

Canon made the mistake of putting IS into its kit lenses at a very small price premium over the non-IS lens price (unlike the $500-600 premium higher in the lens line up).

I don't understand why that was a mistake? Did the non-IS stop selling?

[DaveSt]

I don't understand why that was a mistake? Did the non-IS stop selling?

I think the mistake is that people will expect the new IS versions of other lenses to follow the same pricing strategy. In the past, Canon has charged an insane premium for the addition of IS. Now that people can see what the real cost difference is, they might be resistant to paying such a high premium. If that is the case, Canon doesn't have much reason to add IS unless it is to compete with another manufacturer's product.

[40dbaby]

i think the only thing canon aims to lose would be half of their 24-105L market. ;)



I think you hit the nail right on the head...between the eyes even :P

IS 24-70 would cut too much into 24-105 market.

[_aravena]

No, because the cost would be so much more. You think the 70-200 F2.8 IS kills their 70-200 F2.8 sales or even 70-200 F4 IS sales? That is the best comparison as one lens is F4 and the other isn't and that is the only difference (if the 24-70F2.8 IS existed)

Yeah, but I like F2.8 and would definitely opt for The Brick. I'm sure IS would put it in price term of t he 70-200 F2.8 IS which would be fine. Those serious enough would buy it, I think right now they have to consider how many they would make based on demand. While plenty want it, right now there may not be an actual demand for it so making too many could be a loss.

[40dbaby]

Could you imagine how much heavier the lens would be with IS?


I'm sure its lighter than non-IS + tripod :p

[Wilt]

I don't understand why that was a mistake? Did the non-IS stop selling?


No, it simply established a precedent that IS need not require $500 more in price!

[oaktree]

No, it simply established a precedent that IS need not require $500 more in price!

Are there adequate-cheap IS versus very good-expensive IS? Or, are all IS's the same?

[_aravena]

55-250 is very cheap with great IS so I am a bit lost in why the 70-200F2.8 models vary $700 yet the F4 models is less than $600.

[Wilt]

One does wonder if a 'heavy duty IS' is in the $600-700 price delta lenses, vs. a 'consumer grade IS' in the low-differential priced lenses. Canon hasn't made a statement that I am aware of, to explain the two pricing levels apart from the universal truth, 'charge what the market will bear'.

[_aravena]

I believe that is all it is. They know they can charge more and get it since people buying that are "pros" and have the money/will forked out the money for something so prestige as opposed to a 55-250 variable ap with IS. Given, the 55-250 doesn't have USM but a 70-200F4 does and it's IS counterpart is $600 more. If the 55-250 has USM, how much more would it be? Why is the 15-85 so much more than the 17-85 was, both with IS and USM and both retain a variable ap.

They simple charge what they know people will pay for "higher grade" lenses.

[alt4852]

I do not currently own any IS lenses...and I don't scoff at any lens without IS. So...assume more please.

please re-read what i said. the "scoff" part was in reference to a lens without image stabilization and speculation about having it added. there was a hotly debated thread earlier considering whether a new version of the 135L could have image stabilization implemented. by saying that the 24-70 doesn't "need" it mirrors the sentiment of many in that thread who said that a 135mm would never "need" it because image stabilization was only useful at 200mm or longer.

when you make sarcastic remarks like "assume more please", it usually has to make sense in context to what someone else is saying or else it makes you look a bit foolish.

[hkhorn10]

My 24-70L is a great lens, and one of the best wedding lenses I own. But it's also the lens that can get "soft" quick, even for a guy who knows how to shoot at open apertures well. Sometimes I can get my 85L at 1.2 sharper than my 24-70L at 2.8. Just the nature of the lens. I think IS would help, for sure.

[_aravena]

That made no sense. A lens is soft wide open not because of IS but rather because it's soft. If you 85L is sharper at F1.2 than the 24-70L is at F2.8 then it's not because of shutter speed. If it is...then soft is the wrong term. ;)

[hkhorn10]

That made no sense. A lens is soft wide open not because of IS but rather because it's soft. If you 85L is sharper at F1.2 than the 24-70L is at F2.8 then it's not because of shutter speed. If it is...then soft is the wrong term. ;)


Not really. Just "soft". As in, it can be really hard to get the picture clear through the subject. Perhaps you've used both and know just what I'm talking about. But for the sake of conversation, I'll assume you haven't. Some just put out more keepers than others. I find the keepers I get with the 24-70L, at 2.8, are fewer than any of my other lenses. I think IS would help it a lot, as it certainly does with the 70-200 IS/Non IS. It's like two different lenses, if you've used both.

[djvkool]

I personally don't think that they will, if you're experiencing shakes when shooting 70mm, then you should get yourself checked :)

[pwm2]

I'm pretty sure Canon will release a 24-70 IS. Enough sure that I will not get a 24-70 until the IS is available.

Yes, such a beast would affect the sales of the 24-105, but I wouldn't sell my 24-105 just because I could lay my hands on a 24-70 IS. The 24-105 is such a useful walk-around lens, while a 24-70 IS would be a better complement to the 70-200 when I do bring multiple lenses.

On one hand, the hardware costs of IS should be comming down since gyro sensors and processor solutions are coming down nicely in price. But Canon is on the other hand increasing the complexity for each new generation. They are increasing the amount of shake they can handle. They are adding the pan feature. They are adding support for use of IS on a tripod. They are creating the hybrid IS of the new 100 macro.

I would expect that the owner of a 70-200/2.8 IS is requiring more from his lens than the owner of a kit lens with IS. And I'm not just talking about extra switches that has to be weather sealed. If a cheap lens breaks after 3 years, that is bad. If a very expensive lens breaks after 3 years, in the middle of a commercial job, the owner might be very pissed.

There may also be significant differences in warranty costs for low-end and high-end lenses. For a low-end lens, it is cheaper to take a new lens and send out and throw the faulty lens. And the purchase price of a product must cover these costs too.

[DaveSt]

I personally don't think that they will, if you're experiencing shakes when shooting 70mm, then you should get yourself checked :)

What kind of reasoning is this? Some people's hands shake more than others regardless of what they are holding. If yours don't, good for you. For the rest of us there is image stabilization. I'm not sure I will ever buy another lens without it regardless of the focal length.

[pwm2]

I'm considering buying my father a pair of binoculars with IS. People tend to get a lot of problems with hand shake when they get older.

As we all know, photography is a hobby that you can maintain even at a very high age. Obviously, people should be able to get whatever technical help there is.

[hkhorn10]

What kind of reasoning is this? Some people's hands shake more than others regardless of what they are holding. If yours don't, good for you. For the rest of us there is image stabilization. I'm not sure I will ever buy another lens without it regardless of the focal length.


Yeah, and when you shoot weddings you absolutely test shake, low light, etc constantly. IS can mean the difference between getting a keeper of that "decisive moment" or missing it completely due to lack of professional clarity.

[PiRho]

I tend to agree, but how far can we take that. Does any lens really need IS? It is a photographic aid, just like Autofocus and auto-exposure. Does a camera really need an LCD, even. Why not just review the images on your PC later. Just saying you can take the need thing pretty far and pretty soon you end up with a pinhole camera and a stopwatch.


W00T!

I want to try this sometime :)

[JVS]

I stick with primes, so IS isn't a bid deal in my purchase ^^.

[alt4852]

I stick with primes, so IS isn't a bid deal in my purchase ^^.

don't even try to pretend like the 200mm f/2L IS isn't a sexy beast. ;)

[DaveSt]

I stick with primes, so IS isn't a bid deal in my purchase ^^.

Why does it make a difference if a lens is a prime or zoom in regards to IS? The benefit is the same either way.

[pwm2]

I stick with primes, so IS isn't a bid deal in my purchase ^^.
Ask the birders if they think primes will magically remove the need for IS.

[hkhorn10]

I would kill for an 85L 1.2 IS.

[alt4852]

I would kill for an 85L 1.2 IS.

i wonder what obscene shutter speeds you could get with a 24L packed with 4-stop IS. ;)

[hkhorn10]

i wonder what obscene shutter speeds you could get with a 24L packed with 4-stop IS. ;)


You could essentially lock yourself in a windowless janitor's closet in the dark and still get some broom handle detail. :D

Also, I've seen some really good birding photos taken at 1.2 aperture, but the number of keeper is something like 1/100. I mean, it's kind of an obscure application, but I think IS would help. I can think of 90 things, right now, I would try with a super wide aperture with IS.

[krepta]

CR has something interesting on this subject:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/10/canon-24-70-f2-8l-is/

It's very likely just a misprint, but a huge one at that. It's only adding agony to those yearning for an updated version of this lens with IS.

[Fidelity]

IS on the 24-70 would be quite useful at weddings. There are situations where a tripod is not practical, and even at f/2.8, the light is so low, that you may be looking at shutter speeds around 1/20 sec or so. With decent IS and reasonably still subjects, those shots would be keepers.

[Cross_X]

I totally love the now-selling 24-70, and not sure whether if they make a IS one it will be better..
It's best not to touch what's of such a quality.
It's like Toyota's new Land Cruiser compared to the previous model - the new is still a Land Cruiser, bit not quite what was expected and in minds of potential buyers,even though it was waited for.

[Marloon]

i dont think they need to add IS to this lens.

its already heavy enough as it is. and in addition, you dont need is to handhold 1/24 - 1/70. just bump the iso. the new 1dV will be a high-iso machine!

[JazzyMac]

I think they will make an IS version, but it will be too heavy and too expensive, and will spark a brand new debate: "Which one should I get???"

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

i dont think they need to add IS to this lens.

its already heavy enough as it is. and in addition, you dont need is to handhold 1/24 - 1/70. just bump the iso. the new 1dV will be a high-iso machine!
True, but not everyone likes or WANTS to "bump up" the ISO! Some of us would prefer to use as low an ISO as possible, to get the sharpest, noiseless images possible.

Being able to use a high ISO is a nice feature if necessary, but it shouldn't be used as a "band-aid".

Also some people have nerve damage in their hands, or get the "shakes" and having I.S. would help them in these situations when hand holding the lens.

I'd love for the 24-70 f/2.8L to have I.S. Heck, I'd love a 24-105 f/2.8 I.S. but I know that's just a dream.

[JazzyMac]

I agree. I don't like too much noise and would rather get the "artistic" static effect through Photoshop if necessary. That's if I'm not too lazy.

[Fidelity]

I totally love the now-selling 24-70, and not sure whether if they make a IS one it will be better..
It's best not to touch what's of such a quality.
It's like Toyota's new Land Cruiser compared to the previous model - the new is still a Land Cruiser, bit not quite what was expected and in minds of potential buyers,even though it was waited for.

Except for build quality, the 17-55 is far better and has IS. The 24-70 needs to match the the IQ of the 17-55, especially at f/2.8, and get the latest IS tech, so there can be a standard zoom for larger sensors that is as desireable as the 17-55 is for 1.6 crops.

[mikekelley]

My 24-70 is sharp as a tack at 2.8

The only thing the 17-55 does better is be lighter and have IS

[zoom_zoom]

+1 for "I would like to see IS on the 24-70 before I purchase..."

[PiRho]

you should take a read through the <HAMSTTR> (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=744235) thread! don't knock higher ISO until you have, and then tried it!

True, but not everyone likes or WANTS to "bump up" the ISO! Some of us would prefer to use as low an ISO as possible, to get the sharpest, noiseless images possible.

Being able to use a high ISO is a nice feature if necessary, but it shouldn't be used as a "band-aid".

Also some people have nerve damage in their hands, or get the "shakes" and having I.S. would help them in these situations when hand holding the lens.

I'd love for the 24-70 f/2.8L to have I.S. Heck, I'd love a 24-105 f/2.8 I.S. but I know that's just a dream.

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

you should take a read through the <HAMSTTR> (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=744235) thread! don't knock higher ISO until you have, and then tried it!
I'm not knocking higher ISO! JEEZ!! I'm just saying that not EVERYONE wants to have to RELY on using higher ISOs, all the time, or use it as the "easy way out" just because they CAN, or because it's THERE!

If it's the last resort, and it produces great or even acceptable images...fine, more power to it! And I have nothing against anyone who uses it on a regular basis.

As I said in my previous reply, Being able to use a high ISO is a nice feature if necessary, but it shouldn't be used as a "band-aid".

Some people might prefer to use a lower ISO for a cleaner image (without having to rely on cleaning it up in PP)and having a lens with I.S. even at a shorter focal length, might just help them do that.

That's all I'm saying.

[DeaconG]

And now, to throw even more wood onto the raging fire this from Canonrumors.com:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/odds-ends-11/#comments

24-70 2.8 IS in 2010, anyone?:rolleyes::lol:

[Stealthy Ninja]

Sorry guys, I just have to post this here before it gets out of date:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_-WVdbQVNaK0/SvpHk7ulaqI/AAAAAAAABYs/i2lrcSque4w/s912/Stealthy%20Mythical.jpg

[krepta]

I still get a good chuckle even though I saw it when you first posted it, hehe. The horse's expression is priceless. :lol:

On topic, if this lens does come out in 2010 as CR suggests, I wonder what would happen to the 24-105? With both having IS, I guess it would come down to simply greater focal length range versus wider maximum aperture.

[pwm2]

I still get a good chuckle even though I saw it when you first posted it, hehe. The horse's expression is priceless. :lol:

On topic, if this lens does come out in 2010 as CR suggests, I wonder what would happen to the 24-105? With both having IS, I guess it would come down to simply greater focal length range versus wider maximum aperture.
Easy. Everyone will start writing threads: When will Canon finally release a 24-105/2.8 IS?

[DeaconG]

Easy. Everyone will start writing threads: When will Canon finally release a 24-105/2.8 IS?

You mean like THIS one?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=757027

I think we all need to...back...away...SLOWLY...:lol::p

[zerovision]

No.

[Stealthy Ninja]

No.

Yes.


This debate is going swimmingly.

[midget]

I still get a good chuckle even though I saw it when you first posted it, hehe. The horse's expression is priceless. :lol:

On topic, if this lens does come out in 2010 as CR suggests, I wonder what would happen to the 24-105? With both having IS, I guess it would come down to simply greater focal length range versus wider maximum aperture.

there's still always going to be the weight. the 24-105 is a good deal lighter than the 24-70 is already, nevermind a revision (whether that comes out the same weight or slightly heavier as most IS versions of canon's L's have)

[10megapixel]

I hope they do, it would be a big seller for them for sure.

[Stan Jones Photography]

This is the new equivalent to the 3D question... and the answer is now and will always be "March of next year" baha :D

[fi20100]

This is the new equivalent to the 3D question... and the answer is now and will always be "March of next year" baha :D

Yeah, but that was true for the 5D Mark II for many years as well :) "Next year...."

[Stealthy Ninja]

Next year ;)

[Tom H. Photography]

For my part they'd be better of making a lighter 24-70 II, using some sort of strong composite material. Shaving 200 grams off would be great.

[Stealthy Ninja]

And make it so it doesn't extend when it zooms. :)

[pwm2]

And make it so it doesn't extend when it zooms. :)
Doesn't it has its charm to have a lens with reversed zoom action? When you zoom in on someone, they will not be bothered because they will clearly see that you are taking a wide shot in their general direction :)

One interesting thing with reversed zoom action is that if the hood is fixed and only the front lens element moves, then the lens may use a longer, and more efficient, hood. In wide, the front lens element will be close to the hood opening. In tele, the front lens element will hide deeper inside the hood which is ok with the narrower FOV.

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ True, but I'd prefer they didn't know if it were zooming at all. ;)

[jdizzle]

Would anyone like to the see this lens have internal zooming like the 70-200?

[krepta]

Would anyone like to the see this lens have internal zooming like the 70-200?I would like to see internal zooming on most zoom lenses (where it is feasible), but that's the question. Is it feasible without significantly increasing the size/weight of the lens?

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^^ I'm not exactly sure about lens design restrictions and such, but the 16-35 can do it, why not this lens? (seriously, I'd like to know if there's a reason.


Would anyone like to the see this lens have internal zooming like the 70-200?

That's what I meant when I said:

And make it so it doesn't extend when it zooms. :)

I just forgot the technical term... and yes I would like it if it had internal zooming. :p

:D

[pwm2]

I just forgot the technical term... and yes I would like it if it had internal zooming. :p
Always more awe factor if our zoom lenses are always maximum large all the time. Please Canon, release a 100-400L II with internal zooming so I may better poke out some eyes with it :lol:

[Stealthy Ninja]

Always more awe factor if our zoom lenses are always maximum large all the time. Please Canon, release a 100-400L II with internal zooming so I may better poke out some eyes with it :lol:

I hear they're like big cars for middle aged men... make up for other "lackings".

:lol:

[nuffi]

^^^ I'm not exactly sure about lens design restrictions and such, but the 16-35 can do it, why not this lens? (seriously, I'd like to know if there's a reason.


:D

The ratio between top and bottom end of a zoom is a significant factor in zoom lens design and possible functionality. The 16-35 lens has a ratio of about 45:100, which isn't too bad for a zoom. The 24-70 has a ratio of around 34:100 which is stretching the friendship somewhat.

The 24-105 ha sa ratio of around 23:100, which is why you just won't ever see it at f/2.8. Or at least, not without it weighing as much as the 300L f/2.8! (Or maybe some new amazing plastic light as a feather lens material is developed.)

[pwm2]

The biggest problem is to have a large zoom percentage with wide lenses, because of the distortion.

[xMClass]

Would anyone like to the see this lens have internal zooming like the 70-200?

Yes.

[Wilt]

The ratio between top and bottom end of a zoom is a significant factor in zoom lens design and possible functionality. The 16-35 lens has a ratio of about 45:100, which isn't too bad for a zoom. The 24-70 has a ratio of around 34:100 which is stretching the friendship somewhat.

The 24-105 ha sa ratio of around 23:100, which is why you just won't ever see it at f/2.8. Or at least, not without it weighing as much as the 300L f/2.8! (Or maybe some new amazing plastic light as a feather lens material is developed.)

Whew that was rather awkwardly expressed!...
By convention, lens ratios should be reduced to lowest terms and expressed as integers most commonly (using the shortest FL as the divisor in the calculation) although sometimes the first number carries a decimal value (e.g. 2.5-to-1); not by using a common denominator (100)

16:35 is about 2:1 zoom
24-70 is about 3:1 zoom
24-105 is about 4:1 zoom
100-300mm is 3:1 zoom
70-200mm is 3:1 zoom

[quote=The biggest problem is to have a large zoom percentage with wide lenses, because of the distortion.]

The biggest problem to having a large zoom ratio (with a WA as the starting FL) is that the lens much change from retrofocus design (longer focus distance than the FL) to telephoto design (shorter focus distance than the FL) and keep the distortions under control, while also maintaining a fixed f/stop.

There are few fast (f/2.8 ) zooms that ever have gotten beyond the 3:1 ratio, regardless of the fact that they are WA zooms, standard zooms or tele zooms, and those that do are not fixed max aperture due to complexity and cost and size/weight considerations.

17-50mm = about 3:1
17-55mm = about 3:1
24-70mm = about 3:1
70-200mm = about 3:1
Canon 24-105 = 4:1, but it is not fast max aperture!
Sigma 17-70mm = about 4:1, but it is not a fixed max aperture!
Oly 12-60mm = 5:1 (covering the 4/3 format, equiv to 24-120), but it is not a fixed max aperture!

High zoom ratio lenses are never fast, and are usually not fixed max aperture, as the optical compromises make these lens appeal to the amateur snapshooter...

Tamron 18-250 = 14:1 zoom and it is not a fixed max aperture nor fast
Sigma 17-200 = 12:1 zoom and it is not a fixed max aperture nor fast

[Stealthy Ninja]

Anyhoo....

Here's my awesome prediction. ;)

Next month (that's Feb 2010):
1DsIV + 24-70 2.8L IS/II + 35L


I want those two lenses to be released, so maybe that's colouring my perception a bit... since the 70-200 2.8L IS II has been announced (the #1 lens I've been waiting for) I have to lust after something. ;)

[krepta]

Anyhoo....

Here's my awesome prediction. ;)

Next month (that's Feb 2010):
1DsIV + 24-70 2.8L IS/II + 35L


I want those two lenses to be released, so maybe that's colouring my perception a bit... since the 70-200 2.8L IS II has been announced (the #1 lens I've been waiting for) I have to lust after something. ;)I agree for the 24-70. It's been long due!

Not too sure about a new 35L, though. I wish to see one as well, but I don't know if it will be this year. I guess we'll see!

[Stealthy Ninja]

I'm just thinking that since they replaced the 24L with a mark II, they might be bring it out. Sorta wishful thinking there.

I really do think a 24-70 II/IS will come out with 1DsIV. That lens is a well wished for lens.

[krepta]

I'm just thinking that since they replaced the 24L with a mark II, they might be bring it out. Sorta wishful thinking there.

I really do think a 24-70 II/IS will come out with 1DsIV. That lens is a well wished for lens.I had the same thought, but I just think Canon has other priorities in terms of updating their lenses. Somehow I don't think the 35L is badly in need of an update (relative to some other lenses that need it more). But I'd be happy too if it does come out in February!

I actually would like to see a new 50L that is sharper wide open and with faster AF. It's not really necessary, and my 50 1.4 is perfectly suitable for my uses, but it would be nice to see.

[Stealthy Ninja]

They could do with updating the 50mm 1.4 and L lenses that's for sure. If they made a 50mm 1.4 that was as good as the Sigma (without all the QQ issues :rolleyes: ) I might pick one up again. ;)

I'd prefer a 35L II more though........ that said, if they don't bring one out, I'll just buy the current one eventually (need that 1DIV and 24-70 2.8L IS/II and 200-500L first :lol: ).

[jdizzle]

Anyhoo....

Here's my awesome prediction. ;)

Next month (that's Feb 2010):
1DsIV + 24-70 2.8L IS/II + 35L


I want those two lenses to be released, so maybe that's colouring my perception a bit... since the 70-200 2.8L IS II has been announced (the #1 lens I've been waiting for) I have to lust after something. ;)
I doubt that the next 1Ds will be out that quickly. Since,the new MK IV is out, Canon would want to gain back some of market share with this body. Many will not demand the next 1Ds since the price will be high.

[Phrasikleia]

Even a 24-70 f/4 IS (with new hybrid IS and multiple UD elements) would be very welcome. But I've got my fingers tightly crossed for an f/2.8 with IS.

[fi20100]

But a 24-70 f/4 IS doesn't make any sense since there's already the 24-105 f/4 IS.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I doubt that the next 1Ds will be out that quickly. Since,the new MK IV is out, Canon would want to gain back some of market share with this body. Many will not demand the next 1Ds since the price will be high.

ANNOUNCEMENT dude. ;) Availability when 2010 falls at the hands of us Hello Kitty Ninja Rebels (HKNR).

[Phrasikleia]

But a 24-70 f/4 IS doesn't make any sense since there's already the 24-105 f/4 IS.

But that lens is soft in the corners and at its longer focal lengths, and its IS is the older three-stop variety. For those reasons it doesn't get a whole lot of respect and could do with an update or an alternative lens.

[Stealthy Ninja]

But that lens is soft in the corners and at its longer focal lengths, and its IS is the older three-stop variety. For those reasons it doesn't get a whole lot of respect and could do with an update or an alternative lens.

The 24-105 is a very good (and well respected) lens. Do you own one?

[fi20100]

But that lens is soft in the corners and at its longer focal lengths, and its IS is the older three-stop variety. For those reasons it doesn't get a whole lot of respect and could do with an update or an alternative lens.

WOW... I don't own this lens (I own the 24-70L instead), but from what I've read from people on this forum, the 24-105L is one of the most respected lens, and considered VERY sharp for a zoom of the zoom ratio. The IS is also much newer than what the old 70-200 f/2.8 IS had, and that one got replaced just now. A more effective IS would have to be thought of more important on the longer zoom.

The alternative lens (that probably will be updated sooner or later) is the 24-70 f/2.8 ;)

[pwm2]

An important difference between a 24-70/4 and a 24-105/4 is that the 24-70 would be able to reduce the distortion.

[Phrasikleia]

The 24-105 is a very good (and well respected) lens. Do you own one?

WOW... I don't own this lens (I own the 24-70L instead), but from what I've read from people on this forum, the 24-105L is one of the most respected lens, and considered VERY sharp for a zoom of the zoom ratio. The IS is also much newer than what the old 70-200 f/2.8 IS had, and that one got replaced just now. A more effective IS would have to be thought of more important on the longer zoom.

The alternative lens (that probably will be updated sooner or later) is the 24-70 f/2.8 ;)

No, I don't own the lens, so I should probably be less declarative about it. I've heard plenty of complaints about the lens and see them quantified on SLRgear.com. For example:

http://www.megethos.com/Phrasikleia/24-70VS24-105F4.jpg
http://www.megethos.com/Phrasikleia/24-70VS24-105F8.jpg

Yes, the difference in sharpness matters for what I do. And the distortion of the 24-105 makes it worse still. CA can be corrected, so that's not such a big deal, but it's worse in that regard as well.

So I think a love child of these two lenses (24-70 range, but with IS and f/4) would be of interest to a lot of people.

[fi20100]

But when sharpness is paramount, don't you just go to a prime instead? :)

[Phrasikleia]

But when sharpness is paramount, don't you just go to a prime instead? :)

Not if you need stabilization. I bought the new 100 f/2.8L for that reason. Too bad there are no primes shorter than that with IS.

[Stealthy Ninja]

No, I don't own the lens, so I should probably be less declarative about it. I've heard plenty of complaints about the lens and see them quantified on SLRgear.com. For example:

*Snip*

Yes, the difference in sharpness matters for what I do. And the distortion of the 24-105 makes it worse still. CA can be corrected, so that's not such a big deal, but it's worse in that regard as well.

So I think a love child of these two lenses (24-70 range, but with IS and f/4) would be of interest to a lot of people.

Well, if it's not good for YOU then that's your choice. However in my experience it's a very good lens (the barrel distortion at the wide end isn't too bad and the "softness" at the long end isn't much of an issue. Each to their own though.

You've heard a lot of complaints... fair enough, I've heard a LOT of praises. Mainly the complaints are about slight barrel distortion and pin cushioning (this lens is a great walk about lens with quite a long range, so those problems don't bother me personally).

It does have CA (which isn't a big deal, like you said). Those charts you posted... are just charts... in reality it's pretty darn good, even at 105mm. I don't expect it to be at prime levels (especially for a zoom of this ratio) but it's very good for what it is.

No, I don't own the lens, so I should probably be less declarative about it.

Yep. :p

Here's an example (with 100% crop):
105mm | f/4 | ISO 800 | 1/180 | 5D II

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ IMHO this is not bad considering it's at 105mm and wide open. The only complaint I have about the 24-105 is that it's f/4. :lol:

So I think I'd disagree that a 24-70 f/4 IS is a good idea. ;)

(sorry for the double post, I wanted to write something after my picture).

[jdizzle]

No, I don't own the lens, so I should probably be less declarative about it. I've heard plenty of complaints about the lens and see them quantified on SLRgear.com. For example:

http://www.megethos.com/Phrasikleia/24-70VS24-105F4.jpg
http://www.megethos.com/Phrasikleia/24-70VS24-105F8.jpg

Yes, the difference in sharpness matters for what I do. And the distortion of the 24-105 makes it worse still. CA can be corrected, so that's not such a big deal, but it's worse in that regard as well.

So I think a love child of these two lenses (24-70 range, but with IS and f/4) would be of interest to a lot of people.
Wow! These graphs really hurt my eyes. Why can't people just take the lens and use it. :):lol:

[Phrasikleia]

Wow! These graphs really hurt my eyes. Why can't people just take the lens and use it. :):lol:

Hehe. Well, a lot of people should be able to do just that. However, lots of people have to submit their photos to agencies that will scrutinize their images for sharpness at 100%. So then it pays to be picky about lenses.

I really like the charts that site puts out. They're very easy to read. Pinker and lower is better. So blue, raised corners means soft corners. Blue everywhere means, well, soft everywhere. Their charts are pretty accurate in my experience.

[fi20100]

Wait... agencies are turning away photos because they were shot using the 24-105L? Not because of user error or cropping too much or stuff like that? Just because the 24-105L is too soft? May I ask what kind of photography we're really talking about here?

[Phrasikleia]

Wait... agencies are turning away photos because they were shot using the 24-105L? Not because of user error or cropping too much or stuff like that? Just because the 24-105L is too soft? May I ask what kind of photography we're really talking about here?

I have heard folks blame the lens, yes. I know a lot of people are using it without issue, but their recommendations usually come with the caveat that you should "know its weaknesses" and work around them. That's not the case with the 24-70, for example. Sure, it's best in the middle of its range like all zooms, but it's much more consistently sharp. I'd rather not have a zoom with a greater range when the added range delivers mediocre sharpness. So a very sharp lens with less range and really good IS would be super for me (and I suspect for many other people too). Make it fast too, and I'll be thrilled, but even f/4 would be useful.

[EDIT: Here's (http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=6995) an interesting thread as an example. You only need to read down the first page to see the really mixed reviews of the lens. If there's a consensus, it seems to be that it's a convenient lens that's good 'considering its range'.]

[fi20100]

I have heard folks blame the lens, yes. I know a lot of people are using it without issue, but their recommendations usually come with the caveat that you should "know its weaknesses" and work around them. That's not the case with the 24-70, for example. Sure, it's best in the middle of its range like all zooms, but it's much more consistently sharp. I'd rather not have a zoom with a greater range when the added range delivers mediocre sharpness. So a very sharp lens with less range and really good IS would be super for me (and I suspect for many other people too). Make it fast too, and I'll be thrilled, but even f/4 would be useful.

[EDIT: Here's (http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=6995) an interesting thread as an example. You only need to read down the first page to see the really mixed reviews of the lens. If there's a consensus, it seems to be that it's a convenient lens that's good 'considering its range'.]


Well, all lenses (especially zoom lenses) have weaknesses and I guess it's our job to work know about them and work around them. However, it might very well be that the next upgrade to the 24-70mm f/2.8 L will be equipped with IS. (In that case Canon choses a different path than Nikon which decided against VR when they upgraded the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8.) I just don't think they will make a 24-70mm f/4L IS when there's a 24-105mm f/4L IS. But what do I know :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

I get what you mean now Phrasikleia, there are (minor) issues with this lens and you can definately work around them. As you said, good (great IMHO) for it's range and versatility I may add.

It was this:
But that lens is soft in the corners and at its longer focal lengths, and its IS is the older three-stop variety. For those reasons it doesn't get a whole lot of respect and could do with an update or an alternative lens.

That caused the disagreement. ;) You seemed to focus on the negatives of a lens that has a LOT of good points. :)

Well anyway, it's all clear now. :D

I just don't think they will make a 24-70mm f/4L IS when there's a 24-105mm f/4L IS. But what do I know :)

This is the point I think. Why would they even make it?! ??? The beauty of the 24-105 is that it is a good versatile lens (the downside is that it's only f/4, but at that zoom ratio you can't expect more). The 24-70 has the range restriction, but IQ/DOF/speed edge over the 24-105. Making a 24-70 f/4 IS would be weird. Why restrict yourself to f/4 when you can get a 24-105, have more range and it's still an f/4. I can't see the point. :)

Only thing maybe is they could update the 24-105 to have better IS and less distortion at either end (and sharper too of course). I wouldn't be getting another one though (oh, perhaps I would if it were super duper sharp, but I'm happy with the current one).

[Phrasikleia]

Making a 24-70 f/4 IS would be weird. Why restrict yourself to f/4 when you can get a 24-105, have more range and it's still an f/4. I can't see the point. :)


Assuming the f/4 version could be as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 IS, then the benefit of the f/4 would be having a smaller, lighter lens. People always say that an f/2.8 version of the 24-70 will never happen because it would be too heavy and would require 82mm filters or something like that. So that's what made me think of the f/4 version. I think that some people would prefer a super-sharp, no compromises, stabilized normal zoom over the 24-105. I know I would. :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Comments in bold
Assuming the f/4 version could be as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 IS, then the benefit of the f/4 would be having a smaller, lighter lens. (TRUE, but pulling off two miracles!? ;) ) People always say that an f/2.8 version of the 24-70 will never happen (already did, I assume you mean IS version. I think it can definitely happen. ) because it would be too heavy (it's already heavy :lol: IS doesn't add too much weight apparently) and would require 82mm filters or something like that. (The 82mm thing won't stop Canon, it didn't stop them with the 16-35II). So that's what made me think of the f/4 version. I think that some people would prefer a super-sharp (why can't a 2.8 be super sharp?), no compromises (restricting the focal length and aperture are compromises, right?), stabilized normal zoom over the 24-105. (I would, but not at f/4 ;) ) I know I would. :)

I think a better solution is making a 24-105 without the distortion at either end and sharper. Keep it f/4.

Then make a BETTER 24-70 2.8L IS. :)

You're best point is the weight issue. That's a problem here. But IMHO the 24-105 doesn't weigh that much and improving it's "compromises" would be a much better choice. :D

[jdizzle]

I doubt Canon will make this lens in IS. If anybody thinks so is friggin' dreaming. :rolleyes::cool:

[Stealthy Ninja]

I doubt Canon will make this lens in IS. If anybody thinks so is friggin' dreaming. :rolleyes::cool:

Why not? They made the 17-55 2.8 IS. So it being "wide" isn't the issue. :)

BTW I honestly doubt it too... I'm just open to the idea... IS or not I'm buying the next version that comes out.

[jdizzle]

Why not? They made the 17-55 2.8 IS. So it being "wide" isn't the issue. :)

BTW I honestly doubt it too... I'm just open to the idea... IS or not I'm buying the next version that comes out.
I'm just messin' with ya Adrienne. :p Oops! Adrian. ;)

[Stealthy Ninja]

No problem Julie.

(Watch this thread get way off track... ;) ).

[jdizzle]

No problem Julie.

(Watch this thread get way off track... ;) ).
Haha! Better than that other thread about the 1Ds Mk IV with low ISO banding. To keep on track, the 24-70 will have 7 stop IS and constant aperture of f/2. WHAT!?!?! :);)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Haha! Better than that other thread about the 1Ds Mk IV with low ISO banding. To keep on track, the 24-70 will have 7 stop IS and constant aperture of f/2. WHAT!?!?! :);)


LOL that was a classic. Almost as good as the (deleted version of "Worse Xmas Eva!" thread).

On track: but it will be saved from the monster of weight by a DO lens.

So it will be 24-70 f/2 IS DO

[fi20100]

I generally thinks it's a bad idea to compare the 24-70/105 with the 70-200 lenses... they are just completely different beast (at least when you look at the design). Wide to tele zoom will always be a compromise when it comes to IQ.

[Phrasikleia]

I think a better solution is making a 24-105 without the distortion at either end and sharper. Keep it f/4.

I'd buy that. :)

[RetroBlader]

The IS doesn't work.

Funniest post in the thread (so far anyway).:D:D:D


i think the only thing canon aims to lose would be half of their 24-105L market. ;)

Let's divide Canon shooters into 3 categories:
A=Will buy the 24-105L when there is no 24-70L IS (but if there is a 24-70L IS, will buy that instead of the 24-105L)
B=Will buy the 24-105L plus the 24-70L IS (like some crazy people who own both the 17-55 and the 15-85 <pointing at self>)
C=Will not buy the 24-105L no matter what, but will buy a 24-70L IS.

You were only thinking about Category A. However, if (B+C)>A, Canon will make more in sales (24-105L + 24-70L IS) than they do now.

(Notice I said "in sales", not "in profit", since there will be some R&D and distribution costs associated with bringing the 24-70L IS to market.)

I suspect there are many working professionals in Category C, so it's very likely (B+C)>>A, in which case Canon will be laughing to the bank.

...

However, one must go through the same analysis with the 24-70L. Sure, there are some people who will not buy the 24-70L but will buy a 24-70L IS (like the many advanced amateurs which populate these forums). However, I suspect most working pros will be in Category A-prime (will no longer buy the 24-70L when there is a 24-70L IS), and they far outnumber the advanced amateurs here.

THAT <bang chalk on the chalkboard>, I suspect, is why Nikon decided to leave VR out of its 24-70II and why Canon is very slow in adding IS to the 24-70L.

...

Before you use the 70-200/2.8 vs 70-200/2.8 IS as a rebuttal to my theory, just remember what these lenses are primarily used for (by working pros) -- many use the non-IS 70-200/2.8 to shoot sports, where high shutter speeds are needed anyway. So those working pros couldn't care less about IS.

However, 24-70L is mainly used for environmental portrait/photojournalism -- IS will be very useful there.

<resting to catch breath>

Personally, I couldn't care less about the 24-70L IS, since I like my 7D + 17-55IS just fine. :D
However, I'm waiting for Mk II of the 70-200/2.8L IS with baited breath....

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ My educated response:

LOL WOT?!

I am also waiting for the 70-200 2.8L IS II. I thought to myself just then... if I wanted to, I could go out right now and have a 70-200 2.8L IS CLASSIC with 1/2 hour.

LOL Waiting sucks y'all.

[10megapixel]

^^ My educated response:

LOL WOT?!

I am also waiting for the 70-200 2.8L IS II. I thought to myself just then... if I wanted to, I could go out right now and have a 70-200 2.8L IS CLASSIC with 1/2 hour.

LOL Waiting sucks y'all.

Patience Ninja...patience
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/laserbug/Smileys/15_4_128.gif

[Stealthy Ninja]

Patience doesn't stop waiting from sucking. :lol:

Did you know the Japanese Kanji and/or Chinese word for Ninja actually means patience!

忍