Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Mar 2012 (Saturday) 04:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why the new Canon's 24-70L 2.8 II don't have IS

 
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Mar 24, 2012 09:44 |  #16

Tommydigi wrote in post #14144643 (external link)
Then why is in the new 24 and 28 primes? My guess it's size/weight and cost

And optical performance too, perhaps. The MTF charts of the new 24-70L II are remarkable for a lens of this focal length range. A lens that has a focal length range going from half the register distance to nearly twice it is a challenging design, especially at the large f/2.8.

I note that neither Canon or Nikon offer IS at this range as of yet.

What will be interesting will be to see how good the image performance of the new Tamron 24-70 with a stabilizer is.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 132
Joined Dec 2010
     
Mar 24, 2012 09:49 |  #17

I think they'd sell a lot more of them if the new 24-70 had IS. They failed to meet customer expectations, which for whatever reason you want to use expected IS in this lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flurofocus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
139 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2010
     
Mar 24, 2012 10:19 |  #18

hopefully the Tamron 24-70 VC is optically better on at least on par to the canons, this will force canon to add IS..but if the mtf chart for the new canon is to be believed... it will be optically superior to the tamron and judging from the new 70-200II I have a feeling that I would have to folk out 2299 to buy the canon! damn! hopefully tamron will surprise us all...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,609 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 501
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Mar 24, 2012 10:35 |  #19

I think they'd sell a lot more of them if the new 24-70 had IS.

IMO That depends on the IQ, size and weight. its like saying I wish it was a 24-105 F2 lens, yes it sounds great but the cost and bulk would kill it. Would anyone want a 24-70 that was 1200 grams? For me the only thing I don't really like about the 24-70 is the size and weight (and reverse room) and Canon managed to address that so assuming it outperforms the current 24-70 I am sure Canon will still sell a lot of these. The only downside to me is the big filter thread, if they could have kept it 77 I would be wanting one too. For me the IS is not that big of a deal and I actually use my 24-70 a lot for video.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ccya965041
Member
Avatar
103 posts
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 24, 2012 11:42 |  #20

By adding IS in a lens,not just an IS unit,
they have to add another lens at the same time,(can take a look for 70-200 series,IS Vs non-IS)
right now the new MKII is 150g less than the original one,
I think this is an improvement
If they put in IS for this lens,I dunno how many Grams for this lens,
also the price would be so high and not many can affort it.


Canon 40D
24-70 2.8L / 28 1.8 USM / 50 2.5 C.M. / 70-200 4L IS / 18-55 IS
580EXII / MR-14EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ K
Goldmember
Avatar
1,637 posts
Joined Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco area
     
Mar 24, 2012 12:15 |  #21

I think the original quote has some merit. In a similar vein, many have said for a true IS for a macro lens would need to compensate for front-back movements as the razor thin dof is a major issue for macro shooters.
However we are all speculating on this question so my view is: the 24-70 f2.8 II is an all out effort at making the optical best mid length zoom they can. My guess is they found that adding IS degraded the image a bit and did not add that much utility. The quote at the beginning of this thread describes how IS could degrade the edges of a really high quality WA image. Thus the feature actually detracted from their target of uncompromising image quality and in addition turning off the IS does not take the elements out of the optical path.

Now the 24-105 is designed for a totally different market segment; after all it is the kit lens for the 5D II and 5DIII. Here ultimate image quality is CLEARLY not the priority, but usability. On the wide end the 24-105 has pretty strong distortion and very strong vignetting wide open.

Mike K


Canon 6D, 1DmkII, IR modified 5DII with lots of Canon L, TSE and Zeiss ZE lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Mar 24, 2012 12:31 |  #22

Kudos to Canon for resisting temptation and not putting IS on a lens that doesn't really need it. Good job concentrating on improving the 24-70 in other, more important ways... and continuing to improve the high ISO capabilities of your cameras, which to a significant degree can offset the need for IS on any lens.

The 24-70/2.8 is targeted at relatively experienced users who are more likely concerned about other things... such as durability, sealing, premium image quality... than stabization on a focal length range where it's less necessary. It might have been necessary to compromise on some of the other important lens features, in order to include IS on it. I don't know... I'm not an optical engineer. I don't know if the above quote about negative effects of stabilization on wide and mid-range zooms is correct or not. I do know that that IS adds complexity and components to the optical forumla of any lenses it's implemented on. And some of those components have to move, too, to do it's job. That's more stuff inside the lens to wear out over time, or to require adjustment, or to break at the most inopportune moment. Not to mention, added cost.

Now with some lenses and for some users it's well worth the trade-offs to have IS. I'm a big fan of IS on telephotos and after using lenses with it for 10+ years, wouldn't want to be without it on my 200mm, 300mm and longer lenses. And, hey, if it's not an added cost, or I simply don't have a choice, I'll take it on any lens... It's generally reliable enough and worthwhile to have, rather than not have it. But, given a choice and all other things being equal, I wouldn't pay extra just to have IS on a 24-70 or a 16-35mm lens, especially if it also compromised the image quality!

Canon's selection of 70-200mm lenses gives us an opportunity to compare the differences necessary to add IS to a lens. In terms of cost, the 70-200/2.8 non-IS is about $500 less expensive than the original 70-200/2.8 IS, and fully $1000 cheaper than the Mark II version! The 70-200/4 non-IS is lists for nearly half the price of the 70-200/4 IS.

In terms of complexity...
70-200/4 non-IS is made up of 16 elements in 13 groups
70-200/4 IS uses 20 elements in 15 groups
70-200/2.8 non-IS has 18 elements in 15 groups
70-200/2.8 IS (original) uses 23 elements in 18 groups
70-200/2.8 IS Mark II uses 23 elements in 19 groups

Now, for me, the IS is worth some extra expense on a 70-200, 300mm and other longer focal lengths. I appreciate what it can do for me and would hate to not have it at available on those lenses. OTOH, it's a fairly low priority consideration for me on wider focal lengths. I can generally do without it on lenses less than about 100mm.

So then why did Canon - sort of out of the blue - launch 24mm and 28mm prime lenses with IS? My best guess... for videography. I don't see these lenses that cost double what lenses without IS in the same focal lengths (and a larger aperture in the case of the 28mm) as particularly appealing for still photoghraphy. But they might have some value for video. After all, that's where stabilization started and in use for many years before Canon began offering it on still camera lenses.

It's apples and oranges, comparing 24-70/2.8 with 24-105/4 IS... An f2.8 zoom is always harder to correct well, to design and manufacture to offer high image quality edge to edge. An f4 zoom can be more compact, is easier to extend to cover a wider range of focal lengths, and probably is easier to implement IS... it certainly makes more sense to offer IS on an f4 lens than an f2.8 lens.

JeffreyG wrote in post #14144665 (external link)
What will be interesting will be to see how good the image performance of the new Tamron 24-70 with a stabilizer is.

A hint might be the 17-50/2.8 non-VR vs the more expensive, but noticeably less sharp 17-50/2.8 VR.

Maybe some day Canon will offer an IS version of the 24-70/2.8. If and when that happens, it will be interesting to see if people are willing to spend nearly $3000 for a standard zoom with IS, that likely will be bigger and heavier than "the brick" is today. Heck, it's going to be interesting enough to see if people will jump on the nearly $1000 more expensive Mark II! (List prices: Mark I $1400, Mark II $2300... and figure an additional $500-600 for IS). I suspect most of the people complaining about the lack of IS on this lens aren't likely to spend that kind of money on a standard zoom!


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Mar 24, 2012 12:37 |  #23

That quote makes sense to me. Isn't there a standard zoom made by Tamron that comes in two flavors - VC and non-VC? If the optics are the same, this would be a good test to verify what the OP quoted. Has anyone done such a comparison between the two?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,121 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2382
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Mar 24, 2012 12:49 |  #24

unless that guy is a lens technician or has some inside track to nikon, i don't see anything that means he's credible, or just 'some guy' giving his own theory...we can all come up with theories, but most of us won't know the real reason behind it....

my theory is to get more money out of the consumer...if you want IS @ 24mm & 28mm you can add on the new prime lenses...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 552
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 24, 2012 13:01 |  #25

FWIW, the reason for adding IS to the current lineups (including the wider primes) is because most new bodies take video, IS in a lens adds a huge benefit to video recording.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fred ­ Meebley
Senior Member
Avatar
320 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 239
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Wyoming
     
Mar 24, 2012 14:45 |  #26

That's easy, because Nikon's 24-70 doesn't have IS and they still charge an arm and a leg for it. Canon knows they can do the same.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ K
Goldmember
Avatar
1,637 posts
Joined Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco area
     
Mar 25, 2012 01:08 |  #27

mike_311 wrote in post #14145463 (external link)
FWIW, the reason for adding IS to the current lineups (including the wider primes) is because most new bodies take video, IS in a lens adds a huge benefit to video recording.

Simply use the 24-105/4 IS L for video. It is reasonably sharp FF lens with IS.

I still think the target market for the 24-70/2.8 II is for those seeking IQ on the level of the very best primes, and IS may be a detriment to getting that level of IQ.


Canon 6D, 1DmkII, IR modified 5DII with lots of Canon L, TSE and Zeiss ZE lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gotak
Senior Member
949 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Mar 25, 2012 10:04 |  #28

I don't think anyone who doesn't work in the decision making part of canon will know the real answer.

Someone talked about the VC vs non VC 17-50 tamron. We know they screwed the VC version making it softer. The problem with that is both Canon and Sigma managed to make a OS and IS 17-50/55 lens that are better than tamron's VC 17-50, so it's no true you can't make a wide angle wide aperture lens with IS that's as good as one without it.

Canon already has a 24-105 IS so it sort of can be compared to the mk 1 24-70. The two lens are siblings anyhow. At f4 for both the 24-105 is pretty darn close to the 24-70. And exceed it at the center at 70mm. Frankly if they had managed to improve the mk2 to be better than the mk1 but the IS takes a little away from it it would have still been a great lens. And it would have been one that made more sense for a zoom.

After all a zoom lens is a compromise lens already. If you want the best optical performance for a focal length you use primes. So why it it that canon managed to make a 24mm prime with IS and leaves it out of the zoom? It's ass backward decision making if optical quality is the deciding factor.

I don't think canon always has good technical or usability reasons for their decisions. It took them how long to bake RF functionality into their flash?


http://bubble-trees.com/ (external link)
7D x2,, 50 f1.8, 11-16 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 100 2.8L, 430EX, 580EX, Di866, pixel king wireless TTL trigger.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Mar 25, 2012 11:08 |  #29

When VR is applied to wide lenses the effect is therefore good in the very middle of the fame, but the quality of the image is degraded toward the edges. This may not be that important for casual snap shooters who do not have very high demands on image quality in the first place. Therefore VR may be included in cheaper wide lenses, but not in professional grade lenses where utmost performance is expected throughout the frame.

Too bad it lacks diagrams to make more clear what the author means, specifically.

But the way that the words are crafted there is a very obvious break in the logic. While the text correctly points out that the outer edges would need a different movement from the VR/IS parts the movement that is there is still in the correct direction. It is not the correct amount of VR/IS applied to the edges (because the correct amount for the center is being picked). But it should still be an improvement.

The quote seems to suddenly makes the claim that what happens to the edges is not only not improved, that it is actually worse than with no VR/IS. Pending more diagrams and surprises in there about which kind of camera movement the author assumes happens I have to say that there isn't any claim in there to support that assumption.


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 25, 2012 11:15 |  #30

rick_reno wrote in post #14144681 (external link)
I think they'd sell a lot more of them if the new 24-70 had IS. They failed to meet customer expectations, which for whatever reason you want to use expected IS in this lens.

I don't know. I'll still be getting one at some point. It doesn't really need IS.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,084 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why the new Canon's 24-70L 2.8 II don't have IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
1198 guests, 336 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.