Dreaming of a lens...literally.

This is a little OT I know.

Last night I had my first dream about a Canon lens!

As with most dreams, the setting was vague. I could have been walking down some hotel corridor somewhere. I just know that I was walking along and peered into an ajar conference room door and noticed some sort of Canon event. Having no inhibitions in the dream, I just walked into the room.

The room was empty, as if the show hadn't started yet. The centerpiece of it all, lit by bright lights, was a waist-high table, draped with a white table cloth. Atop it was a short pyramid of red and white Canon boxes leading to up to the star of the show: a Canon EF 24-70 F2.8L II H lens sitting by itself atop its pedestal.

I readily recognized everything but the last letter; the mystery was the "H" in the lens designation. I was puzzled. I took a closer look at the red-ringed, black lens itself as well as the boxes surrounding it and the "H" was listed everywhere.

All the sudden I turned around and behind me was an older looking guy with grey hair whom I assumed was an engineer of sorts. He looked knowledgeable and important, so I asked him, "What does the 'H' mean?"

He was quick and forthright in his reply: "It's our new Hybrid Stabilization system."

The next think I know I am at a computer, trying to log into POTN as fast as I can but in my excitement I keep misspelling my login/password. Finally I log in and with bated breath, I type as fast as I can to be the first to tell the world about the new "24-70 2.8L II H" lens.

Clicking the "submit" button, my dream ended.

While you were walking down that hotel corridor, what were you wearing? Was the older guy with grey hair naked? and coated with a thin - but detectable - layer of vaseline?

rick_reno wrote in post #13053507
While you were walking down that hotel corridor, what were you wearing? Was the older guy with grey hair naked? and coated with a thin - but detectable - layer of vaseline?

Haha. He was dressed. Gray pants and a white lab coat. Hence, why I made the engineer assumption.

No idea what I was wearing.

Keep dreaming....

I can't imagine why Canon would put IS on the 24-70. Sure, they have to stick it on the "consumer" lenses because some people think they need it on every lens in their bag.

But the 24-70 is predominently a pro-oriented lens and most pros know it would largely just be wasted money, having to pay the extra cost to have IS on a 24-70.

I think most likely, if/when they intro a new 24-70 Canon will try to make it a more compact design, while retaining the high image quality. A clue to their current design goals is the emphasis they've put into scaling down the super zooms a bit... Starting with the 800/5.6 actually... Now the 300/2.8 II and 400/2.8 II... And soon the 500 II and 600 II, too.

Putting IS into the 24-70 would take them in the exact opposite direction... Might need to make the lens larger to accomodate add'l mechanisms, at the very least it would make it more difficult to reduce the lens' size.

Besides, as camera high ISOs get better and better, IS on shorter lenses (in particular) becomes less and less necessary.

Plus, if you really want IS, there's always the 24-105. Or the 28-135.

amfoto1 wrote in post #13053627
I can't imagine why Canon would put IS on the 24-70. Sure, they have to stick it on the "consumer" lenses because some people think they need it on every lens in their bag.

I don't see the link between the lack of IS & pro-lenses... so are you trying to say that IS on a lens makes the lens less professional?! I think IS is () useful in a lot of situations where the user is handholding the camera. And not just with longer focal lengths.

I think a 24-70 L IS sounds like a perfect walk-around lens for full-frame cameras.

Well there is hybrid IS out there - the 100mm macro L has it
I expect the 180mm L will also get it in time, though it would be a massive boon if the MPE managed to get it too!

JaapW wrote in post #13053669
I don't see the link between the lack of IS & pro-lenses... so IS on a lens makes it less professional?! I think IS is () useful in a lot of situations where the user is handholding the camera. And not just with longer focal lengths.

Considering that IS is typically in the expensive lenses and I also don't think there are any EFS lenses with IS I'd say IS could be a sign of a pro lens


Course then we'd have to decide what "pro" means and then things get all kinds of crazy!

Overread wrote in post #13053670
Well there is hybrid IS out there - the 100mm macro L has it
I expect the 180mm L will also get it in time, though it would be a massive boon if the MPE managed to get it too!

Considering that IS is typically in the expensive lenses and I also don't think there are any EFS lenses with IS I'd say IS could be a sign of a pro lens


Course then we'd have to decide what "pro" means and then things get all kinds of crazy!

Don't most of the normal range zooms for ef-s have IS? I know the 17-55 does and I think the 18-55 does as well.
edit: sigma and Tamron as well.

cool dream...you know you're a POTN junkie when that's the first thing you would do even in your dream when i would have rather checked out the lens first.

recently, i started becoming tired of the weight from the 24-70. but i can't imagine IS adding a significant more weight (7-2 f4 non-is vs is, f2.8 non-is vs is, etc). i never needed IS on this lens, but i know a lot of people will get it if it comes with IS so canon might make a lot of money if they do add it. the way i see it, they can keep producing the current 24-70 as the non-IS version and make a IS version like the 70-200 and increase the price to 2k.

Report your dream to canonrumors.com ! Your dream is more useful then most of the rumors they post. LOL

amfoto1 wrote in post #13053627
Keep dreaming....

I can't imagine why Canon would put IS on the 24-70. Sure, they have to stick it on the "consumer" lenses because some people think they need it on every lens in their bag.

But the 24-70 is predominently a pro-oriented lens and most pros know it would largely just be wasted money, having to pay the extra cost to have IS on a 24-70.

I think most likely, if/when they intro a new 24-70 Canon will try to make it a more compact design, while retaining the high image quality. A clue to their current design goals is the emphasis they've put into scaling down the super zooms a bit... Starting with the 800/5.6 actually... Now the 300/2.8 II and 400/2.8 II... And soon the 500 II and 600 II, too.

Putting IS into the 24-70 would take them in the exact opposite direction... Might need to make the lens larger to accomodate add'l mechanisms, at the very least it would make it more difficult to reduce the lens' size.

Besides, as camera high ISOs get better and better, IS on shorter lenses (in particular) becomes less and less necessary.

Plus, if you really want IS, there's always the 24-105. Or the 28-135.

Well one reason being it would be an incredibly useful lens for video if it had IS. Having a fast high quality zoom for video with a great focus ring is something a lot of people want from Canon - the 24-70II would be the best opportunity.

Oh god. Not the IS vs. no IS debate again. There is no reason to not have IS in every lens you can afford. Look at how hot Sony's 17-40 equivalent is selling because it has IS. Look at how hot Sony primes are when you can shoot 1/10 of a second, F1.4, ISO 1600 and get clean, non-blurred images in almost no light.

Sure there is. Complexity, one more thing to go wrong, like making the mistake of spending $2k for a navigation system built into a car instead on $50 for the iPhone app.

Sometimes it's nice to be able to shoot without the IS mech's gyrations making the shot soft.

1/10 is great if you shoot rocks in the dark.

Sp1207 wrote in post #13054129
Oh god. Not the IS vs. no IS debate again. There is no reason to not have IS in every lens you can afford. Look at how hot Sony's 17-40 equivalent is selling because it has IS. Look at how hot Sony primes are when you can shoot 1/10 of a second, F1.4, ISO 1600 and get clean, non-blurred images in almost no light.

That's great if you shoot things that don't move. At < 70mm (lets say 1/80s or faster on FF is normally needed) would you really want to shoot people at slower shutter speeds anyway? And that's where the 24-70 is normally used.

I'm sure it's great for handheld landscape stuff, but the fact is that diehard landscape togs are hauling a tripod around anyway.

I'd take a IS version of a lens over a NON-IS version of a lens any day of the week. Sure, you might not need it everyday...but when you need IS, you need it and if you don't have it you are out of luck.

People who think IS is not usefull in the 24mm range have not shot much with the 24-105 where it has saved my bacon countless times. If you don't want it and think it will break...just turn the damn thing off and crazy glue it in the off position and then you don't have anything to squawk about on these forums.

Yes, indeed, the only EF-S lenses WITHOUT IS are the 10-22 and the 60 macro. IS is very helpful to beginners still learning to stabilize themselves.