24-70mm Mark II - Who is disappointed that it does not have IS?

Heya everyone;

Whelp, I am very disappointed that Canon did not feel that IS was worth while on the 24-70mm II.

How many years now have a good vast majority of us been talking about how awesome it would be if the 24-70mm II would have IS? Its great for the 24-105mm so why not for the 24-70mm?

The argument that its a short focal length and Canon decided against it because of that is null and void do to other similar focal length lenses that do have IS, much CHEAPER lenses.

With this huge price hike I would expect IS to be a feature for this lens, more people would be in the market for this lens at that price point IF it had IS, I know I would be.

Canon Missed out on a killer combo here, people that would buy these two lenses just to have them together.

The 24-70mm IS L II + 70-200mm IS L II

But since there is no 24-70mm IS L II people wont be as likely to buy the two lenses together.

If Canon really wanted to hit this out of the park they would do something like this.

16-35mm IS L III - 24-70mm IS L II - 70-200mm IS L II

Good God, I could see that as the perfect zoom trio, but Canon only has one in that lineup for us to drool over. That could be $7500 in lenses right there that some people could not live without IF the first two were real.

So I am sad today, having found out today about the 24-70mm II L only to find that it does not have IS.

I am 30 years old, my hands shake, sure to only get worse as I age and I hand hold 99.5% of my shots, IS is important to me as well as many other photographers.

Thanks for listening to my rant, lets hear what everyone else has to say.

-Eric-

Lol, then the "cheaper 24-70L mk I" and 24-105L would become obsolete. Personally, I don't think I'd need IS up to about 60-70mm. I can easily shoot handheld at 2.8 at the wide end. But IS is really important on the 70-200, IMHO.

Wow that was fast, I wasnt even done with the poll yet.

The 24-105mm has its place, for some people that near $300 dollar difference isnt justified in their type of shooting.

The 24-70mm II will of course phase out the mark I at some point in the future so it wont matter about the mark I prices once that happens and at that time the price gap between the 24-105mm and the 24-70mm II will be greater.

I love that the first poll result is in favor of the Ultimate Zoom Trio.

Why does everyone want every lens with IS?

Because my hands shake, I move, I am human as are 99.9% of the shooters out there.

I have an edge with IS, it does help my photography greatly, I also prefer natural light.

They should've made the legendary 50mm f/1.0L with IS too =)

If they did, would you want to try it?
btw, legendary is quite book worthy, of the hundreds (duplicates in that mix of course) of lenses that I have used or owned, that is one I have never come by.

Let's be clear - excluding those with horrible afflictions like Parkinson's Disease - everyone has involuntary tremor to some degree. It's the nature of muscular action. What mitigates it in almost every case is good technique.

Wide stance; one foot slightly in advance of the other; elbows tucked in; left hand cradling the lens; shoot at the end of the out-breath. Practice is all.

Then there's the nature of the lens. Above a certain weight, being naturally 'massy', a larger lens tends to resonate more slowly. That's all to the good. The 24-70 is pretty much in that sweet spot at just over 2lbs (950gm). But there's a law of diminishing returns - the 70-200 2.8 at over 3lbs (1.47kg) quickly causes muscle fatigue and increased tremor.

And there's focal length; I've found that with decent technique, I can comfortably hand-hold down to low shutter speeds with almost any lens under 85 mm. Below 35mm, I can confidently go down into single figures like 1/4 or 1/8th.

Above 80-100mm, IS truly is a godsend. I'm sold.

So, 24-70 IS? Nice - yes. Necessary - Nah.

Very good points indeed, I still shake though and I wont see it till I get the photos home and look at them. I have learned to spray about 3 photos to be sure I get at least one sharp photo.

Thats how I got these next two photos with my 24-70mm, yes these were hand held too.
It was New Years Eve 2010-11 in Springfield Mo. ontop of a parking garage with a wind chill of about 5-f. I was shaking REALLY bad then but I kept taking photos and I found a couple sharp ones that were between the bad.

So of course IS is not needed, but man it sure helps me and a lot of others.

I have 24-70 and 24-105, i always use 24-70 and i hardly can remember when did last time i used 24-105, and i never feel i miss IS in 24-70, i am 31 and my hand is steady enough, even with 300 f2.8L IS without monopod or tripod i handhold it fine, i never go to gym and i am a slim guy and no muscles, so if someone who is 30 and shaky then he needs Vitamins.

Tareq wrote in post #14034311
I have 24-70 and 24-105, i always use 24-70 and i hardly can remember when did last time i used 24-105, and i never feel i miss IS in 24-70, i am 31 and my hand is steady enough, even with 300 f2.8L IS without monopod or tripod i handhold it fine, i never go to gym and i am a slim guy and no muscles, so if someone who is 30 and shaky then he needs Vitamins.

Wait until you get about 11 years older. Goes down hill pretty fast when you get to your mid-forties.

I loved my 17-55/2.8 IS on my old 40D. With IS, I was able to nail shots holding the camera one handed while holding an ice cream cone with my left hand. Granted, a 24-70/2.8 IS will be heavier than the 17-55, but, I expected modern IS technology to help compensate.

I find IS in a standard zoom to be very handy. In low light, f/2.8 is not always enough and you might have to nail a shot one handed. A 24-70/2.8L IS would have meant that I don't have to own both a 24-70 and a 24-105.

i voted "Nope, its a Super Sharp and fast lens and I am as steady as a rock. (Lets assume its super sharp)" but only because you are missing the my preferred answer which is "nope there is no need for IS on this lens but the price is still too high, lower the price by about $500 and it will be just perfect". you don't need to be steady as a rock to shoot this lens. imho..

regards
bob

I just want to play Okama Gamesphere ...

ErgoSpacePig wrote in post #14034482
i voted "Nope, its a Super Sharp and fast lens and I am as steady as a rock. (Lets assume its super sharp)" but only because you are missing the my preferred answer which is "nope there is no need for IS on this lens but the price is still too high, lower the price by about $500 and it will be just perfect". you don't need to be steady as a rock to shoot this lens. imho..

regards
bob

you dont need it, but L stands for Luxury

Nobody needs a porche, hot wife, or lots of money.

Considering that crop cameras have IS in their standard zooms, it's kinda silly that the L versions dont.

ah but if it were only free ..