GKPE 7 - And Still Going! Still Friendly and Still The BEST!

RobDickinson wrote in post #10802677
I guess canons strong point is the super tele's and they likely all get made on the same production line?

Rob you have a link to the 400 F2.8 you posted in hello?
Iwasintrestedin the weight drop from 5.2kg to 3.8kg you noted. The current 400 f2.8 is same as the 600f4

Potisdad wrote in post #10802698
Interesting that nobody (Canon, Nikon or Sigma) have added IS to their 24-70 yet. Maybe there are technical problems still to overcome at this focal length range...

The 24-105 has it in the canon.

I'm suprised there's no 24-70 F2.8 IS/VR. They'd make a good amount of money off it, many pros would upgrade. My 24-70 already cost me about $3000, but if IS/VR was available i'd happily have paid another $500. I'm not sure i'd sell it to get it though, given how recently I got the 24-70, and I have VR on my wide and long lenses.

weka2000 wrote in post #10802705
Rob you have a link to the 400 F2.8 you posted in hello?
Iwasintrestedin the weight drop from 5.2kg to 3.8kg you noted. The current 400 f2.8 is same as the 600f4

Here

RobDickinson wrote in post #10803028
Here

Lets hope they make the new 500 F4 28% lighter I found the 300F2.8 a breeze to hand hold

weka2000 wrote in post #10802713
The 24-105 has it in the canon.

But not at f/2.8.

Nope but the 24-105IS on a FF body is better than the 17-55 on a crop.

More range, shallower DOF , better built.

I had both the 17-55 and 24-105, neither was hugely reliable on my 7D or 40D. On a 5D classic the 24-105 works really well though. I mostly used the 24-105 for outdoor ceremonies, I found F4 made the focus quite a lot slower indoors, even on the 7D which was generally pretty quick at focusing.

17-55 rocks for me. Seems to be sharp enough (for a zoom) and fast/reliable.

RobDickinson wrote in post #10803211
Nope but the 24-105IS on a FF body is better than the 17-55 on a crop.

More range, shallower DOF , better built.

Agreed. Just wondering aloud why no-one has made a FF f2.8 lens under 70 mm. Must be a reason....

Less than 70mm you mean? probably because it mates up to the 70-200s easily...

I personally don't see a need for IS on a 24-70, I would probably prefer they don't do it, just another thing to go wrong really. The 24-70 on a well balanced body can easily be hand held at 1/30 and add insane ISO capabilities of today's modern camera's and I just don't see a need for it.

Potisdad wrote in post #10803284
Agreed. Just wondering aloud why no-one has made a FF f2.8 lens under 70 mm. Must be a reason....

Not sure what you mean. 16-35 F2.8, 14-24 F2.8, 17-50 F2.8. Or do you mean FF IS/VR lens under 70mm? I don't know of one of those, the 16-35 F4 VR is the only wide zoom I know of with IS/VR.

manipula wrote in post #10803309
Less than 70mm you mean? probably because it mates up to the 70-200s easily...

Yeah - no IS on any FF f/2.8 lens less than 70 mm. Not on the 24-70/2.8 or the 16-35/2.8. Nikon put VR on the 16-35/4 and of course there are plenty of crop lens with f/2.8 and IS now, but still no FF options.

Considering the constant bleating for an 24-70 IS and the fact that is is now one of the oldest L zooms, I think there must be difficulties in making such a lens.

Honestly I dunno if the call for it is because it's needed or because people see the tech in other stuff and assume if it's not in every lens ever made the manufacturer's are holding out. Obviously I largely shoot people, and IS there is useless (on a short zoom), you might be able to handhold 1/8th to get the scene nice and sharp but it won't stabilize the person moving round the picture. Honestly on a lens that short, IS can only be of use for stuff which is static really no? Buildings, landscapes etc, grab a tripod.

I'd personally much rather they made it either sharper or wider aperture still if they revised it, but I have zero complaints about it as it is.

As for why not in terms of manufacture, I wonder if having a lens which extends so much during operation as it zooms doesn't cause the problem? Obviously the 24-105 does it, but there you're not fighting to keep the brighter aperture and to keep the image sharp across the frame at that wide aperture.