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

I find IS valuable even at 1/50th. It just increases my hit rate.

Well I managed a 25second river shot with the 17-55 (braced) I'm sure the IS helped a fair bit.

Dave I shoot landscapes and dont need IS at all. I think it comes from the wedding lot that shoot and often cant use a flash so IS helps out.

tim wrote in post #10803472
I find IS valuable even at 1/50th. It just increases my hit rate.

Really? Don't get me wrong, I don't shoot weddings, although I've done about 30 before I figured out I really do hate them, so I don't have the time constraints present you'd get at a wedding, but I find I can handhold the 24-70 all day long at 1/30th and not struggle...

RobDickinson wrote in post #10803480
Well I managed a 25second river shot with the 17-55 (braced) I'm sure the IS helped a fair bit.

Fair point, but everyone knows that *should* have been a tripod shot.

weka2000 wrote in post #10803489
Dave I shoot landscapes and dont need IS at all. I think it comes from the wedding lot that shoot and often cant use a flash so IS helps out.

Exactly my point, the people are still moving, doesn't stabilize them does it?

I dunno, maybe I'm a tit, but I just don't get the need for it.

manipula wrote in post #10803545
I dunno, maybe I'm a tit, but I just don't get the need for it.

I agree Dave (not about you being a tit, about the IS ) I don't own a single IS lens.

But clearly Canon disagrees, since even the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...

Potisdad wrote in post #10803578
I agree Dave (not about you being a tit, about the IS ) I don't own a single IS lens.

But clearly Canon disagrees, since even the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If if it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...

18-55's have IS for no other reason than at the time it was introduced, if they didn't have it when Nikon did, and Olympus and Sony had it in bodies, they'd lose valuable willy-waving rights to easily influenced and inexperienced buyers of entry SLRs. There's still a monumentally high proportion of buyers of compacts, bridge cameras or low end SLRs who see big numbers, or headline grabbing features and assume the more they have the better. If you saw how many people I speak to per week who still think Megapixels makes better photos you'd be shocked. 18-55IS exists just because not having IS would look bad...

To get the nerdy head on for a second, f stops (and the physical aperture size) are a relationship aren't they, like a ratio, relative to a given focal length of the lens. If you look at all the lenses that do have IS, they all have either relatively speaking longer focal lengths on the long end, smaller max apertures etc, except the 17-55. It's a guess but I'm thinking that maybe the process of throwing an image circle out the back of the lens big enough to cover a FF sensor, which is still sharp at f/2.8, and which can provide that f stop, or ratio of aperture to focal length at 70-ish mm and at 24mm is a bit of a nightmare. 17-55 does all of it except providing the big image circle... Just wonder if it isn't basically just a technical nightmare to do...

manipula wrote in post #10803545
Fair point, but everyone knows that *should* have been a tripod shot.

Oh for sure, but I didnt feel like carting one round the Kepler.

IS is realy only usefull for those 2-4 stops where handholding isnt enough but you dont have a tripod.

It also lets yopu stop down a bit or shoot at a lower ISO than you could without.

Overall a handy tool to have if it doesnt compromise the lens in other respects.

RobDickinson wrote in post #10803667
Overall a handy tool...

Yeah I guess, but not the 'oh-my-god-I'll-kill-my-mother-if-there-isn't-a-24-70IS-lens-at-Photokina' prospect so many seem to desire.

IS is useful on longer lenses, you're stabilizing a much more easily created movement in yourself, and even when you reach the limits of how far you can go with the shutter speeds (1/30th or so) it's still a speed where a person in the shot is half likely to still look sharp unless they're running about. Taking the shutter speed = focal length thing as a rule, if you go four stops below 1/60th down to 1/4 all you're stabilizing is the background and not anything moving in the picture.

I don't get it eh? If they make one, I use it and it's a revelation, I reserve the right to ignore everything I've just said and change my mind though!

Anyway, enough procrastination for me, I've got photos to edit. *cries*

manipula wrote in post #10803545
Really? Don't get me wrong, I don't shoot weddings, although I've done about 30 before I figured out I really do hate them, so I don't have the time constraints present you'd get at a wedding, but I find I can handhold the 24-70 all day long at 1/30th and not struggle...

I've never really done any tests, IS/VR just gives me a bit more confidence.

Potisdad wrote in post #10803578
I agree Dave (not about you being a tit, about the IS ) I don't own a single IS lens.

But clearly Canon disagrees, since even the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...

I wouldn't go that far. It'd take a lot more than that to get me back to Canon at the moment.

manipula wrote in post #10803645
To get the nerdy head on for a second, f stops (and the physical aperture size) are a relationship aren't they, like a ratio, relative to a given focal length of the lens. If you look at all the lenses that do have IS, they all have either relatively speaking longer focal lengths on the long end, smaller max apertures etc, except the 17-55. It's a guess but I'm thinking that maybe the process of throwing an image circle out the back of the lens big enough to cover a FF sensor, which is still sharp at f/2.8, and which can provide that f stop, or ratio of aperture to focal length at 70-ish mm and at 24mm is a bit of a nightmare. 17-55 does all of it except providing the big image circle... Just wonder if it isn't basically just a technical nightmare to do...

The 70-200/2.8 IS has a FF image circle, is sharp at 2.8, has the same zoom ratio and the physical aperture size at 70 mm/2.8 is the same as would be required for a 24-70.
Maybe the reverse zoom mechanism of the 24-70 has something to do with it?

tim wrote in post #10803722
I wouldn't go that far. It'd take a lot more than that to get me back to Canon at the moment.

What about the new lighter shade of white on the L lenses? Surely that is swaying you?

A 24-70 IS would be a point of difference between 2 otherwise very similar systems.

Well. Canon has the direct print button too.

Potisdad wrote in post #10803578
In the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...

I think IS in the short focal ranges is part usefulness, and part marketing. For certain situations IS can be a handy additional feature to a lens. However, I certainly think that IS gets added to help the less knowledgeable users get better pictures. This seems to happen especially with the gear aimed at the lower end of the market. People tend to forget that canon makes a hell of a lot of its money at this end of the market. And dont forget the marketing love to add all sorts of letters / numbers to make something sound better/better value than competitors.

At lenses aimed at the higher end user, Canon probably looks at the cost/benefit of how many extra sales they will make if IS is included, and the drop in sales due to higher cost of including IS by people who dont really care about it. Its probably slanted towards the keeping the cost down a little.

When you get into the telephoto/supertelepho​to, it becomes almost required now (I know a few of these don't have IS). It's in the mid range * where it gets interesting - just look at the 70-200 where you can get with or without IS in _both_ the f/2.8 and f/4 lenses.

For myself, I try to work out what the best lens to cover the situation I need it for, that fits in my budget. In the low end - its a bonus if it has IS, but not a requirement. On the long end for me it's required.

To get a 24-70 IS will probably take a competitor to release a similar lens that gains a lot of attention and sales. (Seems in the last few years canon enjoys playing catchup!)

Daniel

Potisdad wrote in post #10803725
The 70-200/2.8 IS has a FF image circle, is sharp at 2.8, has the same zoom ratio and the physical aperture size at 70 mm/2.8 is the same as would be required for a 24-70.
Maybe the reverse zoom mechanism of the 24-70 has something to do with it?

Doesn't have to work optically out at 24mm though does it? You're talking with a 70-200 about something going from mild telephoto through to a bit more, whereas a 24-70 is covering a pretty extreme range optically at f/2.8.

I read something interesting, which i'll try to reproduce here in my own words.

When it comes to Canon focus systems there are two groups of thought on the subject. The first has no problems at all, and thinks the people who do have problems are either stupid or don't know how to use their equipment. The second group has focus problems, and thinks the people who don't are either lying or aren't as critical as them.

In practice there are variations in equipment and their tolerances, varying situations, and peoples tolerances are different. Neither group is wrong, but neither group is right either. All in all it's best that people just use the equipment that works best for them, they are after all just tools to do a job.