24-70mm f/2.8L Lens with IS !?!

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ArticleAct&arti​cleID=3006

Wishful thinking or an unintended slip?

Whats up with your signature? 24-105 f2.8L IS USM?

^

Marius B wrote in post #8740355
Whats up with your signature? 24-105 f2.8L IS USM?

Fixed.

It's easier for me to fix this one. Probably takes longer for Canon to fix theirs.

I read the interview and it seems to be the good old lens as the picture shows. But maybe the journalist had a new lens on his/her mind when writing the headline

I'll bet they get a few inquiries over that.

It's the good olde one.

That would cost a lot of money - although, I wouldn't mind keeping a copy of 24-70 IS myself.

D'oh!

The headlines say IS, but the literate doesn't mention IS anywhere. Let alone when you click the link to buy the lens on Canon's online store, it's the old school non-IS model.

I just don't understand why they couldn't include IS with that lens. It seems to be the only sticking point with consumers. It's a beautiful lens and if I could afford it right now I'd buy it.......IS or no IS. I gots steady hands.

stonyzmom wrote in post #8741506
I just don't understand why they couldn't include IS with that lens. It seems to be the only sticking point with consumers. It's a beautiful lens and if I could afford it right now I'd buy it.......IS or no IS. I gots steady hands.

Right. People who know what they're talking about, jump on the 24-70 regardless. Nobody is taken aback by the lack of IS, unless they're a newbie with money.

Furthermore, if you ad 300-500g for an IS unit on that heavy thing, you'd probably want Canon to build a place where you can stick a tripod/monopod collar as well It will be basically not usable without.

Furthermore (2)... building the 24-70 was a miracle. They've done it. Could they output the same outstanding IQ by adding IS, thus 3-4 more layers of glass while keeping 2.8? I doubt it. Ask optical engineers.

I say whoever dreams of IS on this gem is clueless :P

Rodinal wrote in post #8741570
I say whoever dreams of IS on this gem is clueless :P

the 17-55 2.8 has IS... and it's basically the crop equivalent, no?

remmeh wrote in post #8741576
the 17-55 2.8 has IS... and it's basically the crop equivalent, no?

It depends how extendable your definition of "basically" is
The 17-55 is a great lens. I agree. Regarding your question, why don't you ask those who tried both intensively?

i got excited for nothing!

I like it the way it is not sure I would want an IS version mainly because I am sure it's going to cost and arm and a leg