Any hope for a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L IS lens?

cfusionpm · Aug 21, 2009

I've been wanting to upgrade my midrange zoom with some L glass, and am pretty torn between the 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4 IS. Are there any plans for a releasing a 2.8 with IS any time soon?

If not, between the two, I think I would get the 24-105 IS.

The 24-105 has IS, longer range, and still a good f/4 throughout range. The 24-70's only advantage is the f2.8. Is just one stop going to make THAT much of a difference in medium-to-low light anyway? I already have a 50mm 1.4 anyway, so if I need extreme low light shots, I'll just use that. But if I'm shooting indoors in decent "regular" indoor lighting, would f2.8 give enough of an advantage over f4 and IS? I'm sure IQ difference between the two is negligible, and ~$1200 is a fair investment to try and not bungle. Regardless, I would like to avoid both of them if an f2.8 IS midrange is on the way...

table1349 · Aug 21, 2009

As for the 24-70 f2.8 coming out in an IS version, only Canon knows and they ain't talking. :lol:

As for the 1 stop difference between the f2.8 and f4. In low light it can be the difference between and ISO of 1600 and 3200. You decide. I have nothing slower than f2.8 in my glass lineup since I shoot a lot of sports. The 24-105 f4 even with IS can't give me the shutter speeds I need to freeze action that my f2.8 and faster glass will.

They are two different lenses designed for two different purposes. Your decision needs to be based on your shooting style and interests.

Montana · Aug 21, 2009

Yep, 1 stop is a big difference. And in my opinion, IS is not necessary in a 24-70mm lens really. I stop= twice the light gathering abilities. Which can equal to (like mentioned above) half the ISO or twice the shutter speed. So, yeah, its a big difference. In some aspects, the ability of modern DSLR's to have cleaner high ISO's makes slower glass "more usable" in low light. Myself, I'd take fast glass any day of the week.

musicaleCA · Aug 21, 2009

Same. I'd take that speed any day. That extra stop is really worth it. As long as you know how to hold your camera steadily, IS isn't a necessity on that lens. And, it pairs very nicely with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (on my purchase list...in the far future) in terms of covering focal ranges. Spiffy.

usayit · Aug 21, 2009

For me the 24-105L + 50mm f/1.4 makes for a good all around travel kit....

Yes the 24-105L can't shoot at f/2.8 but he 24-70L can't shoot at 100mm focal length either. It is up to you to decide.

Do a search.. there are numerous threads comparing the two. They were both built for completely different purposes.

usayit · Aug 21, 2009

btw.. in low light... 1 stop does make a difference.. Which is a valid point between the 24-70L and 24-105L.

BUT

A prime with a max aperture of f/1.4 (or even f/1.8) is even more effective... In my case, I get the flexibility of the 24-105L with the 2 stop advantage over the f/2.8 zoom ready to go in my pocket.

FrankLamont · Aug 21, 2009

Yes... the speed is worth it. The difference between an ISO stop. Or the equivalent shutter speed difference.

Although I'm not saying that a 24-70mm IS isn't bad... it's just not likely.

FrankLamont · Aug 21, 2009

By the way, it slips in nicely with the 70-200mm lenses.

cfusionpm · Aug 23, 2009

usayit said:
btw.. in low light... 1 stop does make a difference.. Which is a valid point between the 24-70L and 24-105L.

BUT

A prime with a max aperture of f/1.4 (or even f/1.8) is even more effective... In my case, I get the flexibility of the 24-105L with the 2 stop advantage over the f/2.8 zoom ready to go in my pocket.

I like this notion of keeping the 1.4 in a pocket ready to go. I did some test shots in a poorly lit room in the early evening (sun still up, but dim lighting) and compared shots taken at 1.4, 2.8, and 4. The 1.4 shots were as quick as 1/40 while both the 2.8 and 4 were unusably long exposures.

inTempus · Aug 23, 2009

cfusionpm said:
I
The 24-105 has IS, longer range, and still a good f/4 throughout range. The 24-70's only advantage is the f2.8. Is just one stop going to make THAT much of a difference in medium-to-low light anyway?

Once you understand exactly what a stop of light is, then the question will answer itself.

1 stop of light is twice as much light.

In other words, it's a huge difference. If you're at ISO 3200 f/4 and you still can't get the shutter speed you need, your next stop is ISO 6400. How well does your camera perform at ISO 6400?

IS only helps you in low light shooting stationary objects. Since I mostly shoot people motion blur is always an issue. The only way to prevent blur is to keep the shutter speed compliant with the 1/focal length rule and IS isn't going to help you do that.

I would gladly trade f/2.8 for IS at f/4. If they can do f/2.8 and IS, then yes - I'm on board.

As for the 24-70 f/2.8 IS - it's vaporware until Canon tells us otherwise. Since they're not talking, asking us when it might drop isn't going to give you an accurate answer since none of us know.

If you need a new lens, don't wait for rumor a to materialize. Go buy the lens you need. If a replacement comes along, head over to the Canon forums where you can typically sell a like new less for $100 or so less than you paid for it. They hold their value.

cfusionpm · Aug 31, 2009

Would the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS be a viable option? I currently only have crop-sensor cameras, and don't plan on getting a FF for some time anyway. I've read reviews saying its a fantastic little lens, but would I regret not getting an L?

musicaleCA · Aug 31, 2009

Nah, you wouldn't. The 17-55 is indeed a fantastic little lens. The L is perhaps more fantastic, but as with some of Canon's L glass, they have "lower-end" gear in their line-up that's just as good. Another example would be the 50mm f/1.4 vs. the 50mm f/1.2L. A third of a stop? Big deal. And the former is actually sharper than the L glass in some cases. But I digress.

If you're not going to upgrade to FF anytime soon, I don't think you'll regret getting the 17-55. Though personally I like that little bit of extra reach.

Oh, and how's the 10-22, by the way?

cfusionpm · Aug 31, 2009

musicaleCA said:
Nah, you wouldn't. The 17-55 is indeed a fantastic little lens. The L is perhaps more fantastic, but as with some of Canon's L glass, they have "lower-end" gear in their line-up that's just as good. Another example would be the 50mm f/1.4 vs. the 50mm f/1.2L. A third of a stop? Big deal. And the former is actually sharper than the L glass in some cases. But I digress.

If you're not going to upgrade to FF anytime soon, I don't think you'll regret getting the 17-55. Though personally I like that little bit of extra reach.

Everything is just shifted. Both the 24-70 and 24-105 have tighter zoom, but neither go as wide on a crop body. From the looks of things, this 17-55 seems to be pretty much what I'm looking for.

Oh, and how's the 10-22, by the way?

Absolutely love it. I can take shots like these:

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/1351/sandiegoskylinewidesmal.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/466/tcnightdrivesmall.jpg

Derrel · Aug 31, 2009

I hold out very,very little hope for a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens with IS. Why? Nikon doesn't have one with VR. Sony's Zeiss-labelled 24-70 does not have IS, since the Sony d-slr's have in-body stablizer systems. Until the competition has something compelling and different, I see little reason for Canon to modify a lens design that is relatively "new",and which has a long potential life-span ahead of it.

Many professionals scoff at VR and IS in short focal length lenses,and it's mostly professionals and well-heeled amateurs who buy $1,700 wide zooms; many people feel that IS or VR is only useful on longer tele-zooms and tele prime lenses.

Also, and this is very important--IS and VR impose distinct optical limitations on lens designers. Canon and Nikon use fundamentally different approaches to in-lens stablizing systems, and in a lens that goes from wide to normal to short telephoto, being FREE from the limitations imposed by moving an IS stabilizing optical group gives the lens designers free rein to do whatever is best for the design. Designing a professionally capable wide, normal,and tele in one lens means that eliminating a pre-exisiting limitation makes the design job easier,and the results potentially a little bit better. The need for ultimate optical quality stems from the fact that the 24-70 tends to be a true "workhorse" lens that many shooters will shoot 75% of their shots with,and therefore the lens needs to be as good as possible--with serious shooters as the target market that needs to be satisfied.

Sue Bruce · Aug 31, 2009

I have the 24-70mm Canon lens and it is FANTASTIC ! Tried out a 70-200 L lens the other day and couldn't add it to my wish list fast enough. Both excellent L quality lenses. The larger aperture really helps with the 24-70 - I was able to get shots I couldn't previously attempt.

Sue
Sue Bruce Photography