Rumored 24-70 f4 IS you interested?

[o hey tyler]

That must be why the Nikon Trinity is the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200, all f/2.8...because there's no point in going from wide-angle 94 degree angle of view, to short tele, in one lens...

That must be why Canon, and Sigma, and Tamron, and Sony, and of course Nikon, ALL make high-end 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses...because there's no point in owning something so outrageously practical...and a smaller, lighter, less-expensive 24-70mm Canon lens, with an AMAZING .7x macro reproduction capability, and Canon's state of the art Image Stabilizer system, is silly, especially in this era of cameras with decent ISO 6,400 capability...a TOP-quality optical design with an f/4 max aperture is no longer the drawback it was when d-slr's topped out at a clean high ISO value of 250, like with the original $8,000 11 megapixel Canon 1Ds of a decade ago...or even when ISO 500 was the high end...

I personally don't care about convenience factor. And you apparently have not learned what an opinion is.

I never said "No one should buy a 24-70/2.8 ever." I said I have zero interest in that focal range at f/2.8. I'd rather shoot primes. They can make those lenses all they want. No doubt people like yourself and others will buy them.

I won't.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Looks nice to me. Does this lens extend or all internal? Looks very compact and being able get 1:0.75 macro is amazing. You guys do realize recent camera bodies have super good ISO performance right? Losing one stop isnt bad. It is much smaller than 24-70 II. Assuming the subject isnt moving around too much, you can easily shoot this at 1/40 at any focal length thanks to the IS. About to pull the trigger on 24-70 II and now i have to really rethink this. I may even get rid my 1:1 macro as well and get this lens. I dont need 1:1 with ring shots. Seriously considering this lens. But the fact that this will be a kit lens for 6D makes me worried that it will be harder to sell the lens in the used market in the future.

 

[Derrel]

I personally don't care about convenience factor. And you apparently have not learned what an opinion is.

I never said "No one should buy a 24-70/2.8 ever." I said I have zero interest in that focal range at f/2.8. I'd rather shoot primes. They can make those lenses all they want. No doubt people like yourself and others will buy them.

I won't.

Oh "primes"...I see...

So...just how much would a full set of professional-grade 24,28,50, 55,60,and 70mm "primes" cost?

The decision to create a professionally-capable 24-70 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 Canon IS lenses for "people like myself" is not strictly about what you so disparaginly tried to characterize as being about the "convenience factor". Canon's excellent Image Stabilizer technology is useful for professional and serious use from moving vehicles, when shooting photos from boats, ferry boats, tour buses, chase vehicles, and when shooting when one is out of breath, when shooting hand-held in challenging conditions, when dragging the shutter + using flash, and Image Stabilizer technology is supremely useful when shooting in windy conditions, where even a tripod is sketchy...like at the ocean shore, or in other windy areas...

WINDY conditions is where I myself have personally found stabilized lenses to be worth their weight in GOLD. They make it possible to bring back photos that would otherwise be almost impossible to get. Even with a tripod.

The image stabilizer technology allows the seasoned photographer to shoot almost without penalty in a lot of tough conditions, and at exposure settings that even a tripod-mounted camera will often FAIL in. Also, in the many areas where tripod use is prohibited by rules or ordinance, the Image Stabilizer lens allows the photographer to stop down and shoot deep depth of field images, hand-held. So, again, it's not about the "convenience factor" you mentioned, this lens has been designed by Canon for people who understand the advantages of a lens that has Image Stabilizer technology at its core.

As an idea of what a professional-grade 24-70 f/2.8 lens is "worth", on the market, Canon's newly-announced 35mm f/2 is $899. That lens has just one,single focal length, and it's $899. A 24-70mm lens offers 46 discrete focal lengths. At $899 per length, that would come up to $41,354. Huh...

 

[o hey tyler]

Oh "primes"I see...

So...just how much would a full set of professional-grade 24,28,50, 55,60,and 70mm "primes" cost?

The decision to create a professionally-capable 24-70 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 Canon IS lenses for "people like myself" is not strictly about what you so disparaginly tried to slam me with as being all about the "convenience factor". Canon's excellent Image Stabilizer technology is useful for professional and serious use from moving vehicles, when shooting photos from boats, ferry boats, tour buses, chase vehicles, and when shooting when one is out of breath,shooting hand-held in challenging conditions, when dragging the shutter + using flash, and Image Stabilizer technology is supremely useful when shooting in windy conditions, where even a tripod is sketchy...like at the ocean shore, or in other windy areas...

The image stabilizer technology allows the seasoned photographer to shoot almost without penalty in conditions, and at exposure settings that even a tripod-mounted camera will often FAIL in. Also, in the many areas where tripod use is prohibited by rules or ordinance, the Image Stabilkizer lens allows the photographer to stop down and shoot deep depth of field images, hand-held. So, again, it's not about the "convenience factor" you mentioned, this lens has been designed by Canon for people who understand the advantages of a lens that has Image Stabilizer technology at its core.

As an idea of what a professional-grade 24-70 f/2.8 lens is "worth", on the market, Canon's newly-announced 35mm f/2 is $899. That lens has just one,single focal length, and it's $899. A 24-70mm lens offers 46 discrete focal lengths. At $899 per length, that would come up to $41,354. Huh...

You realize that you don't need to cover the entire focal range with primes right? Why would anyone need a 24 AND a 28mm prime in their bag?

And no, I wasn't the one going after insulting you. <Moderated> because I have a different preference than you.

Get over it. I don't care about IS. I don't care about the 24-70 range at f/2.8. You're not going to sell me on that lens. Grow up.

 

[Derrel]

You realize that you don't need to cover the entire focal range with primes right? Why would anyone need a 24 AND a 28mm prime in their bag?

And no, I wasn't the one going after insulting you. You took on the role of being a dick first because I have a different preference than you.

Get over it. I don't care about IS. I don't care about the 24-70 range at f/2.8. You're not going to sell me on that lens. Grow up.

I grew up on prime lenses, and have owned a 24 and a 28 and a 35 since before you were....born...

a 24mm and a 28mm are entirely DIFFERENT lenses... they exist because in the real world...there are differences between 24 and 28mm lenses...SIGNIFICANT differences in the way they render scene depth...it's not all about angle of view....it is about how the lens renders "space".

24 introduces a HUGE amount of corner distortion on people...a 28mm lens so, by far, and 35mm produces even less distortion of people and objects at the periphery of the frame.

See, I've been shooting full-frasme since 1977...I actually understand the difference between 24 and 28 and 35mm as do the lens makers....who offer 20,24,28,and 35mm focal lengths...

<Moderated>

 

[o hey tyler]

I grew up on prime lenses, and have owned a 24 and a 28 and a 35 since before you were....born...

a 24mm and a 28mm are entirely DIFFERENT lenses... they exist because in the real world...there are differences between 24 and 28mm lenses...SIGNIFICANT differences in the way they render scene depth...it's not all about angle of view....it is about how the lens renders "space".

24 introduces a HUGE amount of corner distortion on people...a 28mm lens so, by far, and 35mm produces even less distortion of people and objects at the periphery of the frame.

See, I've been shooting full-frasme since 1977...I actually understand the difference between 24 and 28 and 35mm as do the lens makers....who offer 20,24,28,and 35mm focal lengths...

Your combative attitude is tiresome, young man. If there is one who needs to "grow up", it would be you...

And this is precisely why I don't value any of your input ever. You are incredibly socially unaware and unable to render advice without being <Moderated>.

Combative attitude? Check your first post toward me on this thread and rethink that statement.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, we look a lot like you and Buckster going back and forth, don't we tirediron???

 

[tirediron]

Yes, we look a lot like you and Buckster going back and forth, don't we tirediron???

Except we usually manage to keep it a little more polite!