Canon 24-70 F2.8L IS
- Thread starter desmondchan
- Start date
yeah CR said a great source has said it will come out in 2010...most probably along with 1DsIV. http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=ef+24-70+IS&x=0&y=0
The 24-70 f/2.8 has been my favourite-walk about lens.
I personally find it very good even without the IS.
However, I feel that with the IS it would most likely allow one at least 1-2 stops down in terms of shutter speed.
This will certainly be a great enhancement.
Of course, it will also be a great excuse to market it at a significantly higher price.
I personally find it very good even without the IS.
However, I feel that with the IS it would most likely allow one at least 1-2 stops down in terms of shutter speed.
This will certainly be a great enhancement.
Of course, it will also be a great excuse to market it at a significantly higher price.
up to 4 stops. IMO, the 24-70 with IS is especially targetted for the video shooters. I don't think anyone can handhold the camera for video withot shake.
The diff between the 100 macro and 100L is about $600? Since the 24-70 is already an L to begin with. The difference should be smaller but it will still be a hefty $2k+. My concern would also be the weight. Will it go past the 1kg mark?
i doubt IS adds that much weight to a lens construction. i generally don't feel an extra 100g is too heavy. it is typically the size of the glass elements.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Anyway looks like i ought to be selling off my 24-70mm next year!
Last edited:
i think i got used to the weight of the 24-70 more or less.. so it does not make a difference if another 100-200 grams is added to it.. :bsmilie:
i use my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM without complaining. sure it's weighty but not that heavy. and i'm a very small guy (5ft). its IS is amazing; can't take photos without it.
I really wished the 24-70mm already had IS because it's so difficult to keep it steady.
1 lens by itself is ok. The problem is you would bring more than 1 lens out. So if the 24-70 IS weigh as much as the 70-200IS. You would have 3kg worth of lenses. Throw in the camera, flash, tripod. At least 6kg.
that is exactly what i carry around with me, and i am fine with that. around 2.4-3Kg is on my hands (cam, lens, flash).
Going from the 70-200mm variants, i estimate the 24-70mm IS is gonna be 1-1.1Kg so not too big a deal.
That is very reassuring to hear, ManWearPants. I believe the IS would be a luxurious item for me. Just that the thought of having to buy a new lens...
IS cost $1K extra for the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM; how much lesser is estimated for 24-70mm version?
I dunno man, am just guessing that a general walk-around zoom is unlikely to go beyond $3K? Just guessing... Else, it'll be a shocking price for a zoom, for me at least, like how the tilt-shift is priced. OK let's not digress, sorry.
Similar threads
