• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8

Tom Owen Meinen

New member
I've long wanted the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8. However, the only thing I don't like is that it's not image stabilized. Anyone know if they're planning on coming out with an IS version?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I've long wanted the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8. However, the only thing I don't like is that it's not image stabilized. Anyone know if they're planning on coming out with an IS version?

Tom,

It's something folk keep talking about. BTW, a lot of Canon photographers actually go for the 24-105, F4 L S, which does have IS but maybe not the specs or speed of the 24-70 2.8L.

Also the 12-24 Nikon G series lens, although MF, is stellar.

Asher
 

Tom Owen Meinen

New member
F/4 won't work for me because I need very fast lenses for what I shoot. I actually wish there were zoom lenses that could do F/1.8.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
F/4 won't work for me because I need very fast lenses for what I shoot. I actually wish there were zoom lenses that could do F/1.8.

Then truth be told, get a few primes. If one is doing low light work, having a 35 1.4 in your bag and a 50 1.4 on the camera will be far better than the 24-70 IS or not.

That and the 70-200 2.8 is about all one needs for most non-bird, non architecture work.

Especially if you go for a heavy camera like a 1D series, it will be stable enough for handheld at 1/f stop. Where things go crazy is in the longer distances and great pixel packing.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I have been told that optical stabilization of fast wide angle lenses is a problem, because the moving group would be very large. That would explain why there isn't any stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 on the market, even if they would sell like hot cakes.

Your only option is to get a stabilized camera (Sony or Pentax).
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I have been told that optical stabilization of fast wide angle lenses is a problem, because the moving group would be very large. That would explain why there isn't any stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 on the market, even if they would sell like hot cakes.

Your only option is to get a stabilized camera (Sony or Pentax).

What's the experience with them?

Asher
 

StuartRae

New member
I have been told that optical stabilization of fast wide angle lenses is a problem, because the moving group would be very large. That would explain why there isn't any stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 on the market, even if they would sell like hot cakes.

I have an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it works just fine. The reason why it doesn't sell like hot cakes is because is too damn expensive for what it is.

Regards,

Stuart
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I have an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it works just fine. The reason why it doesn't sell like hot cakes is because is too damn expensive for what it is.

By pure coincidence, I had one in my hands this afternoon. It is certainly quite big for an APS-C lens.

And yes: it works just fine. I never doubted that. I was just reporting what I read about the reason why stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 lenses do not exist. Or why stabilized f/1.4 lenses do not exist, etc...
 

Tom Owen Meinen

New member
Then truth be told, get a few primes. If one is doing low light work, having a 35 1.4 in your bag and a 50 1.4 on the camera will be far better than the 24-70 IS or not.

That and the 70-200 2.8 is about all one needs for most non-bird, non architecture work.

Especially if you go for a heavy camera like a 1D series, it will be stable enough for handheld at 1/f stop. Where things go crazy is in the longer distances and great pixel packing.

Asher

Yes. The lenses I own are the 30 mm Sigma f/1.4, the 50 mm Canon f/1.4, and the 85 mm Canon f/1.8. I used to own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but I found it hunted to focus too much in low light.

I think the Canon 24-70L will focus better in low light. Plus, when I get my 1D 3, it will do better high ISO performance than my 20D, allowing me to use f/2.8 more easily. I also want a zoom lens for studio work.

Another lens I want is the 50L. I've owned three different 50 mm lenses and have never been completely happy with any of them. I've owned the Canon 50 1.8 -- nice for the price, but hunted too much in low light. The Sigma 50 f/1.4 had wonderful bokeh, but also struggled some to focus in low light. The Canon 50 1.4 does the best of these in low light, but doesn't do as well from f/1.4 to 1.8 as my Sigma 30. Its bokeh also isn't quite as nice as the Siggy 50 was.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
If all the lenses you tried hunt too much in low light, it's probably not the lens which is at fault, but the camera...

Edit: another idea... I don't really remember how Canon does it, but if you can activate some kind of AF illuminator on your camera (red light which projects a set of lines on the subject), that will make more difference than any other change. If your camera does not have the light built-in, there is one on the Canon flashes. You should then read the manual to find out how to activate the light without activating the flash.

Obviously, the red light is not discrete, but since you appear to photograph concerts, that should not be a problem.
 

Tom Owen Meinen

New member
If all the lenses you tried hunt too much in low light, it's probably not the lens which is at fault, but the camera...

Edit: another idea... I don't really remember how Canon does it, but if you can activate some kind of AF illuminator on your camera (red light which projects a set of lines on the subject), that will make more difference than any other change. If your camera does not have the light built-in, there is one on the Canon flashes. You should then read the manual to find out how to activate the light without activating the flash.

Obviously, the red light is not discrete, but since you appear to photograph concerts, that should not be a problem.

Yes, I've used the red focus beam on my 430 EX flash to help with autofocus. Sometimes I'll shut the flash off in camera and use it just for focus assisting. However, it only works when set to one shot instead of AI servo, and the latter is more useful to me.

It will be interesting to see how my coming 1D Mark III does when I get it compared to my 20D. I've heard its autofocus is significantly better.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
What's the experience with them?

Asher

Since I just took photographs by night yesterday, maybe I can report in more details how well sensor based stabilization works.

Yesterday, I went to a star party with fellows amateur astronomers. I was there to take pictures. It was relatively dark (astronomy!) and if I had used a flash, I would have ruined the night vision adaptation of everyone. It wasn't too dark, though: we had full moon and some public lights in the distance. Using a tripod wasn't really an option either because I wanted to be free to move around the astronomical instruments to take people under various perspectives. A monopode would have been possible, but not very convenient.

To make a long story shorter, at iso 6400 and with a f/1.4 35mm lens, shutter speed was about 1/4s.

Obviously, I had some unsharp pictures, either because the people moved or because stabilization was unable to compensate for hand shake. But after I came home and counted, I would say that about half of the pictures were usable.

To me, this is the real benefit of stabilization: not that I will get 100% of sharp pictures at 1/25s on a 50mm lens, but that I will get some usable pictures in an otherwise impossible situation.

As to lens based stabilisation, in my experience it works just as well or maybe a bit better, but stabilized lenses are limited to f/2.8 and f/2.8 stabilized wide angles only exist for crop sensors. At f/2.8, I would have needed to go to 1s or to use a sensitivity of iso 25600. The latter is possible on cameras more modern than mine, actually.
 
Top