IS speculation

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by yakim_peled|1, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. I speculate that Canon will soon introduce two more IS variants to existing lenses: 70-200/4 L and 24-70/2.8 L. Why do I think so? 70-200/4: If we assume that IS is more important as focal length increases, there is no logic in giving it to the 24-105/4 while denying it from the longer 70-200/4 L. 24-70/2.8: I see two reasons to upgrade it to IS. 1. It's EF-S equivalent (17-55/2.8) has one and it is illogical to have it in the EF-S line while denying it from the EF version, which is many pro photographer's bread and butter lens. 2. It's F/4 equivalent (24-105/4) has one and it is illogical to have it in the "lower" f/4 line while denying it from the "upper" f/2.8 version. What "soon" will actually mean is another issue but anyone see any fault in this logic? Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  2. Sounds logical to me Yakim but I thought speculation was banned on this forum? Sadly i have no IS lenses yet although a got a new 70-200 f4 just yesterday..
     
  3. The logic seems right, but the 24-70L is a big lens now. Adding IS might steer some away from it if it becomes larger. Canon might think the speed will overcome the need for a bulkier IS version. m
     
  4. This is not a "When Canon will..." post or "Why Canon don't..." post but an attempt to see what other members in this forum think about this issue. Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  5. when and if they (canon) get off their duffs and introduce an f2.8 is in a more usable range with L quality, i am so there! The ef-s 17-55 sounds great but its too short... and its got the L price point but not the L build... pfffft! the 24-70 is great but i wont touch it till its got IS. id love a protype body from Canon with built in IS so I could buy more decent glass! But thats just me. Most of you out there dont mind lugging a tripod or shooting only with fast speeds..i cant, im to shakey to hand hold with good results! -zacker-
     
  6. I would MUCH rather Canon spend their R&D money on fast new lenses without adding I.S. to existing lenses. I wouldn't buy one at all. The last thing I want to see is a 24-70 IS. Next to last is a silly 70-200 F4 IS (the 2.8L IS version already exists). To a few people combining the slow f4's with IS means they think they have a 'fast' lens and wonder why photos of their running pets or children are still blurry after sinking so much more cash into IS. Please stop doing this Canon!
     
  7. Yakim, I think you reasoning is wrong. There is no need to fill the 24-xx/2.8 line. Using the 17-55IS and the 24-105IS, I find that they are comparable and a shorter focal range f/2.8IS version would not be any better or lighter. If they make another f/4IS zoom lens I'm thinking it should be longer than 70-200, perhaps a 100-300/4IS? But I doubt that too. What I think they should do is revise and update the non-L primes to IS lenses. 50/1.4 or 1.2, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro. L primes would be nice too, but I'd hate to see the prices! IS is the 'hot' marketing ticket right now, and I hope Canon makes the best of it.
     
  8. I can see some logic to putting IS on the 70-200/4, though I also see value (from Canon's perspective, and even from photog's perspective) in leaving it as is. As it stands, this lens is one of the cheapest L lenses, and it is quite portable. IS would mean more cost and weight. Canon may view the f4 version as the equivalent of a drug dealer's "free sample"....A way for customers to try an L lens on the cheap, and hopefully get "addicted" so that they have to spend on the more expensive stuff. Depends on whether Canon intends to milk every lens for all the dollars they can get from it, or whether they take a more subtle (but not necessarily better) view of trying to lure customers into the L market. As for the 24-70/2.8, I don't feel IS is as strongly needed here. The upgrade is possible, but for some reason I don't see it. This lens was upgraded from the 28-70 just a couple of years ago, and as others have pointed out, it's already rather heavy. I wouldn't be surprised to see an upgrade to the 100-400L lens. It's getting rather long in the tooth, with old-version IS and no weatherproofing.
     
  9. I'll chime in here, but of course I've been wrong before, so don't believe anything I say :)
    I would be surprised to see an upgrade to the 100-400. Canon has never released a II version of an IS lens, and while they may start sometime, I don't see any compelling reason why it would be now. And there's an even older L IS lens (the 300/4) which, likewise, has old IS and no weather sealing, so if the basis is "it's old and hasn't been upgraded" then the 300 ought to get its upgrade first.
    I think a 70-200/4L IS USM makes some sense, in that IS is particularly useful on a telephoto lens, but there's also a big obstacle. The 70-200/4 serves two purposes (other than as a way get people addicted to L): it's highly portable due to being smaller and lighter than its big brother, and it's inexpensive (for an L lens). I don't believe IS would mess up the first bit too badly (it added very little size or weight to the 300/4, and in the grand scheme of things, the size and weight it added to the 70-200/2.8 aren't a big deal), but the added cost of IS would blow up the "inexpensive" bit.
    I don't see much need to add IS to the 24-70. IS is useful in a fast lens, sure, but not as much as in a slower and longer lens, and the 24-105 is both.
     
  10. A decision of bringing an IS version is certainly down to a very carefull market analysis. They will not bring one should it threaten another well selling product of theirs, especially another new well selling product of theirs. If it would be a natural replacement of a very old construction, then perhaps.
    I don't see them bringing IS to the 70-200/4 L as there is a prosumer EF70-300 with IS and the hiking-compatible DO-version.
    EF24-70/2.8 L is a pro lense which has already an IS variant in the 24-105/4 IS. I think customer satisfaction with EF24-70/2.8 L is already very very high. It sells well. However, there may be some need to distinguish the EF24-70/2.8 from the Tamron's optically almost as good 28-75/2.8 XR DI which costs only a third of the Canon version. Then again, photographic agencies, magazines and news mags buy EF24-70/2.8 L as a norm. Let's put it this way: Would the targeted market segment prefer an EF 24-70/2.8 L IS over an EF 24-70/2.4 L? I doubt it even if I am an IS-fan.
     
  11. I think a 70-200/4L IS would be more likely than a 24-70/2.8L IS, but I wouldn't bet against either eventually appearing in the Canon line. Of course, without insight into Canon's market research and strategic plans, none of us has a clue as to what they're most likely to develop next, or ever. Personally, I'd rather see Canon update their prime lens line-up to all ring USM models, and improve the quality of their wide-angle glass. But if they *were* to release a 70-200/4L IS, I'd sell my current 70-200/4L "tomorrow" (and probably at a fire-sale price) to buy the IS version, which would almost certainly debut above $1,000 US; probably for the same price as the current 70-200/2.8L non-IS. And there's no reason why Canon would necessarily *have* to discontinue the current 70-200/4L in the event of a 70-200/4L IS debut. After all, the 70-200/2.8L is available in both non-IS and IS versions. It would all depend on their market plans and sales forecasts.
     
  12. I suspect that more people than you realize understand and appreciate the practical differences between an f/4 IS lens and an f/2.8 non-IS lens in the same focal length. Despite your pleadings, recent product announcements would suggest that Canon has no intention to stop putting IS into its slower lens offerings.
     
  13. I had always hoped that Canon listened to me more than anyone else! I can dream too and my dream is no more EF-S and no more IS on existing lenses. Other than that upgrade all the old, non-ring USM lenses and I'll open my wallet.
     
  14. I would buy a 1000 USD 70-200 F/4 IS L lens tomorrow. This would give me the flexibility and portability of the 70-300 DO IS, and a bit better image quality. I think the future lies with IS in the camera, not the lens. That is a very useful feature, as it works with all the lenses, of course. Olympus, and now Sony, are going the right way about it.
     
  15. Thank you for your thoughts. I want to make clear that it's not a "Which lens should Canon upgrade next?" kind of post. It's also not a "Would I buy these lenses?" kind of post. I was trying to forecast the actual probability of these specific two variants, while trying to think like Canon marketing guys. I agree with those who think that Canon should also upgrade their cheap primes to ring-USM and IF. However, this was not the objective of this post. Any more thoughts? Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  16. The standard Canon photojourno pack consists of:
    - EF 16-35/2.8 L
    - EF 24-70/2.8 L
    - EF 70-200/2.8 L
    Almost all Canon agency users have this set. A part of this market segment is very conservative putting a lot of emphasis on reliability and no-"bs". I think this is the reason why Canon has kept the EF70-200/2.8 also as a non-IS version. The non-IS does have slightly better optics than the IS -version ( tests. I guess you could say that Canon has to guard their reputation as a quality glass maker. They don't want to give any excuses for pros to move over to Nikon camp.
    The EF 24-70/2.8 L has such a good user satisfaction and being a short to normal lense it would not benefit that much from the IS as a longer lense. I think that a big share of the pros would prefer the non-IS version.
    The EF70-200/4 L sounds nice, but with the extra IS weight it would no longer be the super light and super cheap L-series lense. The more plastic EF70-300 DO IS is the trekkable telesoom with IS. And yes, also I think the biggest shortcoming in the Canon range is the lack of ring USM in part of the lenses.
     
  17. It makes perfect sense (and has been highly anticipated/wished for by me for a long time) given the EF-S 17-55 outshines it on paper fow low light work (you get a Noctilux zoom minus the DoF), and given the 70-200 is offered in 3 flavours... I don't see it hurting non-IS sales, as it would most likely be a little less sharp than the non-IS (and more $ of course), as with the 70-200/2.8s...just a guess of course. Marketting angle: Nan Golden switches to 24-70L f/2.8IS and 5D for the "Heroin Chic" Picture Style...with a pic of her working out to carry the extra weight of the setup over her M gear...:)
     
  18. >> It makes perfect sense Finally a sensible man...... :) Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  19. "I had always hoped that Canon listened to me more than anyone else! I can dream too and my dream is no more EF-S and no more IS on existing lenses. Other than that upgrade all the old, non-ring USM lenses and I'll open my wallet." You're a good sport, Ken. Other than the "no more IS" part, I share your dream!
     
  20. The extra cost of an IS unit is interesting. For the 70-200/2.8 lens it is like $600, which is the cost of the 70-300/IS lens itself. Lens diameter and f stop probably dictate this, so a 70-200/4L IS would probably add between $600 and $200. Where I think the 70-200/4L IS would make sense is as a killer of the 70-200/2.8 HSM from Sigma. I've posted back a few months a look at all the prices and how the 4L IS could come in with-in a $100 bucks of the Sigma, which in my book would make it a Sigma Killer. IS adds 0.6 pounds to the 2.8L, and would be less than that for an F4L IS. If half a pound (couple hundred grams) makes that big of a difference may I suggest leaving you cell phone and pocket change at home, or going to the gym a bit more often. I personally would practice curls with a can of beer to get me in shape for a F4L IS. Since I have a 70-200/2.8L IS and will add a teleconvertor soon, the lens I want to see is the 400/5.6 with IS added. I'd really like to see the 400/4.5 from the FD mount brought back, but that might be too much to ask.
     
  21. I agree, I have been predicting a IS variant of the 70-200/4 since the 24-105/4 was anounced.
     
  22. I really dream a 70-200 f/4 IS! Think about the big advantage to use this lens in long trip of hiking! And what about to use it with teleconverter 1,4X or 2X! If canon will produce this lens and it will cost about 1000 US$ i will buy it tha same day that it will arrive in the shop. About the 24-70 IS version, i don't think that it can be usefull tha same. I mean 24-70 is already a perfect lens, if i need a IS lens, 24-105 f/4 is wonderfull even because it has also extra 35mm focal lenght. Anyway IS is a great technology, like the Eye control that i'd like to see on DSLR! Bye www.photonature.it
     
  23. Judging from the current 70-200/2.8 non-IS vs. 70-200/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 non-IS vs. 70-200/4 IS the difference will be minute. Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  24. Maybe I'm being stupid, but isn't there a 70-200f4LIS already?
     
  25. I am being stupid! Just noticed that dates on this thread...
     
  26. Seems Yakim was correct! :)
     
  27. And now, for the 24-70/2.8 IS.... :) Happy shooting, Yakim.
     
  28. Well, I got this one wrong. The 24-70/2.8 II was just released and it does not have IS. Guess I won't make it to Canon's marketing managers team. :)
    A point of light comes from Tamron who just released a 24-70/2.8 VC. What's more, it also offers Ultrasonic motor, a first at Tamron if I'm not mistaken.
    I now wonder if a 6 year thread is any kind of record here at PN. :)
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     

Share This Page