Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM

[michael_young3]

<blockquote>

<p>there is a real need for IS on the 24-70 2.8L</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is the 24-105/4L IS, which you can _almost_ tell apart from the 24-70/2.8L in lens charts at same aperture. I wonder if it's even worth the time to scrape the photo catalogs to see how often I shoot wide open.</p>

 

[pgranone]

<p>I will stick with the Canon EF 70-200 F4 (non IS). An excellent lens.<br>

When I need a faster lens in the 70-200 range I used the Canon EF 85mm F1.8</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Just because you don't doesn't mean some of us don't. The real beauty of the 2.8 is that you can use it there. Now I have posted this shot often so sorry to those I bore, but this is a perfect example of what IS on my 24-70 could have done, I didn't have it so this shot is lost.</p><div></div>

[fotograf]

<p>Robin, you generally don't need IS in lenses shorter than 100mm so 24-70 would not benefit from IS.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Yeah, those are maddening. It was some time before I swallowed the pill and shot a second one at higher ISO for insurance. Of course, you can't always do that, grab shots being what they are.</p>

<p>If it matters for anything, LR says I shoot at widest aperture a far bit more than I imagined I did. Not so much for available light but there were some of those as well.</p>

 

[dogbert]

<p>Pentax and Sony's entry level dslr have in built IS. The IS unit probably adds less the $50 to the cost of the body. Seems like the perfect solution to those wanting a 24-70 IS without having to pay an extra $500, not to mention people like me that would like a bit of IS in primes, macros and wideangles without have to fork out/replace for each and every lens.<br>

Pity Canon won't give this to us. I suspect it would actually be a game changer breaking Canon away from its stale mindset that has seen it lose a lot of ground to its competitors.</p>

 

[fotograf]

<p>I wouldn't even compare "pentax" and "sony" to Canon- like comparing a Volkswagen to a Rolls Royce.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Indeed, and how many cars do Rolls Royce sell compared to Volkswagen?</p>

[ujwal]

<p>U cant use a rolls royce to go to work everyday. VWs are perfect for it....VW will do the same thing better for much less for longer and u will still get to keep the house.</p>

[infinity99]

<p>now I think I can afford the MK I ;)</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>I had the 70-200 f/4 is I up graded to the 2.8 IS, I haven't noticed any difference in IQ between the two, the only thing I missed was the size,weight and the cash from my pocket.<br>

I will not be upgrading to the 2.8 MKII the price in the UK is £2700, there is nothing I can't do with my MK1 that I will be able to do with the MKII.<br>

The only difference in IQ that I have noticed is at 200mm at 2.8 the IQ is <strong>slightly</strong> worse.<br>

I also will not be getting the 24-70 IS if they make one,as you can see the price difference between all the 70-200 lenses can be quite dramatic, so if I had to guess a 24-70 2.8 IS would be around £1500, I think I payed enough at £900. I agree with what has been said here before that below 100mm IS is not a must have, especially with the improvements of high ISO. Unless you are already always using a tripod with a 24-70 lens, and I don't mean landscapes because IS would not stop me using a tripod for this, then maybe a upgrade might be worth it, but for me I would not part with my money for <em>" just in case I might need it" </em>thinking.<br>

I think IS is more important for slow lenses below 100mm then fast ones</p>