A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > IS speculation

Featured Equipment Deals

Publish Yourself - Photobooks Intro Read More

Publish Yourself - Photobooks Intro

Jeff Spirer introduced photographers to some of the photobook printing options available today

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

A Brief History of Photography - Part I (Video Tutorial) Read More

A Brief History of Photography - Part I (Video Tutorial)

This video tutorial gives a succinct overview of the discovery and development of photography from the origins of the camera obscura through the Daguerrotype process. Next week's tutorial will cover...


IS speculation

Yakim Peled , Jun 13, 2006; 09:52 a.m.

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.

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Paul Marbs , Jun 13, 2006; 10:09 a.m.

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..

Mark Nagel , Jun 13, 2006; 10:16 a.m.

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

Yakim Peled , Jun 13, 2006; 10:19 a.m.

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.

craig zac , Jun 13, 2006; 10:29 a.m.

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-

Ken Papai , Jun 13, 2006; 10:52 a.m.

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!

Grant Gaborno , Jun 13, 2006; 11:32 a.m.

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.

Mike Broderick , Jun 13, 2006; 11:59 a.m.

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.

Steve Dunn , Jun 13, 2006; 12:26 p.m.

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.

Juha Kivekas , Jun 13, 2006; 03:55 p.m.

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.


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses