Curious, Canon only introduced two new lenses this year, and only one of them L-series (iirc). I was waiting until after the show to find out what to buy, to see if there were to be new options available. Seems like there is not much changing in the line-up though, so I figure its still pretty safe to buy lenses now, without fear of something new and awesome coming out.

Specifically I'm going to be buying a 70-200L f2.8 IS.

And I also want the 24-70L f/2.8. I was secretly hoping that Canon would release an IS version of the 24-70L f2.8, but it appears not.

Are these reasonable assumptions, and reasonable purchases? I'm going to be upgrading to the new 5DMkII (90% sure, at least) so these new lenses will replace my 28-135mm-EFS f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

comments, suggestions ?

As of now, there is no reason to think that it is technically possible to design a pro 2.8 trans-standard zoom with IS/VR. Nobody has managed to do it.

It would seem that Sony is probably doing the right thing with the body IS in their full frame A900... no problem even with bright lenses whose internal elements must be heavy and large, and therefore difficult to move quickly enough for efficient stabilization.

Cheers,
Bernard

I hadn't noticed that all the IS lenses were f/3.5-4 or higher. Interesting tradeoff. I have noticed that my 24-70 is very heavy for its relatively small zoom range. Hadn't thought about trying to dynamically adjust for shaking the camera in a lens that heavy.

Time will tell on the Lens IS versus body IS debate. I tend to prefer the body from a cost effectiveness point of view.

Well, I know this doesn't really count, but the EFS 17-55 meets that description and boy is it sharp. I had it but didn't like it and sold it.

thanks!

I did not know there is a technical limitation at fast focal lengths- interesting. Do you know why?

Given the new ISO capabilities (i.e. clear at 3200), I have a feeling that IS wouldn't be as big of a deal in the 24-70L since you get more than two stops (which the IS affords) from the added iso range (as opposed to the previous generation cameras which have so much noise at 3200 that they are pretty useless).

Not sure why that would be the case since my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 has big elements and VR.

FWIW, I told my brother to turn off image stabilization on his P&S camera and that resulted in fewer blurry shots. At the shorter focal lengths subject motion is a bigger issue than camera shake and the value of putting IS or VR in these mid range zooms is questionable in my opinion.

Depends what you shoot and what conditions it's in. If you just want sharp night cityscapes or any inanimate object it would be wonderful.

If you are really serious about those things, you use a tripod. The entire point of IS and VR is that you use them in places where a tripod is not practical, and that usually involves crowded places populated with people moving around too fast for slow shutter speeds. Here's my point: take away the people, animals, wind, the tripod, and shutter speeds that are simply too slow for IS to be efficacious, and you are left with only a marginally useful feature.

Unfortunately not everyone is really serious all the time. If i'm out with my camera and it gets dark and I see something I like i'd rather be able to capture it without having to ramp my iso right up or balance my camera on something.

Canon did introduced the 200mm L and 800mmL IS this year .I was hoping for a new 100-400mmL IS at Photokina or something in that range.. Also I don't think they will do anything with 24-70mm f2.8 because they replace it with 24-105 IS.
I read some post about Zeiss lenses for Canon which will be interesting.
But I understand your dilemma with the lenses because it is always hard to decide what to buy to best fit your needs

Look if you are serious and you are out with your camera, you are using a tripod and MLU even during the day. I know because I have seen the effects of vibration even at reasonably fast shutter speeds (anything under about 1/250). That raises yet another reason to not to include IS in a shorter focal length pro lens-- take away seriousness and you are left with less demanding user's needs. Slower amateur lenses do have IS, and they weigh less and cost less too, both of which are serious considerations for someone who just wants a lens to take snapshots with. If the feature only adds real value for something like 10% of its users, then it hardly makes sense to charge the other 90% of its users a premium to have it.

If you say so.

Canon still sells IS and non-IS versions of both the 70-200s and there are customers for both. There's no reason why they couldn't do the same with the standard zoom so that the 90% don't have to worry.

I presume you don't shoot from moving vehicles very often? A tripod on an overpass or even in strong wind will quiver. A monopod and IS make a mean versatile combination that isn't heavy to carry all day and doesn't trip people up.

This is true, I had forgotten about those two lenses! I'm pretty much decided on the 70-200 f/2.8, but am still on the fence about the 24-70 and the 24-105L IS f/4. I've rented the 24-105L before, for events and I like it. However, its hard to tell the difference (for me at least) with it to the 28-135 IS EF-S.

Am I missing another combination of lenses that will cover a wide range of focal lengths, and still be pro quality? Lenses are built to suit certain needs.... I think we had covered that- ad nauseum. So who uses the 24-70L vs the 24-105L ?

As far as I can figure, the 24-70 is sharper (true?), has IS, and shallower DOF (because I think with the new ISO capabilities, the lenses are pretty much the same speed...). Whereas the 24-105 has a wider focal length (making it better for events) and IS (again, the ISO capabilities are making the speed a smaller issue). Is this a fair comparison to make?

I've read the lens articles between the two, but still am at a loss of which one to choose. Originally the f/2.8 sounded more attractive, but is it no longer a matter of being a faster lens, to me. The shallower DOF and zoom potential seem to be the only differences.

Maybe then the 24-70L is a studio lens and the 24-105L is more of an everyday, walk about lens?

I use the 24-105 as my walking around lens, but for mission critical I fall back on the 24-70 (I use a tripod and mlu/remote generally in any event).

There's a big difference between shooting at longer focal lengths and at shorter focal lengths, and the efficacy of IS at longer versus shorter focal lengths is significantly diminished.



Shooting from moving vehicles is the antithesis of serious photography -- I refer to it as "drive-by photography." Unstable ground is a problem, but keep in mind that as soon as you give up the tripod and MLU you are compromising acuity and raising a serious question about why you bother to purchase an expensive lens. As for wind and tripod stability, weigh down your tripod.



Going back to the point I raised in my previous reply, you have that option with slower lenses.

Look, once you start compromising shooting discipline then the value of toting around an expensive and heavy lens diminishes and it simply makes more sense to carry a smaller and less expensive lens for those applications. Sure you can find narrow situations where it would be advantageous to have IS on a pro lens -- after all, every bit of image quality counts -- but as those situations become more and more narrow the reasons to invest in R&D, manufacture, and distribution of those lenses becomes less and less and the smaller market creates a push towards higher prices which negatively feeds back and drives the market down further and the price up further (the companies need to recover their investment, so they consequently have to charge more).

So the question is: How much would you pay for IS on that lens? If it were a cheap fix, then it would be on all the lenses. I believe the difference on my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 is about $500 compared to the previous non-VR 80-200/2.8, and the Nikkor 16-85 costs about $250 more than the Nikkor 18-70 that it replaced; the additional costs of VR for many consumer lenses is significantly less though. Also, would you give up some image quality for IS? Again, that option is already available with slower lenses, and ultimately the availability or lack thereof of products is based on market forces.

ho hum. another thread, another pissing contest.


Anyways, to see what I mean about the articles on these lenses, I would point to Bill Caulfeild-Browne and Michael R.'s article.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...es/28-105.shtml

I agree with what Micheal is saying about them, so it basically leaves me to evaluate the DOF and zoom. I'm leaning towards the 24-105mmL IS I think.

True, there are indeed many longer lenses with IS/VR, but not a single short bright lens, right?

I am not saying it is impossible, just that as of now I have not seen a single example. Since having both a very wide aperture and VR would open new applications, I would think that both Nikon and Canon would be interested in releasing such lenses (24-70 f2.8, 85 mm f1.2/f1.4,...) but it has just not happened yet.

It could be weight related, but my guess is that it might have to do with the shape/position/size of the elements that would have to be moved to enable stabilization.

It could be interesting to compare the size of the smallest element in these various lenses. I have not checked, but I would think that the size of the smallest elements around the middle of the lens (where it is possible to physically locate the VR/IS element) in these lenses is typically larger than it is with longer designs. Indeed, there is less space to enable the convergence of the light rays while preserving high enough an image quality.

Again, this is not backed up by firm facts, just trying to guess.

Cheers,
Bernard

Mostly a question of priorities and market demand IMO.

I have both lenses, the 24-70f2.8L and the 24-105 f4 IS. I use these lenses on my 40D (used to have a 20D) and my new 1DsMkIII (used to have a 1DsMkII). I have done any formal tests, I just shoot a lot of pictures in various settings - landscape, kid sports, horse races, vacations etc.

The 24-105 has become my "standard" lens. It's more compact, lighter and does not have the obnoxiously large lens hood like the 24-70. The IS is a nice touch and it works well. I still use a tripod for my landscape photos.

You can see some images shot with the 24-105 lens on my web site.

If I could only have one of these, I definitely would take the 24-105 over the 24-70.

Cheers.
Bud

I made a comparison of the two lenses a couple of years ago here.

For general use I would recommend the 24-105 as it have IS that to me is more
important than one stop more that is a bit soft (but still good thou).

Ronny

I had both the the 24-70 and 24-105 and sold both of them in the end. The 24-70 is a little better compared to a 24-105, but both were not what I wanted on a 1DsMk3. So I switched to the Leica 35-70. I would wish Canon could give us a new 24-70 2.8 or 4.0 with IS. It could even be a 28-70 or 35-70, as long as they deliver a lens that can be compared to some primes in that range. Companies like leica and Zeiss, Schneider, Mamyia show that it is possible.


But what i REALLY hoped for was a new 100-400 or 200-400. That oled thing sucks like hell and is a waste of money. Nikon has done it so plz Canon do it as well ;-)

I will pick the 24-105/4L if I can only have 1 lens between the 2. The 24-70/2.8 has more distortion (base on the lens I have) at the range of 50-70mm compares to the 24-105/4 which is the range I use a lot, so optically I gave the 2 lenses equal performance, and for close, 50-70mm range, the 24-105/4 to me is a better lens. The only thing I missed is that being a f/4 lens, when it became darker in late of the day, the AF becomes not very effective, it is when you will wish a faster lens. I use to have more problem with my 1Ds MK2 when the on-camera sharpness check is less effective, and now with 1Ds MK3 faster control and larger screen does help a lot.

On the subject of comparing the 24-70 with the 24-105. My experience with the lenses is that the
24-70 is quite soft at 2.8 but much better stopped down. The 24-105 is very sharp.

However, for me the one area where the 24-70 wins is with the lens hood. When shooting at the long end and against the light it is much more flare resistant due to the hood being so deep. The 24-105 by contrast suffers quite a lot with flare with its cutaway hood.

Just my experience. This is with 5D and 1Ds 111 cameras.

Jim

Wow, Awesome advice guys! thanks! looks like the 105 f/4 would be a much better fit for me... as an all rounder.

PMA is in january, right? is there any possibility that there would be new canon glass at that show?

First, I think the short/fast zooms may not have a construction which makes image stablisation easy in larger lenses with smaller central elements, though I guess the market will demand it and Canon/Nikon will be forced to produce it. From the makers point of view, I suspect it is cheaper to make a slightly slower lens with stabilisation than a slightly faster one without, so they assume people will take it as an option to optical speed.

Secondly, I have in-body stabilisation in my E3 and have tried it with the Sony 900 and have to say it is very effective. It certainly wasn't something that swayed my decision when I bought my body but now I have it I find it much more useful than I ever expected. It works with all lenses, even old manual screw mount lenses used with an adaptor. Sony have been very wise going with this option. I got good results with the Zeiss 24-70 even at 1/4 second (amazingly).

For a camera manufacturer with a significant "film" user base, in-lens IS is the only option available. An in-body IS is not an option at all, for obvious reasons, since if the lenses don't have built-in IS, they will not provide I.S on the film bodies.

Makers like Sony who provide in-body IS, on Full-frame digital bodies, do not have to contend with a userbase who shoots film, and hence they have moved full tilt into in-body I.S., which obviously provides stabilized shots with all lenses, including the el-cheapo 50mm f/1.7.

Cause yeah, planning your future around film is the way to go.

I'd be surprised if backward compatibility with film SLR were still high on the priority list of Canon and Nikon...

I think that Canon/Nikon not having released body side VR bodies yet does have more to do with other factors:

- patents
- past investements in lens VR technology
- concerns regarding reliability and basic body performance with body side VR (difficulty of maintaining the sensor exactly perpendicular to lens axis, impact of shocks when a body falls,...)
- advantages of lens stabilisation
-> the optical viewfinder is stabilized too
-> technology enhancement can be rolled out lens by lens and therefore tuned for each lens's specific requirements that are going to impact typical vibration patterns (weight, inertia center location, typical handling,...)
-> location of the acceleration sensor probably makes more sense in the lens than in the body,
- lack of combined solution using both lens and body side VR because of lack of communication between body and lens as far as VR real time information goes
- ...

Regards,
Bernard

The biggest question I ask myself is; why do they introduce so many camera's and so little lenses.

They're up to 21mpx for christ sake, you're not telling me they'd be able to build better digital lenses and market these as such. Who wouldn't buy them?

I think it depends on what you're shooting. I also own both of these lenses and an Eos-1Ds III. Optically both lenses are very good, but the 24-70 is just that little bit sharper, particularly at the wide end. The 24-105 does indeed have a smaller lens hood, but it's a lot shallower and less effective too. More importantly to me, the 24-105 vignettes badly. Even when stopped down to f:16 there is still enough vignetting in a blue sky to make stitching a major pain in the ass, requiring a lot of post-processing to make the files usable. The 24-70 doesn't have this problem at all. Then again, that extra reach at the long end of the 24-105 means a lot less lens swapping in the field.

So I tend to use the 24-105 when I want just a single 'walk-around' lens on the camera. For this it's quite nice. If I'm taking landscape photos on a tripod, however, the 24-70 wins hands down.

Unless you shoot a lot at 2.8, you might want to consider the 70-200 f/4 IS. It is considerably sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I traded the later in for the former and have never looked back.

dr gary

That's a false blanket statement. There are good and bad copies of everything. I went from the 4 to 2.8 and both were equally good at 4+.

I agree, I found my 2.8 IS a little disappointing on the DsIII compared to the f4IS and swapped.

I didn't have any big issues with my 2.8. I read a lot of threads and reviews regarding the 70-200 f/4 IS and they universally praised it and said it was the sharpest zoom made by Canon and one of the sharpest by anyone. My personal experience agrees with them. They have a lot more experience than I do.

drgary

Yes, if anything about this Alpha 900 camera is interesting it would be the image stabilisation. I just did a test here, with very dark and rainy weather and the good old Minolta Macro 100mm / 2.8 on the new camera. Shot at about 35cm from the glass, handheld. Shutter speed was 1/125s, which is not much at such an enlargement (and after yet another night without sleep). Manual focus. I also took a shot from a tripod and there was absolutely no difference in sharpness whatsoever. Here is the full frame (scaled down to 25%) and a crop at 100% pixel size. (Hopefully you have a good monitor to see the smooth gradients of the blurred backround without posterization.)

The full image:
Click to view attachment

The crop at 100% pixelsize:
Click to view attachment

I had the 70-200 f4 (pre-IS version) and it was very sharp. I purchased the 70-200 f2.8 IS for the IS option and this lens is as sharp form what I can see. The IS works great but it's a hefty lens compared to the f/4 version, the having one filter size among my all my lenses is a nice convenience. I use the the f2.8 IS lens on my 40D and 1DsMkIII bodies.

Now that I find myself not using many filters, except for a polarizer, I'm considering buying the new 70-200 f4 IS for the lighter weight and smaller size.

Cheers.
Bud James