DSLRUsers.com

A friend mentioned to me after coming back from Japan, that he heard rumours about an IS version being made of the 24-70f2.8L.

Has anyone else heard or read the same anywhere

Dunno if he was just pulling my leg or not....

I sooooo wish they would. The 24-105IS f4 is OK but f2.8 would be tops.

I would love one, even though I'd lose money on my existing 24-70 I'd very likely buy one. Usual caveats about not losing image quality and not being too heavy and expensive.

Adding IS would be a nice but I don't think it would make me rush out to replace the lens I have. I've never found a time where not have IS on this lens has been an issue.

it'd be cool but i wouldn't bother swapping mine for the IS version. Just switch to faster primes for that sort of range

I bet that lens would cost a pretty dollar!

Excuse me guys, while we are talking about Canon Lenses allow me a silly question: how would you rate the Sigma 70 – 300 APO DG against the Canon Lenses - Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM?

I've got no doubt we'll see one eventually, but I think the 24-70 [non-IS] will continue to stick around as well. Just like the 70-200's.

zafra52 wrote:how would you rate the Sigma 70 – 300 APO DG against the Canon Lenses - Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM?

I had the APO Macro II version of that lens, and for the price the Sigma was hard to beat. The Canon you mention is significantly more expensive ($750 vs $250) and I've never used one. The Sigma seemed to me to be better than the older Canon 100-300 that I tried and the non-IS Canon. Given the choice, I'd spend the extra $100 and get the 70-200/4 rather than the 70-300 IS just because I expect the image quality would be significantly better.

Overall, expect the 70-300 zooms to be soft past 250mm, and to extend as you zoom. My cynical side says the Canon 70-300 IS is a $250 lens like the Sigma, only with $500 worth of IS thrown in.

Thank you Moz. Some how I would have expected the Canon 70-300 IS lens to be sharper considering the price difference. Except that you would need the IS for the 70-200 and as big as aperture as you can, wouldn't you?

zafra52 wrote:I would have expected the Canon 70-300 IS lens to be sharper considering the price difference.

You should look for comparitive reviews to find that out. Fred Miranda will have it I'm sure, and playing with a search engine might throw up someone who's got A-B comparisons of the IS and non options.

Except that you would need the IS for the 70-200

Depends how you want to use it, and how much you're willing to carry and pay. Personally, I think the 70-200/4 at 200mm is going to be sufficiently sharper as well as probably 1/2 stop faster so that even a little shaking is still going to give you a better shot than the 70-300 with IS. But I don't know. What I am certain of is that on a tripod, or faster than 1/250th or so, the 70-200 is going to be significantly better than the 70-300.

I mean, sure, people like me have the 70-200/2.8 IS and that's a much better lens... for only 2.5x the cost of the 70-200/4, and going on 10x the cost of the Sigma 70-300/5.6. But if you want real joy at 300mm you're looking at the 300/4 or the 300/2.8IS. The Sigma 120-300/2.8 gives you nearly 300mm at really nice quality, but it's not stabilised and it's heavy enough that it's a tripod lens for most people.

moz wrote:....but it's not stabilised and it's heavy enough that it's a tripod lens for most people.

But a sweet lens none the less.

hope its true. It would probably cost 1k more then the current 24-70, so it looks like it'll be similar to the price of the 70-200f2.8IS.

If they did release one, i would probably be in the sell the 24-70 and upgrade to the IS bandwagon.

Id say they wouldn't - it'll butcher the 24-105 which is apretty recent lens.

Ronza wrote:Id say they wouldn't - it'll butcher the 24-105 which is apretty recent lens.

I seriously doubt it'll butcher it.

The 24-70 is already a couple of hundred more expensive than the 24-105.

Add Image Stabilisation into the mix, and you're looking at a price difference of around $1,000 between the two lenses.

24-70 would still be a full stop faster, while the 24-105 has the obvious reach advantage.

ESPECIALLY given the price gap, there's still plenty of room for them to co-exist alongside each other.

EDIT:

Pretty similar situation to the introduction of the 17-55 2.8 IS I would suggest.

That didn't stop the 17-85 being produced, and they're even closer than the 24-70/24-105 would be.

Ronza wrote:Id say they wouldn't - it'll butcher the 24-105 which is apretty recent lens.

70-200f/4; 70-200f.4IS; 70-200f/2.8; 70-200f2.8IS all co-exist.

Hi
Look at this , but do not take it seriously 24-70 L USM 2.8 IS and EFS 17-55 L 2.8 USM

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/di ... bates.html