Canon 2.8 IS EF Lenses - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

03/11/2008 11:49:55 PM · #1

I can't seem to find a Canon 2.8 (or better) lens with IS - the closest is the EF-S but nothing for good ole EF.

Am I missing something, or is there a reason why fast EF lenses don't feature IS?

N

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

03/11/2008 11:52:20 PM · #2

what about the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS?

03/11/2008 11:55:38 PM · #3

Originally posted by trevytrev:

what about the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS?

Can't find it on the Canon UK site?

Was hoping for something more like 24-70 2.8 IS if there was such a thing, but doesn't appear to be one :(

N

Prof_Fate

03/12/2008 07:56:37 AM · #4

Canon has gone IS crazy of late and more and more of their new lenses are IS. The 24-70 isn't one of them (yet). The 17-55 2.8 IS is an excellent lens and IS is handy at that focal length, allowing handholding to 1/5 second. Yeah, one fifth.
The 24-105 F4 IS is out there if you don't need 2.8. Used to be the extra stop really helped with focus, but the 40D kind of eliminated that need for most situations.

Unless you know you'll be replacing your 30D with a FF body withing a year or so just get the EFS, use it, and when/if you upgrade, sell it.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/12/2008 08:31:14 AM · #5

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Unless you know you'll be replacing your 30D with a FF body withing a year or so just get the EFS, use it, and when/if you upgrade, sell it.

That's the plan Prof....upgrade the 30D to the new 5D whenever that is (hence no EF-S lenses).

Seeing as the updated 5D might be a little while (depending which rumour mill you subscribe to) I figured I'd start sorting lenses first. My main problem is that I have a large hole in my lenses from 50mm to 100mm, and my 17-40 has seen better days. The plan was to either get the 24-105 f4 and maybe an 85mm f1.8, or 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. Obviously option 2 is a lot more expensive, more lenses to carry, but faster. Thing is, I'd really like a 2.8 lens on as a 'main' lens, having lived with the 17-40 f4 since my Eos 3, but I'd also like IS if I'm spending the money.

Can you think of any others I should consider? Fingers crossed I've got a buyer for my house and I'm going to earmark about 3-5k (GBP) for a new body and lenses.

Cheers

N

gloda

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/12/2008 09:03:59 AM · #6

I heard rumours about an IS version of the 24-70 2.8 EF when I was researching for my upgrade, but that might be years away. I went for the 17-55 2.8 IS and whilst the EF-S can later become a disadvantage I found that on my crop sensor the 24-70 wouldn't have been wide enough for my style.
And yes, at 17mm, 1/5 is no problem at all if you don't have moving subjects.

Prof_Fate

03/12/2008 10:21:55 AM · #7

With a FF you'll want the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200. Get them all in 2.8/IS and it'll cost ya $4200.
Same bit on a Crop body is 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 (again, 2.8 IS) and it adds to $3400.
The 40D is tons and worlds better than the 30D - same IQ as the current 5D and about 90% as good on noise at highest ISO. Yeah, it's that good. And it's $1150 vs $2200. And the new 5D will prolly be around $3000, but no doubt with killer high ISO.

What are the benefits to the FF set up over a crop setup? Currently not much. With the new body perhaps a lot. You'll get all L lenses, weather sealed lenses, less DOF for the same given lens/aperture, brighter viewfinder.

What are the benefits to a crop setup? A lot less cash outlay, main lens is IS, the 70-200 acts like a 112-320 2.8.

I'd like a 1D3 and I'd too want/need a new main lens so that makes the conversion bloody expensive. So I am growing my lens collection also. A new 5D2 is going to be very tempting and it will be less than a 1D3. Eventually I'll get one or the other, but my crop bodies will be kept around so I'll get a few more years use from my EF-S lenses.

I've also heard the rumout of a 24-70 2.8 IS...based on canon's lens releases over the past couple of years I'd expect it, but the cost will be up there - $1500 range no doubt.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/12/2008 11:18:51 AM · #8

In my opinion, for what it's worth, IS on wide angle lenses just isn't worth the cost. Even without IS you can handhold a wide angle at reasonable speeds, and if your shutter is any slower than what you can handhold, chances are high that your subject is going to move anyway making IS pointless.

The worst example of this is the Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS lens. I bought this lens. It's the only one I feel bad about having bought. It is maybe a $300 lens (quality wise) masquerading as a $600 lens (due to IS). The quality of that lens just isn't worth the premium you pay for the privilege of using IS that is really never needed.

Long lenses, on the other hand, are a completely different story. The longer the lens, the harder it is to handhold it at any speed (unless you have a lot of light).

So again, my opinion: Spend your IS money on long lenses. On shorter lenses go for the cheaper non-IS versions.

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/12/2008 11:24:20 AM · #9

the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 has nothing but kudos on this site. Could be worth a look. If you want to upgrade it will work on FF too.

ZeppKash

Samsung Pro815

03/12/2008 11:32:15 AM · #10

Quasi, have you considered that the high ISO capabilities of the 5D might more than make up for the IS on a smaller sensor? (if that makes sense)

I don't know the answer to that, actually i'm just wondering out loud.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/12/2008 01:01:22 PM · #11

Thanks for the replies...will handle them all in one post if okay:

ZeppKash - call me old school/purist/idiot but I always prefer to shoot lowest possible ISO whenever I can...and I know my 30D doesn't have great high ISO ability but even with the highly improved high ISO on the 40D or any 5D mkII I'd still rather keep that for backup/when needed rather than relying on higher ISO with slower lenses or IS.

Tez - sorry, Tamron is against my religion! :)

dwterry - thanks - that does sound like good advice and makes sense. If the 24-70 does come out with IS then that will be the one for me I think, just because having IS on a 2.8 lens for the middle to long end on a main lens would just be lovely.

Prof_Fate - you do put a compelling argument forward to just upgrade to a 40D and use the extra savings to get lenses, but as good as it is I have always lusted for full frame since I left film to go digital - and finally it is within my grasp, so I just really don't want to invest in EF-S lenses. Also it means that I can keep my 30D as a backup and change lenses with a 5D2 or whatever it's called.

N

Jedusi

03/12/2008 01:19:20 PM · #12

It's not 'IS' but it's a good price - try this link

edit to correct link

Message edited by author 2008-03-12 13:19:51.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

03/12/2008 03:15:08 PM · #13

This one is a good 2.8 lens with dual-mode IS:

. . (click to enlarge)

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/12/2008 03:41:33 PM · #14

There are the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8L IS lenses and there's a new Canon 200mm f/2L IS too. Not cheap but it's there. Like has been said before, IS isn't really necessary on the shorter lenses and is more or less a marketing thing.

Photologist

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/12/2008 03:51:00 PM · #15

Originally posted by SamDoe1:

...IS isn't really necessary on the shorter lenses and is more or less a marketing thing.

Be careful about making these types of statements.

IS isn't all about focal length. IS is a must for available light (read: low-light) situations in which the exposure time is longer than you can handhold the camera with a non-IS lens, regardless of focal length.

So, with all due respect, it isn't totally a "marketing thing".

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/12/2008 04:55:11 PM · #16

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Originally posted by SamDoe1:
...IS isn't really necessary on the shorter lenses and is more or less a marketing thing.

Be careful about making these types of statements.

IS isn't all about focal length. IS is a must for available light (read: low-light) situations in which the exposure time is longer than you can handhold the camera with a non-IS lens, regardless of focal length.

So, with all due respect, it isn't totally a "marketing thing".

I understand where you're coming from but the way I was looking at it was, for example, using say a 16-35mm f/2.8 lens. At full wide you would be looking for a shutter speed of around 1/16ish, maybe slower if you had a steady hand. Now that's already a low speed. Add IS to that and you'd probably be able to get 1/5 if not slower. At this point, anything you'd want to capture that was moving would be blurred from the motion anyway. So what would show up is a still background and a blurry person (or whatever) which isn't acceptable unless that's what you're going for. Now if you were shooting landscapes or static scenes I'd hope you'd have a tripod with you but if not then the IS is useful. So while saying it's only a marketing thing was a bad idea on my part, the situations where you'd NEED a wider lens with IS are fairly limited. But that's not going to say that it's worthless on the wide lenses, it's just getting cheaper and cheaper to do this sort of thing these days, heck even the kit lens has IS now. Before, when it was a pricey feature, it was only put on the long lenses for a reason. Because that's where it was needed the most. But again, now that it's cheap(er), why not put it on everything?