New lenses from Canon

[Colin Southern]

The wide angle lenses are not shot at the fast speeds, as the depth of field is too shallow for most applications.

Shallow DoF with wide-angle lenses?

[William W]

[Eric M]

It occurs to me there may well be a technical/engineering/commercial reason why all IS lenses seem to be fitted in lenses no faster than f/2.8. Presumably, to fit one in to a faster lens, would require larger diameter elements in the IS unit, that means more weight for the IS motors to shift about, which means larger motors and that means a whole new production line to make them.

That may be the case, but I can see little need for the two new primes. My 17-55IS covers both focal lengths nicely, has IS, and matches their max apertures.

The new 24-70L follows the trend. In Canon speak, "MkII" means "twice the money". The old 24-70L did need an update. The one I had was no gem on crop cameras (sharpness issues) and had horrible field curvature on the wide end on FF cameras. While it sported nice build, good bokeh and color reproduction it was a dog as far as overall performance due to the issues mentioned (even after a warranty tune up at Canon). Certainly not up to its "pro" billing.

[Colin Southern]

The old 24-70L did need an update. The one I had was no gem on crop cameras (sharpness issues) and had horrible field curvature on the wide end on FF cameras. While it sported nice build, good bokeh and color reproduction it was a dog as far as overall performance due to the issues mentioned (even after a warranty tune up at Canon). Certainly not up to its "pro" billing.

I've been 100% satisfied with mine - I still regularly use it in the studio for full-length portraiture. No issues at all. Yes - it could be sharper, but I certainly wouldn't say that it's "not up to pro billing".

[William W]

That may be the case, but I can see little need for the two new primes. My 17-55IS covers both focal lengths nicely, has IS, and matches their max apertures.

The comparison is erroneous.
The two new IS Lenses are an EF mount: the 17 to 55 is EF-S mount.

WW

[Eric M]

The comparison is erroneous.
The two new IS Lenses are an EF mount: the 17 to 55 is EF-S mount.

WW

Yeah, I see your point. The thing is, to us crop shooters (no doubt the vast majority), the comparison is valid because all of the glass in question is useable on our cameras.

[William W]

The thing is, to us crop shooters (no doubt the vast majority), the comparison is valid because all of the glass in question is useable on our cameras.

Understood - that single focus on folk who have EF-S mount cameras, (not all “crop cameras are EF-S Mount compatible) was implied in your answer.

The point is, to Canon TRD, who are developing the EF system of which the EF-S is only a portion: it is not.
The point is, to Canon Sales and Marketing: it is not.
The point is, to many who have either a dual format system or APS-H or 135 format: it is not.

Whether "crop shooters" are the vast majority, or not, is also irrelevant: because the development of these two lenses is for those who are not and therefore cannot use the EF-S 17 t 55/2.8 IS USM, anyway.

WW

[Glenn NK]

That may be the case, but I can see little need for the two new primes. My 17-55IS covers both focal lengths nicely, has IS, and matches their max apertures.

The new 24-70L follows the trend. In Canon speak, "MkII" means "twice the money". The old 24-70L did need an update. The one I had was no gem on crop cameras (sharpness issues) and had horrible field curvature on the wide end on FF cameras. While it sported nice build, good bokeh and color reproduction it was a dog as far as overall performance due to the issues mentioned (even after a warranty tune up at Canon). Certainly not up to its "pro" billing.

I too am surprised that IS was not included in the new 24/70. I use both FF and 1.6 bodies, and the 17-55 with IS is a very well used lens for me even though my 30D is way past it's best-before-date.

What do the FF shooters have for an equivalent (27-64) with IS?

Glenn

[William W]

What do the FF shooters have for an equivalent (27-64) with IS? [i.e. equivalent to the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM]

The EF 24 to 105F/4 L IS USM

As mentioned in post #11.

Yes - at the loss of 1 stop of lens speed.
But Equivalence is essentially maintained, (arguably exceeded), because of the different Format.

***
From post #11, a similar parallel addressing Equivalence, could be made to a lens which does not yet exist:
EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM :: 24 to 105/4L IS ≡ EF-S 17 to 55F/2 :: EF 24 to 70 F/2.8

WW

[Glenn NK]

The EF 24 to 105F/4 L IS USM

As mentioned in post #11.

Yes - at the loss of 1 stop of lens speed.
But Equivalence is essentially maintained, (arguably exceeded), because of the different Format.

***
From post #11, a similar parallel addressing Equivalence, could be made to a lens which does not yet exist:
EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM :: 24 to 105/4L IS ≡ EF-S 17 to 55F/2 :: EF 24 to 70 F/2.8

WW

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "equivalence is maintained" because of different format. The speed of the lenses (17-55 vs 24-105) isn't equivalent when used on my 30D.

And with family shots indoors without flash, the one stop difference does make a difference - I usually don't use the 5DII + 24-105 in these situations because the one stop difference does seem to make a difference.

Glenn

[Eric M]

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "equivalence is maintained" because of different format. The speed of the lenses (17-55 vs 24-105) isn't equivalent when used on my 30D.

And with family shots indoors without flash, the one stop difference does make a difference - I usually don't use the 5DII + 24-105 in these situations because the one stop difference does seem to make a difference.

Glenn

You aren't alone Glenn. The "equivalence is maintained" stuff lost me as well. Canon has no EF lens that closely matches the performance of the EF-S 17-55. The new 24-70L is, no doubt, going to be very good but it lacks IS (and costs a fortune).

[William W]

Hi Glenn and Eric.

Did you both read the link provided, which explains Equivalence?
It is important to compare like to like, IMO.
So therefore, for the comparison of Image Stabilization between these different lenses, the EF-S lenses should be used on APS-C Format Bodies and then compared to the EF lenses used on 135 Format Bodies.

***

So therefore, specifically regarding Glenn’s two questions:

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "equivalence is maintained" because of different format. The speed of the lenses (17-55 vs. 24-105) isn't equivalent when used on my 30D.

I was not comparing the (or making an equivalence) between the 17-55/2.8 and the 24 – 105/4 when each lens is used on a 30D, but rather when the EF-S lens is used on APS-C sensor and the EF lens is used on 135 Format (AKA “Full Frame”).

The comparison of using different lenses (EF-S vs. EF) on respective different camera formats, follows on from the content in posts #: 25, 26 and 27.


***

And with family shots indoors without flash, the one stop difference does make a difference - I usually don't use the 5DII + 24-105 in these situations because the one stop difference does seem to make a difference.

Yes this point is understood.
That is it is understood - IF you are you are referring to the ability of a faster lens speed used on ANY format camera to allow a faster Shutter Speed to be attained at any given ISO.
(I.e. it is easier for a faster lens on any camera format, to arrest Subject Motion)

However, I was not referring to this, in respect of equivalence.
There is no equivalence in respect of this quality of maximum aperture.
A faster lens, whatever format camera, will always allow for a faster shutter speed at any given ISO.
BUT more to the point, we are (I was) discussing the Image Stabilization quality, when comparing these new IS lenses.

WW

[Glenn NK]

I follow the equivalence, but the new Canon lens still isn't IS, and this is the major complaint from most on other forums. The FF shooters still don't seem to have a lens with the IQ quality of the 17-55 that has IS. Which was actually my point in the first place.

Glenn

[William W]

I follow the equivalence, but the new Canon lens still isn't IS, and this is the major complaint from most on other forums. The FF shooters still don't seem to have a lens with the IQ quality of the 17-55 that has IS. Which was actually my point in the first place.

Glenn

OK. Thanks for responding.
I understand that you follow the concept of equivalence.
I also understand that many people are complaining that the new 24 to 70 doesn’t have IS.

WW