Comments on: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS not imminent [CR2]

By: Eliz

Eliz — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:23:10 +0000

500 f/5.6 IS will also be my ideal bird lens !
i dream of this lens much before this rummor apear

P.S.
i was a owner of 100-400mm and now i have the 400mm prime

By: nounours18200

nounours18200 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:22:26 +0000

A lot of Canon lenses need a renew, and it seems to me that Canon is late late and late on this aspect…

but a 500/5.6L IS at a REASAONABLE price would surely be a commercial success…

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:56:31 +0000

24-70/2.8L, 20-70/2.8L or 24-85/2.8L dosn’t matter for me. A lens with sharp edges is most important.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:47:33 +0000

I want a 20-70 2.8L IS, so i could do without using my 17-40. 24mm is not wide enough for all situations in a wedding, but 20mm would be. Then i could carry a 70-200 2.8 on another body for the reportage stuff.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:53:56 +0000

More to add. actually, why 24-70? I would like to see something like a 24-85/2.8L IS to be introduced. I guess those who have the current 24-70/2.8L are mostly full frame shooters right? I found the 24-70 focal length is a bit short in my personal taste, I have to couple it with the 70-200 all time if I’m serious about taking some good pictures, and this combo is heavy! So I just come to think that if there is something like a high end 24-85 i’ll be much happier:)

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:45:33 +0000

True, the IS version of 24-70L is not that likely to arrive any time soon. Since that Nikon/Sony has got their 24-70 with no IS/VR at all. Canon probably won’t do anything if they’re not pushed… Actually like to see the 50/1.0L again, or a better version of 35/1.4L. Canon has had too much telephotos which most people rarely use or cannot afford.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:49:16 +0000

Can anybody make an Ok normal-zoom for Canon. The 24-70 2,8 is rubbish at 24 mm especially in the edges. And if you have used it hard for a year, it’s totally crap. A 6000 dollar pricetag is no problem. I’m also sick of the flashes. It must be possible to make one that last for more then six mounth. I buy 3 new one every year.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:23:50 +0000

I’m kinda glad that this one may still be a bit of a way off… I bought myself a 24-70 f/2.8 about a week before I first saw this rumour (I’m not sure when the rumour originated, but it was the first time I’d heard it…)

with IS would be very cool, but I’d have been kicking myself if one had come out only a matter of months after I bought one!

By: Mat

Mat — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:34:47 +0000

Is the 400 2.8 L IS (introduced in 1999) is this queue? Top of the list?

By: ms

ms — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:06:03 +0000

YAY….i really hope for the 500/5.6 IS … too bad about the 24-70 IS…. one day :P

By: Cyrn

Cyrn — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:09:46 +0000

500/5.6 is cool. Smaller compared to 500/4 and the IS is sure welcomed especially if it helps to correct minor vibrations even on a tripod. Let the 100-400 fill the shorter FL.

By: Kandinsky

Kandinsky — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:25:46 +0000

Do you have any news about the 70-200 F2.8 L IS II upgrade? Will it be in that queue?

By: www.barrosinc.com

www.barrosinc.com — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:03:30 +0000

welcome home!

By: Canon Rumors

Canon Rumors — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:13:45 +0000

Modem working!