I certainly do hope Canon makes a 24-70L 2.8 IS and gives it a reasonable price. I am having a difficult time with the idea of leaving crop bodies because I really do not want to give up my 17-55 IS 2.8. I already own a 70-200L 2.8 IS II and instead of looking at getting the 5D Mark III or upcoming IV I am actually looking at upgrading to a 7D Mark II so I can keep my almost complete range of 17-200 mm 2.8 image stabilized. IS is not always necessary at the wider end but it can really come in handy. I really would like to go full frame one of these days but 27.2-88mm (17-55mm on my crop) is one of my most common shooting ranges and with as expensive as the 24-70L 2.8 II is without IS it makes the upgrade that much harder to justify especially considering the additional cost taken on by the new camera body.
Along with many others, I would also like to see an updated 50mm 1.4, and preferably with IS because I'm a huge fan of Canon's IS system. With an original release date of June 1993 it has had a pretty incredible run but they have released some excellent new lens technologies since then. Heck, the original 100-400L was released in September of 1998 and even that lens was able to get an update.
Anyways, rumor-mill - wish-list - whatever - thanks for listening Canon, I know you read these boards too
To all intents and purposes the 17-55 f2.8 IS is a 24-105 f4 IS on a FF camera (technically its ff equivalent is 27mm-88mm f4.48), the difference is that f4 on a ff camera has narrower dof, a greater zoom range and is cheaper. And before anybody says "but I need the light gathering power of f2.8 for shutter speeds"
, well if you use 400iso @ f2.8 for 1/500 sec on your crop camera you can use 800iso @ f4 for 1/500 sec, you actually get less noise, narrower dof, the same shutter speed and, believe it or not, less motion blur! How is that? Well you are enlarging the same motion blur less with the ff enlargement.
All in all the 24-105 f4 IS out performs the 17-55 f2.8IS in every metric, this is a perfect example of why, when people move to ff, they say there is a difference but they just don't know why, there are small but noticeable improvements in everything even with, on the face of it, more modest lenses.Addendum:
Joey, read this link, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/