EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

[Zv]

Interesting discussion about IS on this thread. For me personally at this focal range IS is very handy. I recently went and did some night photography, my objective was to test out the IS on my 17-55. I was getting clean shots with ISO 100 and shutter speeds like 1/8 second. Now the 17-55 doesnt even have the latest 4 stop technology and it was giving me about 4 stops. Imagine what this latest version will do? Tripods? Forget about it, I have very little use for them these days!

[wickidwombat]

wonder how heavy it'll be?

Want some Internet wisdom? Well ... the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC weighs 825g 

yes but the canon wont have happy meal build quality....

[mrmarks]

I am quite happy with my 24-70L2. Whether I get the 24-70L2IS will depend on the IQ difference between both lenses, and the weight/bulk difference as well.

[ScottyP]

All has yet to be revealed.  Perhaps the last shoe to drop will be the release of a super-premium Canon "L"-branded tripod for $2,500.00. 

People without IS will feel they need one, and many of them would be physically and emotionally unable to resist anything, no matter how pedestrian, that has a prominent red ring on it somewhere.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

heyyyy batter hey battter hey batter heyyy batter batterbatter

$4300 24-70 2.8 IS the ideal lens for the beginning enthusiast!

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I am quite happy with my 24-70L2. Whether I get the 24-70L2IS will depend on the IQ difference between both lenses, and the weight/bulk difference as well.

If the new IS can't match the wide open long performance or the wide edge performance of the 2.8 II I will gladly stick with my non-IS II even if the new IS came in at $2300 also.

[SJ]

Great.. I waited on v1 because the rumors of v2.. now that I'm nearly ready to buy v2... the rumor of v2 w/IS ?

I'd prefer the IS version, but the rumor of one isn't going to stop me from buying the 24-70 II...

yep.. 24-70 II is great lens 

[sanj]

Anybody that doesn't think IS is useful on a 24-70 is such a limited shooter I really don't understand your opinion. I can understand people not wanting or needing it for their style of shooting, but to deny it is necessary for some others needs and style is just crazy.

For a start, as has been pointed out, dragging the shutter would work much better to include some ambient that isn't too blurred, IS will help the ambient while the flash keeps your subject sharp. Secondly, more and more places are banning tripods and monopods, try shooting anywhere in India where you would want to use a tripod and armed police will stop you very quickly! But places like museums and cathedrals normally don't allow legged support.

 I shoot a lot of travel photography, often I just don't have time to set up a tripod, like the first shot below, it was a stumbled upon situation at Ankor Wat that unfolded for three or four seconds 40 yards away, I ran to get the two shots I could before the scene changed, shot with 1Ds MkIII and a 24-70 @ f2.8 and 1/10 second, I would have preferred a steadier image but to print big was stuck with the iso, and before anybody says well newer cameras have better high iso, I know that, but that would just enable me to shoot even later, or darker, like the second image, iso 800 (I print big) f3.2 and 1/2 sec exposure, my subjects were not moving enough to cause me issues, I was at the limit of my ability to hold that focal length and shutter speed combination and that was only EV 1, my camera can work way darker than that, but until I get IS I can't.

I have no interest in a MkII 24-70 without IS, my MkI version is plenty sharp enough for the big prints I make, I would buy in an instant a 24-70 f2.8 IS. I would also buy a 16-35 f2.8 IS as well as a 14-24 f2.8 or f4, the former for travel the later for real estate. As, for me, the cost is offset I don't care too much what they end up retailing for just so long as they have better IQ and functionality.

Very well put!

[RLPhoto]

Too little, too late. Even if this were released tomarrow, I'd still buy the tamron 24-70 over the canon. The canon would be stupendously expensive and the tamrons IQ is already excellent. Why buy the canon? Oh yeah, that pretty red ring.

[iso79]

Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.

[Drizzt321]

Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.

Have you looked at the new Tamron 24-70? From the limited time I rented it and the images I'm seeing, it's quite good. Also from the reviews I've read, it's very good. IQ, not quite up to the 24-70 v2, sure, but still around as good or a bit more than the 24-70 v1. Build quality seems quite good, although again, not quite up to L standards. But it's $1300, not $2100-2300 or whatever the 24-70 v2 is going for right now.

Now, most of the rest of the Tamron glass, far as I know you're mostly correct, but if their 24-70 is the new direction they are going it, they're likely to become a serious off-brand competitor for people who can't quite afford L and don't want to pay the vastly more expensive new non-L primes with IS.

[RLPhoto]

Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.

Have you looked at the new Tamron 24-70? From the limited time I rented it and the images I'm seeing, it's quite good. Also from the reviews I've read, it's very good. IQ, not quite up to the 24-70 v2, sure, but still around as good or a bit more than the 24-70 v1. Build quality seems quite good, although again, not quite up to L standards. But it's $1300, not $2100-2300 or whatever the 24-70 v2 is going for right now.

Now, most of the rest of the Tamron glass, far as I know you're mostly correct, but if their 24-70 is the new direction they are going it, they're likely to become a serious off-brand competitor for people who can't quite afford L and don't want to pay the vastly more expensive new non-L primes with IS.

+1 The Tamron 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC are a huge shift in IQ and quality from them. Add the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and you've got a superb third party kit.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.

I dumped my 17-40L after trying a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and my Tamron 28-75 2.8 outdid all three 24-105L I tried.
OTOH I did quickly sell my Tamron 70-300 VC after I tried a Canon 70-300L and I tend to doubt the Tamron 24-70 VC can match the Canon 24-70 II, the wide angle pics looked noticeably worse to me in the photozone sample shots, although no worse than the older Ls and better than the 24-105. I do wonder about the LR talk about a glued in front element for the 24-70 VC which I admit does sound a little dodgy. The ones I have (17-50 and 28-75) though have held up great.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Now, most of the rest of the Tamron glass, far as I know you're mostly correct, but if their 24-70 is the new direction they are going it, they're likely to become a serious off-brand competitor for people who can't quite afford L and don't want to pay the vastly more expensive new non-L primes with IS.

I really wouldn't say that. The 17-50 2.8 can take down the 17-40L (only on APS-C, granted) and a good 28-75 can outdo the 24-105L (over the more limited shared range and without IS and with much slower AF, granted).

[mrmarks]

Any estimates of the weight of the 24-70 f2.8 IS ?