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

[BrandonKing96]

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

I don't imagine it would be much.  I honestly think it would way around the same as the 24-70 mark I.

[Drizzt321]

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

No need to wonder, it's 825g, while the Canon 24-70L v1 is 953g(!) and the Canon 24-70L v2 is 803g.

Personally, the Tamron still feels quite heavy, but I'm used to lighter lenses, so I'm going to have to start doing more push-ups now to get ready for when I get it.

[dan]

Ok, time to sign away my first AND second born, and my both my legs. I need my arms to hold the camera and shoot, otherwise I'd sell those off too. Are we going to hit $3K for a normal zoom lens?

Hehe. It wont be that bad dude.  The new normall zoom will drop in price to make room for the IS.

[Axilrod]

I really think the MSRP of the 24-70 II is $1999 and Canon is just milking a couple hundred bucks from each early adopter like they did with the 5D3.  I'd expect it to level out by the end of 2013, maybe sooner.

[SlasherMcGee]

I'm torn between the 24-70mm F/2.8 II, the 24-70 F/4 IS, and the 24-105 f/4 IS.. While doing some research I came across the following article from about 11 months ago:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-exists-as-a-working-prototype-cr2/

Most of the recent discussions on the internet have users stating "The IS version will never come to be!!". This article seems to refute that point! Thoughts?

Bump!

[ahsanford]

I'm torn between the 24-70mm F/2.8 II, the 24-70 F/4 IS, and the 24-105 f/4 IS.. While doing some research I came across the following article from about 11 months ago:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-exists-as-a-working-prototype-cr2/

Most of the recent discussions on the internet have users stating "The IS version will never come to be!!". This article seems to refute that point! Thoughts?

Bump!

This thread has been dormant for 11 months.   

Many have theorized that the IS F/2.8 would be too large and/or too heavy, or that it would dilute Canon's ability to maintain the non-IS version price of $2k. 

Others (like myself) have offered that the two recent 24-70s (the F/4 IS and the F/2.8 II) are just the first two of what will eventually be a four lens offering, like what is currently offered for 70-200 users:  F/2.8 and F/4 both with an without IS, establishing four price points in the segment.

For whatever reason, we don't have the piece de resistance, and we continue to wait for it even with Tamron currently offering one.  The only event that would drive Canon to offer an IS F/2.8 standard zoom would be Nikon themselves offering one.

It's like a cold war in that regard.

- A

[Ruined]

Do you really think canon will let Tamron corner the market on wedding dslr videographers?  no way! Just a matter of time before the IS comes out, I think within a year.

[neuroanatomist]

Do you really think canon will let Tamron corner the market on wedding dslr videographers?  no way! Just a matter of time before the IS comes out, I think within a year.

Are a lot of wedding videos shot at f/2.8?  Is pixel-level sharpness critical for dSLR video?  There are still the 24-105/4L IS and the 24-70/4L IS from Canon...

[Ruined]

Do you really think canon will let Tamron corner the market on wedding dslr videographers?  no way! Just a matter of time before the IS comes out, I think within a year.

Are a lot of wedding videos shot at f/2.8?  Is pixel-level sharpness critical for dSLR video?  There are still the 24-105/4L IS and the 24-70/4L IS from Canon...

If you talk about whether you "need" certain aperatures and whether sharpness is "critical", we probably all would be happy with APS-C, STM motors, and f/4.  But, when one is given an arguably better option for the same price, one will often go for the better option.

I actually did quite a bit of searching on this, and the answer is YES - the Tamron 24-70 VC appears very popular amongst wedding videographers given the commentary on various forums & youtube as it gives them both f/2.8 as well as image stabilization.  The Canon 24-70 f/4 & 24-105 lack 2.8, while the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 lacks image stabilization.

If you were doing wedding photos+videos, would you rather carry a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 for photos *AND* a Canon 24-70 f/4 IS for video (on top of your 70-200 and everything else)?  Or would you rather just carry a single Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC that can do both?  Given the extra bulk of two lenses in the same focal range, I would see why many who do photos&videos are flocking to the Tamron.

So, if Canon continues to ignore this market for whatever the reason, they are bottom line likely going to lose significant marketshare amongst this professional group to Tamron.  There is no good reason why they didn't launch an IS lens in the first place aside to make people buy the same lens yet again, as Tamron with much lesser resources and expertise has proved that it can be done with similar image quality.  I am guessing Canon can exceed Tamron's quality, so if Canon had actually released the 24-70 II with IS, I have no doubts it would be very close to the current 24-70 II.

Again, I believe Canon will respond by the end of 2014 with a 24-70 IS, or risk continue losing customers to Tamron with one of their bread and butter lenses.

[DaveMiko]

If this rumour turns out to be true, I would be willing to get the IS version of the 24-70 f2.8.

[Ruined]

If this rumour turns out to be true, I would be willing to get the IS version of the 24-70 f2.8.

Someone else said this earlier in the year and it makes sense...

The 24-70 II will likely be the kit lens for the rumored big bucks ultra high MP camera that Canon is supposed to announce next year.  It is the only ultra high res standard zoom they make right now, so it would be a natural fit.

But, then what do they sell those ultra high mp camera buyers if they already have the II?  The 24-70 IS of course!   Plus, the IS would be a potential upgrade for anyone who has the 24-70 I (or II).

Again, if Tamron can do it with less resources, less expertise, not that much bulkier, not that much worse looking, and at half the price - I see no reason Canon could not execute on this other than attempting to milk as much as they can out of the II before they release the IS.   Likely its also the reason they went with the 82mm thread on the II, in preparation for the IS which needs a larger front element than 77mm.

[Hjalmarg1]

I am not ready to spend around $3K in a normal lens, and many people out there won't. Canon needs to update those lenses that do not render good IQ and sharpness, rather than focusing on improving 'excellent' lenses.

[Ruined]

I am not ready to spend around $3K in a normal lens, and many people out there won't. Canon needs to update those lenses that do not render good IQ and sharpness, rather than focusing on improving 'excellent' lenses.

Well, remember that 24-70 is a bread and butter lens, one of the most important in Canon's lineup.  It is to their benefit to ensure they have the best version available out there IMO.  Tamron is getting a lot of business with a nice quality 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens for half the price due to Canon's unwillingness to release an IS version.

Also, Canon does not HAVE to increase the price, they could actually *drop* the price of the non-IS version to ~1699 which would put it in a lot more reasonable space than it is now.  Then put the IS version where the old version was, at 2299.

[kennephoto]

I am not ready to spend around $3K in a normal lens, and many people out there won't. Canon needs to update those lenses that do not render good IQ and sharpness, rather than focusing on improving 'excellent' lenses.

Well, remember that 24-70 is a bread and butter lens, one of the most important in Canon's lineup.  It is to their benefit to ensure they have the best version available out there IMO.  Tamron is getting a lot of business with a nice quality 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens for half the price due to Canon's unwillingness to release an IS version.

Also, Canon does not HAVE to increase the price, they could actually *drop* the price of the non-IS version to ~1699 which would put it in a lot more reasonable space than it is now.  Then put the IS version where the old version was, at 2299.

I hate when people make this much sense! Sarcasm of course, because I totally think what you're saying is what canon should do! I've used the 24-70 II and loved it and would buy it if it came down in price a bit more especially with the way you say they should do it!

[AvTvM]

Well, remember that 24-70 is a bread and butter lens, one of the most important in Canon's lineup.  It is to their benefit to ensure they have the best version available out there IMO.  Tamron is getting a lot of business with a nice quality 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens for half the price due to Canon's unwillingness to release an IS version.

Also, Canon does not HAVE to increase the price, they could actually *drop* the price of the non-IS version to ~1699 which would put it in a lot more reasonable space than it is now.  Then put the IS version where the old version was, at 2299.

+1   Exactly!