Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?

[SJ]

I bought this lens, its sharp.. i really love this lens on my 7D

[BrandonKing96]

I'd just go with the 24-70 II if you need it.

If it's not a necessity, feel free to wait for the IS version, however it will be a lot more expensive than the 24-70 II. 

The 24-70 II is still a great lens.  I use it currently on my 60D, but I'm excited to use it on my 5D 3 when it arrives (and use it to its full potential).  You wouldn't really ever hate the 24-70 II.  But when (if) the IS version comes out at the end of 2013/start of 2014, then there's always the option of selling the 24-70II (of course it wouldn't be worth as much, but it would still be worth a lot).

[birtembuk]

If you can't live without IS, then I guess you've got to wait. Probably a fairly long time anyway.

Now, just think of how many billions good pictures have been taken using 24, 35, 50, 85 even 135 mm lenses without IS. I am no video-grapher so I fail to see the real interest of IS in a 24-70/2.8. For me, just nice to have but not really a buying criteria.

[M.ST]

Weight or the higher price for the IS version is only one side of the medal. The IS prototype don´t reach the image quality of the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L lens. The difference is not very big, but you see it. Not sure if Canon make changes for the production version.

I recommend to use the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L lens instead the IS version.

The EF 24-105 f/4.0 IS L lens is only good at f/8 up to f/11 (f/16) and needs an replacement. I am totally shocked if Canon introduce the 5D Mark III with the old EF 24-105 f/4.0 IS L lens. That´s really a shame.

[tomscott]

And so it starts...

[scrappydog]

OK, OK, OK. I get the point about not waiting for a rumored lens. Let me ask a follow up question.  Will IS offer a big benefit for photos on this lens in indoor situations for family portraits?

Yes.  Even the not-so-good IS on the 100-400 is better than nothing.  I can get relatively sharp hand held shots in low light at 1/15 with my 24-105 due to the IS.  I know for certain that I could not get the same from a non-IS lens.

[danski0224]

If Canon don´t make changes, then the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L is delivers a better image quality.

Anyone else notice?

[neuroanatomist]

Even the not-so-good IS on the 100-400 is better than nothing.  I can get relatively sharp hand held shots in low light at 1/15 with my 24-105 due to the IS.  I know for certain that I could not get the same from a non-IS lens.

Of course, 100-400 vs. 24-70 ranges have quite a difference in the shutter speed needed for handholding.

I can also get sharp handheld shots with the 24-105/4 at 1/15 s...the furniture is sharp, anyway. The people are blurry, because 1/15 s isn't fast enough even for people posing for a picture. IS would be nice, but I don't miss it on my 35L or 85L...

[Jesse]

I need the IS for video. That said, I bought the new one a few weeks ago and don't regret it even with this rumour. I'll be able to sell it in a year and buy the new one and take advantage of having the current version for at least a whole year.

[Jesse]

The real question is, do I wait for the new 85 1.8 IS, or buy the 85L?

[Axilrod]

The real question is, do I wait for the new 85 1.8 IS, or buy the 85L?

That's an easy one.  They're both stellar lenses and you'd be happy with either, it really boils down to whether or not you have almost $2k to blow on the 85L.  If yes, get it, if not, get the 85 1.8, it's an awesome lens.  In terms of value for money, the 85mm f/1.8 is definitely the better lens.

[scrappydog]

IS would be nice, but I don't miss it on my 35L or 85L...

Both have a couple stops on the 24-70, which helps a lot.

[carlc]

Why no mention of the new 24-70 f/4 IS version that should be available in January?  I have the  24-70 vII now and just rented the Tamron for comparison.  I didn't care for the Tamron that much and didn't feel their VC comes anywhere close to the Hybrid Canon IS version that is on the 70-200 vII.

Now I am considering returning the f/2.8 and ordering the f/4.  Just don't know.  I love the IQ with the new 24-70 on the 5DMkIII but scared to death of camera shake on the shot that I need to capture.

Any speculation that the IQ will be less on the f/4?

[RS2021]

Why no mention of the new 24-70 f/4 IS version that should be available in January?  I have the  24-70 vII now and just rented the Tamron for comparison.  I didn't care for the Tamron that much and didn't feel their VC comes anywhere close to the Hybrid Canon IS version that is on the 70-200 vII.

Now I am considering returning the f/2.8 and ordering the f/4.  Just don't know.  I love the IQ with the new 24-70 on the 5DMkIII but scared to death of camera shake on the shot that I need to capture.

Any speculation that the IQ will be less on the f/4?

Speaking specifically of the announced 24-70 f4, it is still unclear to me why a shorter range with the same aperture of f4 would be better than the 24-105 L for an average user. Unless perhaps it is almost exclusively geared to be paired as a kit with 6D.

Perhaps 24-105L being rather ubiquitous makes it less disirable for some? But then, the new 24-70 f4 will be equally so in a few years. I can't speak for individual copy variation that seems to exist among 24-105L, but mine is sharp. Unless the IQ and IS are both updated in the 24-70 f4 to the extent where its reduced weight becomes a key selling point, I think the 24-105L is still the better contender at give away prices.

If the price of the new 24-70 f4 L (now listed at $1499) comes down eventually to $900 then I think it becomes a more interesting match up and will present a tougher decision... lighter, marginally higher IQ and IS of the 24-70 f4,  against an older, heavier, bulkier 24-105L. For some, the ergonomics could be an important issue, but not at ~$600 price differential with a shortened range.

[syder]

Speaking specifically of the announced 24-70 f4, it is still unclear to me why a shorter range with the same aperture of f4 would be better than the 24-105 L for an average user.

The fact that it's nearly a true macro lens means that one lens gives you fairly wide to short tele and macro capabilities. That's a lot of versatility in one lens, and for people stepping up to full frame, being able to buy a single lens which may cover most of their needs (i would imagine a 70-200 of some description would be the next lens people would buy, which overlaps with the extra reach on the 24-105 anyways) may seem attractive.

...And its rumoured to be significantly sharper, particularly wide open.