1Ds Mark IV & 24-70 II in 2 Weeks?

[justicend]

1Ds4 vs D4 should be interesting.... 24-70 II is long overdue.

why is a second addition lens long overdue?  I remember there use to be a time when people would buy a lens and never dream on needing an "updated" version.  Don't you think this might just be consumerism and something that really is not needed.  The only reason why I am on the bandwagon on waiting for an "updated" camera is because current dSLRs still lack the quality of film.  They are getting close and on that day it is comparable, I think I will just have to run that camera into the ground.

I guess my point of what I am saying is I have known quite a few successful photographers who just shoot with one lens or just one old S___ty camera and still produce great results or have a incredible style.  I guess I am just having a tough time understanding the importance an extra little gidget or gadget will make over the long run  ;o)

I am hoping for an iteration with IS which would certainly justify an update IMO

Can't imagine how large the IS version would be 

The lens would certainly have a couple extra elements and a price tag to match :S

You compare at EF-S 18-55 KIT with 3.5-5.6 and EF-S 17-55 with constant aperature of 2.8. 17-55 is big. Apply IS with 24-70 @ 2.8  When 24-70 is already that heavy

[bornshooter]

i have had my 24-70 for over a month now got it on a special deal for £900 which is a bargain and let me tell you is is not required and people complaining of sharpness and bad copes is rubbish yeah there will be some bad copes out there but thats true for every lens on the market and sharpness for me is superb but I'm not a pixel peeper so hey ho lol what matters to me is how the final image will look in print and there superb.

I've had  my 24-70 for several years, and I'm far from alone is saying that it's soft wide open, and it can be a bit unreliable in focusing. Read this recent post by well-known photographer and instructor Zach Arias documenting his switch to Canon despite his extremely low opinion of the 24-70/2.8:
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/headline-i-switched-to-canon-world-still-turns/#more-2583

I've also had occasion to use the more modern Nikon 24-70/2.8. It's far superior to the Canon version, especially in the f/2.8 to f/4 range. Canon definitely needs to update this lens.

As to not needing IS on a new version of the 24-70? Do not assume your needs are the same as other photographers. I just finished covering a weeklong jazz workshop, for the fourth time. Many of the classroom venues have terrible light: 1/80 at f/2.8 or f/3.2 was the norm, usually at iso 1600, sometimes at iso 3200. There were plenty of times where I needed to drop the shutter speed slower than that, and still had to push the file in post to compensate for some underexposure. Tripods/monopods/flash were not appropriate given the need to minimize disturbance or because of crowded conditions. There are two variables at work. One is subject motion. The other is photographer motion (camera shake). 1/60th or 1/80th was sufficient to freeze subject motion most of the time, but camera shake is a different issue, especially when squatting, sitting on knees, or holding the camera overhead. IS can also permit you to use a smaller aperture, for more depth of field, something I often need in the 24-70mm range. There's IS on the 17-55 for crop cameras, and it's extremely helpful for this sort of work. If the 7D did as well at high-iso as does the 5D2 or 1D4, I'd use 7D's just to be able to take advantage of image stabilization in such a critical focal length range.

It's possible to use the 70-200/2.8 IS to get better images at 70mm than it is to use the 24-70 at the same focal length, or shorter. Why should that be? I look forward to a newer, sharper version of the 24-70. If it includes IS, I'll be extremely happy.

ok i read that post what a load of rubbish the guy goes and says his copy is soft wide open which i don't think he should be complaining about to start with then he says his friends got 1 and its the same and the lens isn't worth the money then further through the post he says it never leaves his body and he has now purchased his friends copy for his other body sorry but that post is the biggest lot of nonsense I've ever read in my life i lol at it was actually funny   do you personally own the lens?if so show us it and images you have taken and explain your problem my bet is your a nikon fanboy or someone who fantasises about owning stuff that you cannot afford sorry if I'm wrong but please don't talk about what you don't understand.

[neuroanatomist]

Can't imagine how large the IS version would be 

The lens would certainly have a couple extra elements and a price tag to match :S

Probably not significantly larger than the current non-IS version.  For the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms, IS adds 0.15" (4 mm) to the length of the lens.  For the 70-200mm f/4 zooms, IS adds no length.  The IS versions are a bit heavier, but based on where the IS elements sit in the optical path, they're relatively small and light.

Cost is another matter...even if the lens is no larger, the price of a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS will be LARGE.

[GMCPhotographics]

I have a sharp copy of teh 24-70L and so does my 2nd photographer. They are both fantastic lenses and easily the most versatile in canon's range. They are build like tanks, maybe even a little over-built. I'm sure Canon could easily shave of a few grams and make room for an IS unit.
I don't really see the point of releasing a non IS mkII version. most of the pros that i know, wouldn't upgrade their existing mkI unless it had an IS unit. I certainly wouldn't!
Another thing to consider, this is Canon's biggest selling L lens. They will not risk making any mistakes with this lens...a bit like the 70-200/2.8 IS L II. It needs to be stellar and right from the word go.

[c-law]

ok i read that post what a load of rubbish the guy goes and says his copy is soft wide open which i don't think he should be complaining about to start with then he says his friends got 1 and its the same and the lens isn't worth the money then further through the post he says it never leaves his body and he has now purchased his friends copy for his other body sorry but that post is the biggest lot of nonsense I've ever read in my life i lol at it was actually funny   do you personally own the lens?if so show us it and images you have taken and explain your problem my bet is your a nikon fanboy or someone who fantasises about owning stuff that you cannot afford sorry if I'm wrong but please don't talk about what you don't understand.

Zack Arias is no amateur. And his switch to Canon shows he is no Nikon fan-boy. His complaint against the 24-70 was that it wasn't as sharp as he needed wide open. However he stated it had a decent macro feature for the mid-sized product photography that he shoots in a studio with lights that would be shot at a narrow aperture. So to say he doesn't like it all as a low light event lens but to have it permanently affixed to his constantly setup studio cameras is not nonsense or contradictory.

Now this isn't to say that I agree with him. I own the 24-70 and do event work and find it perfectly acceptable. I may have just gotten a better copy, or maybe my tolerances are higher than his, but either way, he is doing what works for him and his business. It is well reasoned and he didn't have to insult anybody to do it.

Chris

[Bokehmon]

I have a sharp copy of teh 24-70L and so does my 2nd photographer. They are both fantastic lenses and easily the most versatile in canon's range. They are build like tanks, maybe even a little over-built. I'm sure Canon could easily shave of a few grams and make room for an IS unit.
I don't really see the point of releasing a non IS mkII version. most of the pros that i know, wouldn't upgrade their existing mkI unless it had an IS unit. I certainly wouldn't!
Another thing to consider, this is Canon's biggest selling L lens. They will not risk making any mistakes with this lens...a bit like the 70-200/2.8 IS L II. It needs to be stellar and right from the word go.

completely agree, their reputation is on the line with this lens. As for best selling L lens, I though that went to the 17-40 or the 24-105 or the 70-200 F4?

[EYEONE]

I would probably agree that the 24-70 isn't amazingly sharp at f2.8. I'm not sure I'd call it "soft" but it probably doesn't impress at f2.8

I recently took it to London with me and shot all over the city with it at f6.3 - f8.0. And I can say that it is tack sharp at within that range. But, yes, I know that is also not impressive.

The performance at f2.8 is certainly good enough.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I gave up trying to find a good 24-70mm L.  I've owned five of them, and all were less than stellar.  Many lens testers and experts have found the same issue, too many out of spec lenses.

If you have a good one, they are excellent as long as the curvature of field is not a issue for your usage.  I'm not sure I'd waste my time/money  on a new one, having seen the quality of the existing one five times.  However, if there is a general positive agreement by the experts, I might bite.

[EELinneman]

</strong>I’ve been away for a few days making sure my marriage remains intact. [/html]

Good for you and your spouse!  Make sure that you take care of the important things in life. 

[Eagle Eye]

Monopod: the original image stabilizer.