Buy 24-70 f2.8L now or wait for 24-70 f2.8L II

[killswitch]

From my understanding, I heard or read somewhere in this forum that the mark II of this lens wont have IS. Is that true? Can anyone verify or is it still a rumor at this stage?

I heard good and bad things about the mark I version. Bad being, quality control issues and if you are unlucky you might end up getting a lens that may need to be calibrated in order to achieve crisp sharpness. So many had to resolve to multiple exchanges before ending up with one that was right for their body. I am not sure how seriously I should take this...can anyone help me out?

[wopbv4]

Hi,

you are right, intially there were issues with quality control. Recently, I have not heard of people that had to send a lens back.
I happily use the 24 70 F2.8L and sofar I have never missed IS, to me this is not really important at this focal length and I use this as a general purpose lens anyway.
IS is important in macro and in tele, the step change in the 100 mm macro to IS is enormous. Hope this helps

[ferdi]

Wopb4 is right about IS and tele, it becomes more useful with long focal length.
But IS does not stop subject motion.

About a lens being "right" for a body... read this first: http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

For every lens there's probably "bad" batches out there. If you want to make sure you get a good one, buy new, a refurb, or have it checked by Canon. Having microcalibration options on your camera helps too (see article).

[dilbert]

From my understanding, I heard or read somewhere in this forum that the mark II of this lens wont have IS. Is that true? Can anyone verify or is it still a rumor at this stage?

Until the lens is available, it will be nothing but rumor...

I heard good and bad things about the mark I version. Bad being, quality control issues and if you are unlucky you might end up getting a lens that may need to be calibrated in order to achieve crisp sharpness. So many had to resolve to multiple exchanges before ending up with one that was right for their body. I am not sure how seriously I should take this...can anyone help me out?

The requirement for calibration is something that can be true for any body/lens combination, not just this one. If you are a perfectionist, you would send in any newly bought camera/lens set for calibration anyway, because you don't trust the factory to be out even a little bit.

Also, in-camera microfocus adjust can help here.

One thing to remember: mkII versions of every Canonn lens have thus far been more expensive than the mkI version,

[killswitch]

Wopb4 is right about IS and tele, it becomes more useful with long focal length.
But IS does not stop subject motion.

About a lens being "right" for a body... read this first: http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

For every lens there's probably "bad" batches out there. If you want to make sure you get a good one, buy new, a refurb, or have it checked by Canon. Having microcalibration options on your camera helps too (see article).

Thanks for the link, I have read this earlier.

I feel I have a rather shaky pair of hands, which is why I am not confident. But I have used the 15-85mm and which was pretty heavy, but I managed to use that with IS off. Umm, ok IS apart, what about in terms of bokeh quality? I know 2.8 will yield a much creamier bokeh, but how much of a difference in bokeh quality will the 2.8 aperture provide versus the 4.0 aperture of the 24-105 f4L ?

[ferdi]

I feel I have a rather shaky pair of hands, which is why I am not confident. But I have used the 15-85mm and which was pretty heavy, but I managed to use that with IS off. Umm, ok IS apart, what about in terms of bokeh quality? I know 2.8 will yield a much creamier bokeh, but how much of a difference in bokeh quality will the 2.8 aperture provide versus the 4.0 aperture of the 24-105 f4L ?

Bokeh is a subjective and complex thing, it depends on depth of field and perspective.
Wider apertures do not necessarily improve the bokeh, but longer focal lengths usually do.
I think most people will opt for the 24-70 because of the shallower DOF at f/2.8, but stopped down to f/4 the shape of the bokeh might be less attractive in some situations than that of the 24-105 wide open. And then only for some focal lengths.

The 24-70 is much heavier than the 15-85 (950g vs 575g), and the 24-105 is 670g.
If you are shaky then you could consider a monopod or tripod.

[edit: fixed typo, removed off-topic text]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

From my understanding, I heard or read somewhere in this forum that the mark II of this lens wont have IS. Is that true? Can anyone verify or is it still a rumor at this stage?

I heard good and bad things about the mark I version. Bad being, quality control issues and if you are unlucky you might end up getting a lens that may need to be calibrated in order to achieve crisp sharpness. So many had to resolve to multiple exchanges before ending up with one that was right for their body. I am not sure how seriously I should take this...can anyone help me out?

The rumors are for fun and discussion.  A CR1 rumor means there is no reason to believe it is going to happen, but it might.  No one here knows what, if anything, is coming.  A new one has been rumored for at least five years, so how long are you willing to wait?

I've had five 24-70mm L's and all were good, but not really where they should be.  My one and only 24-105mm L beat all of them handily.  They are better on FF cameras that are not as demanding as crop cameras.  For a crop camera, just get the equivalent 17-55mm IS and it will be mucho better.

There are som really good ones out there, buy locally with return rights because the odds are not good.

Even the excellent ones have a excess amount of field curvature which is inherent to the design.  You can work around this as long as you know about and understand it.

[gmrza]

Hi,

you are right, intially there were issues with quality control. Recently, I have not heard of people that had to send a lens back.
I happily use the 24 70 F2.8L and sofar I have never missed IS, to me this is not really important at this focal length and I use this as a general purpose lens anyway.
IS is important in macro and in tele, the step change in the 100 mm macro to IS is enormous. Hope this helps

I think you are right about IS - the 24-70 is mostly used in situations which require exposures fast enough that IS is not necessary - e.g. for event photography where the exposure must be short enough to prevent motion blur.  It is very different to a 70-200mm lens which is often used, even for events, at around 1/80s to 1/125s, and therefor needs IS.

[scottsdaleriots]

i am also waiting for the neverending rumoured 24-70IS II. I would like the option of IS as if the need arises and I just switch it on and use it and mainly because I don't have a tripod yet

[elflord]

From my understanding, I heard or read somewhere in this forum that the mark II of this lens wont have IS. Is that true? Can anyone verify or is it still a rumor at this stage?

I heard good and bad things about the mark I version. Bad being, quality control issues and if you are unlucky you might end up getting a lens that may need to be calibrated in order to achieve crisp sharpness. So many had to resolve to multiple exchanges before ending up with one that was right for their body. I am not sure how seriously I should take this...can anyone help me out?

patent applications so far suggest that it won't have IS (scan the old posts here) and there's not much reason for them to put it in -- on full frame, you need about 1/70 at the tele end to prevent camera shake and you usually want that kind of speed for other reasons (to freeze your subjects).

Contrast with the 15-85mm on a crop -- you need about 1/150 at the tele end to prevent camera shake, so a stop or two of IS really helps.

About "bokeh" -- for shallow dof on APS-C, you really want f/2.8 or faster (or a tele lens).  An APS-C lens like Canon's 17-55 or Tamron/Sigma's versions is a good bet (as is a prime of course)

Just my opinion -- if you're using a crop, skip full frame normal to wide zooms (get 17-55, Sigma/Tamron equivalent, or 15-85 instead) -- you pay for full frame coverage at 24mm (both in price and weight) but don't get a wide angle lens.

[bycostello]

24-70 with IS.. I think a very missing lens from the range...

[zaza]

In my experience, there's always something new and improved around the corner. That's how manufacturers keep you buying things. The question for you is, how much do you need or want the capabilities of that lens now compared to how much money you have.
 If you are a billionaire, just buy both. If you're homeless, probably there are other things to spend your money on. Like most of us, though, you probably fall somewhere in the middle and are concerned about spending a grand on a lens that may be superceded in the near future, or which may fall in price for stock clearance.
 In the case of the former, then you'll end up paying even more because goods such as this are always more expensive on their debut. In the case of the latter, well that's just life.
 Definitely don't think it is worth waiting for IS because you don't have a tripod. You can pick up a decent tripod for under £100, and really good ones for £250 or so. A fraction of the cost of this lens!

 Ultimately, I find for me that the best philosophy is to put money out of the picture. Either decide you definitely want the MkII, and hence just accept that you're going to pay what it costs, or decide that you want the lens for its parameters and buy the MkI now.

 From personal experience, I have had this lens for over a year and find it to be exceptional.

[cbphoto]

I am not sure how seriously I should take this...can anyone help me out?

You're welcome to buy my 24-70 after I replace it.   

[ianhar]

24-70 is great lens and i wont doubt that the 24-70 ii would even be better. But i wont buy anything straight when it come oy because

a) there is always issue with it
b) it will cost more than its predecessor
L lens retain much of its value. It wont hurt to buy it now while waiting for the new one to come out. Consider it as a long term rental. Even when the new one comes out its better for you to hold on to it for a while read some review, test it at your local store and see whether there's significant change in it.

To be honest, i dont use 24-70. I use its predecessor. I still held on to my 28-70 because i cannot see significant changes to it.

Never ever do your purchase based on opinion from forum. Ask yourself if you really need it. If you need it now buy it now. If you dont need it now perhaps its better for you to wait.

This is a rumor forum, you cant expect anyone here to be able to tell or verify ou any rumors to be true or not. Until the product is announced, any specs will remain just a rumor or a "tip from a source".

[scottsdaleriots]

Never ever do your purchase based on opinion from forum. Ask yourself if you really need it. If you need it now buy it now. If you dont need it now perhaps its better for you to wait.

that's a really good poinbt, to not let others' opinions (especially on a forum) determine whether you'll buy a lens or not. Unfortunately that isn't the case for me: one of the mainly deciding factors which lead me to buy the 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM II last year was because of opinions from a forum. I did ask for their opinions/suggestions about the lens and others. But to be honest I don't really need such an excellent lens 

This is a rumor forum, you cant expect anyone here to be able to tell or verify ou any rumors to be true or not. Until the product is announced, any specs will remain just a rumor or a "tip from a source".

I still hoping someone can confirm when this lens will be released as I want it (I honestly don't have a need for this lens, but I really want it). I'm hoping it will be announced in the next few months gets released sometime next year - sometime before june would be great. And the thing you mentioned about the price is absolutely true. Canon know the new products they release everyone wants them but the prices are so riduculously outrageous! I'm generally speaking as a consumer not living in the US (free shipping, luck you!).