EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

[briansquibb]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

A 24-105 on a 1DX should manage most low light situations

[ferdi]

I guess the current 24-70L will be discontinued with the release of a Mark II.
But will that also happen if the newer one has IS? Maybe not because of the huge price difference.

A good 2nd hand 24-70L goes for about USD 900-1000.
A new 24-70L is still USD 1300 (current B&H price).
If the 24-70L II will cost about USD 1800-2000...
then a 24-70L IS version will be just over USD 3000 I think (70-200L IS costs about 75% more than non-IS).

Ouch, I might need to sell my EF-S 17-55 just to afford the L+IS version. But I won't be using that lens anymore anyway after upgrading. If the new one is without IS then I will still think about it, but it better be worth it.

Also, since the 24-105L is just one year younger, do you guys think we can expect a Mark II of that one in Q1 2013?

[Mark1]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

I read on a recent thread here that the reason the 24-70 doesnt have IS is because it's technically very difficult to achieve without dramatically increasing the overall size and weight of the lens. That's why Nikon haven't done it on their 24-70 either.

Presumabley the 17-55 2.8 IS has smaller glass due to it's reduced image circle and therefore is easier to put IS on it and keep the size of the lens reasonable.

Personally I see the 24-70 as more of a studio zoom and the 24-105 IS as an outdoor low-lighter. Don't need IS in the studio. It's horses for courses I suppose.

[japhoto]

I have the 24-70L to go with my 7D and yes, I'd very much like to have IS on it and 2.8 aperture.

The lens is capable of wonderfully sharp images, I'm not denying that, but unfortunately only in very good light (if handheld).

I am pixel-peeping here, since even though some say that 18Mp APS-C photos should be viewed at 1:2 to get an idea of the "sharpness", I always use 1:1. This is because I know that I can get (quite easily) sharp images with my 70-200L II when handheld, but not with the 24-70L. So it's either very good light or a tripod with this lens, which I don't like when this could be a good lens for photo-walks.

So if an image isn't sharp at 1:1 I usually bin it and that makes "keepers" few and far between with this lens. I'd also like to use IS instead of bumping the ISO since most of my subjects aren't moving.

There's also quite a bit of CA, distortion and the AF is inconsistent, so yeah, on top of the IS, I see a lot of improvements that could happen with the Mk II.

[Zuuyi]

I will be getting a 24-70 mk2 when it comes out, I was going to get the Tamron 28-75 but I will just pony up and get the Canon since it will be the standard for a decade.

[Flake]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time!  Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens.  In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm

[bigblue1ca]

I was gung ho to buy the 24-70 in October until I read the rumours about the Mk II being release soonish.  I'm not in a big rush, so I can wait, but none the less it would be nice to have the 2.8 with the IS.  I like to hand hold in marginal conditions a lot it seems and I've been very impressed with the results of my 70-200 2.8 IS.

[briansquibb]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time!  Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens.  In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm

A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations

I wish people would get out of complaining about lack of IS and think how they can manage without.

[92101media]

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations

I wish people would get out of complaining about lack of IS and think how they can manage without.

Maybe so, but the cost of the 1DX body alone is likely to be out of the price range of all but the most dedicated enthusiasts (or those with large amounts of disposable income) and likely, dare I say it, out of the price range of most casual event photographers too.

On the other hand, while certainly useful, especially in edge cases in conditions right at the limit and/or at longer focal lengths, IS is a relatively recent technology (introduced approx. 15 years or so ago), and photographers managed before then, so it's worthwhile considering all the possible options available e.g. larger aperture (prime if necessary), adding light (reflectors or flash, if allowed), slower shutter speed (if possible without blurring; multiple shots if situation allows to get one sharp shot out of a couple; using a monopod or tripod if practical), bumping to higher ISO if not too noisy, relocating subject if practical etc.

[AJ]

A key reason for f/2.8 is being able to shoot selective focus and blur background.  Can't do that with IS or high iso.

As for the current 24-70, it seems that there's plenty of room for improvement.  Have a look at the photozone review.  Klaus hates the field curvature thing.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff

[neuroanatomist]

I'll take one of each...

I bought my 35L nearly a year ago, and it's a great lens. But I'd like weather sealing, and slightly sharper corners wouldn't hurt.

I've been sorely tempted in recent days by the low price of the 24-70mm. I've resisted mainly because my funds are earmarked for the 1D X (and sufficient for that and accessories like an L-bracket, but that's it).  Buying the 1D X will set up the dominoes - sell 5DII and 35L, which should come close to covering the 24-70L II and the 35L II.

There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time!  Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens.  In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm

Yep - that'll work just great with moving subjects in dim light.  Often, that very stop from f/4 to f/2.8 makes the difference in shutter speed necessary to stop subject motion, for which IS is of no help.

A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.

[briansquibb]

A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.

In which case IS probably wont be needed then ...

[neuroanatomist]

A 1-stop improvement in ISO noise with the 1D X (compared to the 5DII) would take care of that. But I still want f/2.8 for the extra stop of OOF blur.

In which case IS probably wont be needed then ...

Exactly. If it's in there, great - IS is nice to have at any focal length. But if not, that's ok, too.

[niccyboy]

I haven't used 35mm primes in the past... and i have just bought the Fuji x100 (with the fixed focal length of 35mm equiv)... and i must admit i find it a little awkward so far.

As for IS on the 24-70, i think that would be extremely handy for video, but personally i find the extra stop of light and the sharpness of the mk1 version over my 24-105 IS. (although i've mentioned in other posts i got a bit of a lemon)..

From what i've read on this forum and others is that Canon has to make a commercial decision between increasing costs (due to complexity and technology changes inside the lens) and providing an improved lens at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Neither will produce 100% happy customers as people will whinge about cost or lack of IS no matter what they produce.... but i think that they will sell more $1500 mk2's than $3000 IS's...

[gmrza]

I haven't used 35mm primes in the past... and i have just bought the Fuji x100 (with the fixed focal length of 35mm equiv)... and i must admit i find it a little awkward so far.

As for IS on the 24-70, i think that would be extremely handy for video, but personally i find the extra stop of light and the sharpness of the mk1 version over my 24-105 IS. (although i've mentioned in other posts i got a bit of a lemon)..

From what i've read on this forum and others is that Canon has to make a commercial decision between increasing costs (due to complexity and technology changes inside the lens) and providing an improved lens at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Neither will produce 100% happy customers as people will whinge about cost or lack of IS no matter what they produce.... but i think that they will sell more $1500 mk2's than $3000 IS's...

Two of the main markets for the 24-70mm are press and wedding shooters.  Since both of these groups are typically shooting people, they need to maintain shutter speeds at which, on a full frame camera, IS is not really relevant with a 24-70mm lens.  Thus, these two groups mostly could not really care about IS on a 24-70mm lens.

Aside from that, you are probably spot on that Canon will sell many more $1500 lenses than $3000 lenses.

My main wish for the 24-70mm is for Canon to fix the field curvature of the current lens.