EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

[photophreek]

Internal zoom would be nice, but that does not give you sharp images.  The Mk II of this lens better be noticeably sharper in all FL for me to part with my tack sharp 24-70 f/2.8.

[jasonsim]

If it is true that they are still deciding on a prototype, then I'd caution to say that we won't be seeing a new 24-70 any time soon.  Congratulations to the folks that got the present 24-70mm at such a great price from BH and Adorama during the holiday season.  I think they too fell for the rumors. 

[bigblue1ca]

Internal zoom would be nice, but that does not give you sharp images.

Can you or someone else elaborate on this?  I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and it certainly takes sharp images with its internal zoom mechanism, what am I missing?

[D.Sim]

Internal zoom would be nice, but that does not give you sharp images.

Can you or someone else elaborate on this?  I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and it certainly takes sharp images with its internal zoom mechanism, what am I missing?

what photophreek means is that internal zoom has nothing whatsoever to do wtih sharp images on the 24-70. or your 70-200 for that matter, or any other lens.

Internal zoom is just... internal zoom. Not gonna be overly hard on the 24-70 to be honest, what with it extending as it zooms out anyway, when the hood is on its almost like an internal zoom, just without the internal. if you get where I'm going


Anyway, basically he's implying its the optics he's waiting to see - not this feature.

[lennywood]

maybe i am old school, but i will not buy a lens that is not internal zoom.  that is why i have waited to buy a Canpon lens in this range all these years.  external zooms, to me, make the lens look cheap and amateur, not to mention all the weather and dust issues.  i would gladly pay a reasonable amount more to have all the movement happen inside the barrel.

i own the 70-200 2.8 II and the 16-35 2.8 II.  but the 24-70 2.8 always seemed rinky-dink to me, regardless of how good the image is.

of course, i am not saying make the lens less sharp to make it an internal zoom, i am just saying, keep the sharpness, but enclose the darn thing.  olympus does it with their beautifully sharp 14-35 (28-70 equivalent on the 4/3 format), why can't you?

please, Canon, don't let me down on this...

[D.Sim]

maybe i am old school, but i will not buy a lens that is not internal zoom.  that is why i have waited to buy a Canpon lens in this range all these years.  external zooms, to me, make the lens look cheap and amateur, not to mention all the weather and dust issues.  i would gladly pay a reasonable amount more to have all the movement happen inside the barrel.

i own the 70-200 2.8 II and the 16-35 2.8 II.  but the 24-70 2.8 always seemed rinky-dink to me, regardless of how good the image is.

of course, i am not saying make the lens less sharp to make it an internal zoom, i am just saying, keep the sharpness, but enclose the darn thing.  olympus does it with their beautifully sharp 14-35 (28-70 equivalent on the 4/3 format), why can't you?

please, Canon, don't let me down on this...

Not sure why you'd compare the olympus 14-35 to the 28-70 just because its an equivalent focal length... there are plenty of other internal zooming lenses that work just fine.

Heres one thing I've just wondered though. Would internal zoom mean the lens will be longer (overall)? More akin to the 24-70 at 24mm, when its at its longest?

[candyman]

One design change that has apparently been seen is a fully internal zoom function, we’re not sure if that is with all the prototypes.

That's interesting.
Will Canon make this on both 24-70 and 24-105? And make thoses lenses true weather sealed? For sure a + if you have to compete with other branches.

[Radiating]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

It feels like Canon isn't willing to take the risk which isn't what they should be doing, especially with the release of the 1Dx

[kapanak]

How about a 20-120mm with IS, internal zoom and f/2.8, and same build quality as the 70-200 f/2.8 II ... 

Personally, I own the 24-105, the 24-70 and the 70-200 II. If I were to be stuck somewhere with but one lens, I would take my 70-200.
However, if there was a lens that combined the 24-105 and the 24-70, with the sharpness of the 70-200, and with max aperture at f/2.8, I'd probably keep that on my 5DII most of the time instead. ... /dream

[DzPhotography]

Don't think the new 24-70 will come with IS. Also hope that the performance issues as reported in the original patent post will be resolved

[dilbert]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

[japhoto]

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

500$ or even 500€ price difference, sign me up for one, but sadly the increase would probably not be that small. I'd predict the new version hit 2000$ even without IS...

[iTasneem]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

since 24-70 v1 is sold for $1259 then i could pay for a vII IS $1800.

[bigblue1ca]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

If it had great IQ and similar IS performance, I'd put it on par in my mind with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which I paid $2400 (pre-tax) for last summer, before the price drops around Christmas.

[JR]

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

I personally would be ok with $2,000 if it had IS.  For me I would be a little less price sensitive on this issue, however I am very weight sensitive.  If the IS would be much heavier then I am not sure.  The only reason (for my own personal use which may not apply to every one) I would pick an IS version would be for its potential video use, thus allowing me to shoot video without a tripod.  Grated I only use video about 5-10% of the time here but it would be a good added bonus.

That said, I hope the #1 criteria for the design of the next 24-70 will be IQ.  I am starting to find it challenging to only shoot with prime lens in that focal range and would love a zoom that can closely match my prime IQ like the 70-200 2.8 zoom does...