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

[Stone]

the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.

Pure, unfettered optimism.     The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was the same basic physical design as its predecessor (internal zoom, with IS), and still Canon managed to set an MSRP that was a 32% premium over the original (translating to >$1800 for the 24-70mm II).

Definitely wishful thinking on my part, Canon could at least give us internal zoom to soften the blow.
Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....

[EYEONE]

Weight is not an issue to me nor size really. Though the current model is a beast. What I really want from the Mk II version is more sharpness. The original is fine, nothing outstanding. Nothing that will blow your mind like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I walked around London for several days with the 24-70 on a 7D. I pretty much kept it stopped down to F6.3-8 the whole time since i was mainly doing architecture shots. It was pretty razor sharp but being sharp at f8 isn't really impressive. I've used it for weddings at f2.8 and it performs well enough however.

I like seeing this lens without IS. I have no good reason for saying so. I don't think it would add much to cost or weight to include IS. I just don't think the focal range justifies IS and I like to see that Canon realizes that. If you are a videographer this really isn't a ideal lens for you anyway.

[00Q]

lets just say that I have already been emtionally devastated by this lens that i refuse to imagine and fantasise what the new model is gonna be like and imagine the date that it will arrive ever again. this is because i was so hyped up for it for the jan 3rd announcement and it never came.

so im emotionally protected for another potential upset.

[bigblue1ca]

Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....

I agree, I'd take the added weight for the internal zoom and IS.  I carry my 70-200 with no problems.

[briansquibb]

Tomorrow I am going on a shoot with the 1d4 and the 70-200 f/2.8

That is the light camera

The main camera will be the 1Ds3 + 400 f/2.8

No monopod or tripod just handshooting.

Can't see many size 0's managing that

[acoll123]

Weight is not an issue to me nor size really. Though the current model is a beast. What I really want from the Mk II version is more sharpness. The original is fine, nothing outstanding. Nothing that will blow your mind like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I walked around London for several days with the 24-70 on a 7D. I pretty much kept it stopped down to F6.3-8 the whole time since i was mainly doing architecture shots. It was pretty razor sharp but being sharp at f8 isn't really impressive. I've used it for weddings at f2.8 and it performs well enough however.

I like seeing this lens without IS. I have no good reason for saying so. I don't think it would add much to cost or weight to include IS. I just don't think the focal range justifies IS and I like to see that Canon realizes that. If you are a videographer this really isn't a ideal lens for you anyway.

I have thought about getting the 24/1.4 L for the IQ but have decided to wait for the new 24-70 instead. I already have the 24-105 (which I will probably sell if I get the new 24-70) so I have the range covered just not the IQ at that range. I hope when the 24-70 comes out it will compete with the 24 L in IQ.

[JR]

Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....

I agree, I'd take the added weight for the internal zoom and IS.  I carry my 70-200 with no problems.

While weight is an issue for me in general, I would for sure take extra weight if I could have this lens with IS.  But I know it is not going to happen!  One thing does seem to be sure now is it seem emminent that it will be announced by March or so.

If it was offered as a kit with the 5DmkIII as mentionned it would be a plus.  Too bad the 1 series does not offer kit lens!  WOuld have been a great buy with the 1DX! 

 

[willrobb]

Less heavy & shorter is very nice.
And what about the IQ and other possible improvements?

Shorter and lighter would be very nice, after a day walking about with the current 24-70mm on a gripped 5DmkII hanging off my neck I feel some aches and pains...maybe I just need to work out more

For me the internal zoom or IS doesnt matter so much. Aesthetically I don't like the look of the external zoom, but I've never (touch wood) had any issues with dust or moisture getting in over it's 4 years of use, I can see why taking it to Burning man would be scary though.

I appreciate the IS on my 100mm macro and when I am shooting people doing speeches in low light I sometimes wish I had the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II instead of the non IS version, but for my 24-70mm I've never ever felt the need for IS, that's just me though, I know a lot of people would like it.

The IQ improvements are what I am more intereted in hearing about, but I guess we won't know anything for sure until the lens is released and has been tested inthe field.

[VirtualRain]

I really don't understand Canon's concern about weight with IS...  it's competing with my tripod, so I think it's an easy win!  FFS Canon!  As long as there's a switch to turn it off, there's no reason not to have it on every lens.  It's not rocket science, it's 1990's technology.

[nikkito]

Canon should send us all a few prototypes to test. we will say if they are heavy or not

[DzPhotography]

I really don't understand Canon's concern about weight with IS...  it's competing with my tripod, so I think it's an easy win!  FFS Canon!  As long as there's a switch to turn it off, there's no reason not to have it on every lens.  It's not rocket science, it's 1990's technology.

second that 

[simonxu11]

Geez~~~~~~~~~~~~





































there are two versions and it qualifies CR2, what a joke~~~

[gmrza]

I appreciate the IS on my 100mm macro and when I am shooting people doing speeches in low light I sometimes wish I had the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II instead of the non IS version, but for my 24-70mm I've never ever felt the need for IS, that's just me though, I know a lot of people would like it.

The IQ improvements are what I am more intereted in hearing about, but I guess we won't know anything for sure until the lens is released and has been tested inthe field.

In general, I believe the main intended use case for this lens is events or photojournalism.  In both these use cases, it is generally necessary to keep shutter speeds fast enough to freeze motion of people walking at moving.  That means shooting at shutter speeds which make IS less relevant - generally over 1/80s - which on a full frame body obviates the need for IS.  That is probably the rationale used in why this lens most probably will not have IS.

[Lawliet]

That is probably the rationale used in why this lens most probably will not have IS.

Also with that kind of lens there is a distinct advantage of having an external zoom: you can design the lens shade more effective.
Sure, some might say you could just mind the suns position, but that sounds rather unintentionally funny in the context of most environments...

[Caps18]

There are multiple versions of the 70-200, why can't there be multiple versions of the 24-70?

I would want the internal zoom and IS model, even if it doubled the size, weight, and price.