Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[DEFILER]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

[DzPhotography]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

[scubasteve03]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

How so?

[thewallbanger]

Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.

Maybe it's the lack of writing around the red ring. Or, does it look too small to anyone else? (despite the 82mm filter threads (which is also really odd))

I thought something looked wrong too.  The font used for the labeling (24-70 Ultrasonic) is the same as a traditional EF lens, rather than L lenses.  Also missing is the red lettering indicating mm near the focus/distance window.

If you hold your hand over the red ring, this lens looks more like a standard EF than an L.

[jm345]

If Canon doesn't include IS in a new 24-70f/2.8 I might be buying my first Tamron - if the IQ is good enough.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371808-264/tamrons-24-70mm-lens-takes-image-stabilization-lead/?tag=txt;title

[dryanparker]

Provided this is real, it's obviously a new design. At 24mm, the current model is fully extended...

[gene_can_sing]

Why no IS? That's really lame.

Also, why an 82mm filter size? At that size, or once you go past 77mm, filters take a huge leap in cost. Also, many people I know use a step up ring to 77mm to have a unified filtered system (including myself). So if I were to go to 82mm, I would have to buy all new filters including a Fader ND for video, which at 82mm, would be hard to find and really, really expensive.

They have IS in 17 to 55mm EF-S, so why not add it to 24-70, especially when it's the MOST REQUESTED feature by nearly everyone.

[AJ]

Suppose Canon is all set to announce a non-IS lens tomorrow, and Tamron beats them to the punch with a VC lens...

If so there would be some very interesting last-minute discussions between Canon's marketing and R&D folks.

Interesting times, for sure!

[DzPhotography]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

How so?

take a look at the gap just behind the lens hood mount.

[K-amps]

Suppose Canon is all set to announce a non-IS lens tomorrow, and Tamron beats them to the punch with a VC lens...

If so there would be some very interesting last-minute discussions between Canon's marketing and R&D folks.

Interesting times, for sure!

Like! 

[marius]

I can't belive it! ... maybe I will not desert to the "dark side" anymore.
I had no "first love" for my Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L ... not even a "second one".
But no IS? Why? Even Canon EF 24 and 28 have IS. Strange.

Now, if the Canon 5D Mark (III)(X) will have a higher DR and no pattern noise, I will be very, very, very happy.

[DEFILER]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

How so?

take a look at the gap just behind the lens hood mount.

True, but the focus ring and its associated mechanics are also in the way.  Does not seem to leave much room for an inner barrel at that location unless its focus-by-wire a-la 85L II....which would not help this lens' cause any further...

[Dylan777]

"Lighter than version I" =  no IS???   

Can't wait to see the reviews on Tamron with IS.

[DEFILER]

...and on the other hand, comparing to my 16-35L II (which does not extend on zoom) is completely flush towards the end of the barrel without the gap so I suppose many will be a bit disappointed.  Does look a lot shorter as well so no way it's internal zooming.  Just wishful thinking.

I realize it seems frivolous to look at things such as internal zooming and fixed lens hoods but to me form and ergonomics are as big a factor as function in lens design. The 70-200 IS II is a great example of near-perfection in my book.

[moreorless]

Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.

Maybe it's the lack of writing around the red ring. Or, does it look too small to anyone else? (despite the 82mm filter threads (which is also really odd))

I thought something looked wrong too.  The font used for the labeling (24-70 Ultrasonic) is the same as a traditional EF lens, rather than L lenses.  Also missing is the red lettering indicating mm near the focus/distance window.

If you hold your hand over the red ring, this lens looks more like a standard EF than an L.

Compair it to the 100mm L macro released recently rather than L lenses from several years ago and it looks very similar in design to me.