Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[Orion]

The current version is tack sharp . . . a great lens, and a top seller. IF there is NO IS on this newer version, then why the switch? You can bet the farm (maybe) that this lens will have IS. Otherwise it's Tamron . . or stick with what you got. Having NO IS on the mkII is probably good for business IF you want BOTH models to keep selling. . . . kinda odd to think in those terms, though.

[thewallbanger]

The current version is tack sharp . . . a great lens, and a top seller. IF there is NO IS on this newer version, then why the switch? You can bet the farm (maybe) that this lens will have IS. Otherwise it's Tamron . . or stick with what you got. Having NO IS on the mkII is probably good for business IF you want BOTH models to keep selling. . . . kinda odd to think in those terms, though.

The current lens can be quite sharp during it's first few years, but as the following LensRentals analysis points out, plastic collars in the zoom mechanism would wear out prematurely and cause great variation in image quality among various zoom lengths. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

Here's hoping the newer version upgrades to metal collars, in addition to any new glass coatings usually found in a model refresh.

[marius]

I had the Tamron 28-75 2.8, sold it and buyed Canon 24-70 2,8. I almost regreted.
Tamron 28-75 was a very sharp lens, even in the corners (Much sharper then my new Canon 24-70). The problem with Tamron 28-75 was the AF. It was very very slow.
Canon 24-70 has an incredible AF. Very fast. The downside with Canon 24-70 ... it wasn't sharp in the corners; not even at f8 and after service calibration the problem persist.

[Quasimodo]

I believe the rumors to be true that there will be no IS. Then the question becomes why? Well, I dare say that If Canon ventures to come with a version two of this legendary lens without it, it is to show that they can and that it will set the standard for everyone else. They have too much to loose with the non-wildlife/landscape shooters if they don't. Pretty much every presspeople I know shoot with the version one.

As for 82mm, well does that not mean more glass, more fun?

[ssrdd]

why canon? why? 24-70mm!!!!!? its not wide or tele. not good enough for any thing.
then u call it an update without even IS. i am already curios how u gonna react to ur dumb c300 over nikon D4.

[EYEONE]

The current version is tack sharp . . . a great lens, and a top seller. IF there is NO IS on this newer version, then why the switch? You can bet the farm (maybe) that this lens will have IS. Otherwise it's Tamron . . or stick with what you got. Having NO IS on the mkII is probably good for business IF you want BOTH models to keep selling. . . . kinda odd to think in those terms, though.

It's tack sharp stopped down, not wide open.

[ecka]

It looks like this 24-70L II was engineered in Adobe Photoshop CS3, they just forgot to add the IS

[Justin]

This has to be a photoshop prototype. I just think it is missing too much writing on the lens to be anything else.

It looks like this 24-70L II was engineered in Adobe Photoshop CS3, they just forgot to add the IS

[Steb]

If Canon can put IS in the excellent 17-55f/2.8 (and 24-105f/4) there is no reason they can't or shouldn't put it in a new 24-70f/2.8.

There is a good reason for that. The 24-70 is a fast fullframe lens. In combination with IS that means moveable lens elements with big diameter. It's hard to integrate that inside a reasonable sized barrel. I am curious about the wideangle performance of the new Tamron... I assume that they had to do some tradeoffs, but we will see.

[EYEONE]

why canon? why? 24-70mm!!!!!? its not wide or tele. not good enough for any thing.
then u call it an update without even IS. i am already curios how u gonna react to ur dumb c300 over nikon D4.

 

It's an extremely useful range. But, I see no reason to explain why to you.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Agreed.  Not quite ready to call it a fake, but I'm bothered by the lack of any IR focus markings (although the 100L Macro doesn't have one), and also by the lack of a lens identifier near the end of the barrel.  Could it be on the other side?  Yes, but that would not be consistent with other lenses.  Could it be inside the filter ring?  Maybe, opposite the 82mm marking, but I doubt it, because we'd see part of that writing (usually it's three sections at the points of an inscribed triangle - filter diameter, 'Canon EF Lens', and the lens ID).  There's plenty of room to print the name distal to the red ring...

The size of the filter ring diameter relative to the lens mount does look appropriate, though.  Agree that the other switch would seem to be a zoom lock. 

Judging by the distance markings, the lens will have a very short focus throw, much less than the current 24-70mm, might make MF more challenging.

[surfjungle]

Just to recap what we know and add a bit, if any... On what we can see of that lens in the image:
- We cannot see any image stabilisation markings like in previous Canon lenses.
- There's a bump which is probably a switch. Apart from the autofocus, switches are used for turning image stabilisation on and off, controlling the image stabiliation axis, focus limiter, zoom creep lock.
- There are no markings on the edge of the barrel.
- There are no additional markings where the filter thread of 82mm is specified on the front of the lens barrel.

The image could be:
- A mockup by Canon which is missing the markings
- A new design which breaks from some of the more classic aspects we've come to expect.
- A fake (probably unlikely)

What I'd like to know, why is that bump on the other side of the lens - most buttons are grouped together and their seems to be nothing like that near the AF on/off switch - it's not like there's 5 switches on the lens and they ran out of room on one side. Take the 24-105 - the focus and IS buttons are side by side.

Thoughts?

[marius]

The current lens can be quite sharp during it's first few years, but as the following LensRentals analysis points out, plastic collars in the zoom mechanism would wear out prematurely and cause great variation in image quality among various zoom lengths. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

Here's hoping the newer version upgrades to metal collars, in addition to any new glass coatings usually found in a model refresh.

Very interesting! Thank You for the link.
By the last service of my Canon 24-70, they had changed the collars, too.
 

[DEFILER]

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.

Agreed.  Not quite ready to call it a fake, but I'm bothered by the lack of any IR focus markings (although the 100L Macro doesn't have one), and also by the lack of a lens identifier near the end of the barrel.  Could it be on the other side?  Yes, but that would not be consistent with other lenses.  Could it be inside the filter ring?  Maybe, opposite the 82mm marking, but I doubt it, because we'd see part of that writing (usually it's three sections at the points of an inscribed triangle - filter diameter, 'Canon EF Lens', and the lens ID).  There's plenty of room to print the name distal to the red ring...

The size of the filter ring diameter relative to the lens mount does look appropriate, though.  Agree that the other switch would seem to be a zoom lock. 

Judging by the distance markings, the lens will have a very short focus throw, much less than the current 24-70mm, might make MF more challenging.

...And no hyperfocal scale either....
The photo of this lens shows a few inconsistencies for sure.  Another one I noticed is the barrel material.  Haven't Canon gone to the new "Engineering plastic" a-la 100L Macro?

[lennywood]

this looks a lot like the 16-35 II, which is also a 82mm front.  i don't know enough to say if this picture is real or not, but if it is, i am sure this is an internal zooming lens, which would be reason enough for me to buy.  and it they make the image at 2.8 sharp, like it is in the 70-200 II, because i pretty much only shoot wide open aperture, i am convinced.  and, if they make this lens parafocal (focus stays as you zoom in and out), i will love you Canon.  because i use my lenses for filming mostly, especially now that i added the C300 to my stable.