Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[marius]

I notice something interesting (maybe it is not new, I don't know).

Contrary to the 24-70 I, the zoom from the II extend -> in the 70mm direction (if no internal zoom). At 24 mm is closed.

[Bengt Nyman]

Will this new Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II produce images noticeably superior to my present Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L ? I would like to see comparison images.

[Michael7]

Ouch. No IS, not interested.

*turns gaze towards the IS Tamron*

[DzPhotography]

I notice something interesting (maybe it is not new, I don't know).

Contrary to the 24-70 I, the zoom from the II extend -> in the 70mm direction (if no internal zoom). At 24 mm is closed.

oh really? 

[RedEye]

Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun.  I bet IQ is phenom. 

[DEFILER]

Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun.  I bet IQ is phenom.

I concur on that front.

[markko]

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.

I have the same feeling; I don't trust the red color of the 'red ring'. It seems a bit too orange for me, but it could be white-balance of the image of course.

[marius]

Somebody says this is a fake.

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...

[Z]

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

Maybe someone just got bored of waiting for the 24-70 II, so they made their own. 

[K-amps]

Somebody says this is a fake.

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...

If it is a prototype, then I can understand Canon not wanting to print the version info at the end of the barrel...

[candyman]

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.

I have the same feeling; I don't trust the red color of the 'red ring'. It seems a bit too orange for me, but it could be white-balance of the image of course.

Just checked some older L-lenses. attached the 135L
Looks to me same color "red" or "orange"

[DzPhotography]

Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers? Do any of you use photoshop? That is a rubbish PS image there are so many reasons why the is fake it is comical.

First on my list would be when did Canon change their lens coatings to amber paint that spills over onto the barrel? But the list is so long and extensive it really is a joke that anybody, let alone keen photographers, could give this a second look.

yer that amber coating is really fishy, come to think of it 

[EYEONE]

Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers?

Yes.

Do any of you use photoshop?

I don't.

First on my list would be when did Canon change their lens coatings to amber paint that spills over onto the barrel? But the list is so long and extensive it really is a joke that anybody, let alone keen photographers, could give this a second look.

Please, do tell. If you have photoshop proof we all would like to see it.

[marius]

Somebody says this is a fake.

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...

If it is a prototype, then I can understand Canon not wanting to print the version info at the end of the barrel...

This could be.

[Steb]

Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun.  I bet IQ is phenom.

I think the 82mm have not helped that much on the 16-35mm mkII.