Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[EYEONE]

Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

Not all Canon zooms are extend at the wide end. In fact, the old 28-70 and the current 24-70 are the only ones that do. All the other Canon lenses extend when zoomed.

[well_dunno]

Missing the infrared focus markings? (sorry if it has been mentioned before - have not read all the previous posts)

*looks at neuro for "yes there were two cameras in the safari" remark* 

[mathino]

So we have 3 lenses as stated in 5D Mk III/5D-X post. Now we are eagerly waiting for a new body ( sarcasm off ). Looks like info about those 3 lenses to be announced became reality. Fingers crossed !

[KitH]

I liked the "reverse zoom" design on mid-range zooms.  It means the same lens hood can work at its best at both wide and tele ends of the range, because at 24mm the lens has extended inside the hood and at 70mm the hood is effectively narrower because the lens is retracted deeper inside it.  Sensible design that give maximum shading. 

Good lens hood design is worth a lot for contrast and colour in the real world.  In my view, abandoning the reverse design for mid-range zoom is a bad idea, it's not so important for tele zooms because the maximum and minimum angles of view is much narrower anyway so it doesn't make as much difference.  Using a lens shade that doesn't vignette at 24mm on a 70mm is almost as good as useless anyway and I don't see anyone linking a lens shade motor to the zoom ring anytime soon.   One reason I like prime lenses is you can put a good shade on that's optimized for each lens.

They'd better have something seriously good going on to compensate for this. 
 

[Dylan777]

So we have 3 lenses as stated in 5D Mk III/5D-X post. Now we are eagerly waiting for a new body ( sarcasm off ). Looks like info about those 3 lenses to be announced became reality. Fingers crossed !

Count me in for 24-70mm f2.8 IS - if not, I'll stay with my 24-105

[mathino]

Count me in for 24-70mm f2.8 IS - if not, I'll stay with my 24-105

Well I'm not in the market for 24-70 (at least for now) - I prefer primes. I'm holding back for FF and some decent wide prime like 24 f/2.8 IS USM - should be great for video and night shots.

I'm currently very pleased to see these news/new lenses - just one lens I'm missing -  updated 50 f/1.4 and I'll be really really happy. But we'll see when those "three new toys" get officialy announced. Then I'll look at some tests (but I'm not a "test chart person", lab is far from real life) - maybe I'll change my mind in case of one walkaround zoom lens :-)

May the light be with you !

[DarkKnightNine]

I had the first version of this lens, hated it, sold it (Zoom extends the lens from the barrel, less than desired IQ etc...)! As a professional, I expect more from my investment in equipment. This new version doesn't look to be much of an improvement. As someone mentioned Canon has never included IS on lenses below 100mm, but that is no excuse for not innovating. Perhaps the technology to do it didn't exist before; I'm not a lens designer or engineer, so I wouldn't know. Since Tamron has just introduced their new lens with IS, we know the technology exists to do it today and for the people complaining about weight, it seems from the specs that the Tamron is lighter. Not having done it before is just no excuse for not doing it now and frankly I welcome anything that can help improve IQ and low light image capture thus improving the usability and flexibility of this lens. 


It just seems to me that Canon is not a company about taking chances and/or innovating. They seem to always play it safe and just add or improve basic features rather than trying to blow their competition out of the water. No XQD or f/8 AF on the 1DX. As I mentioned in a post before, they could have also added the new Thunderbolt I/O on the 1DX as well and since most of the tech is in the cables, it would have been totally possible without adding to the bulk of the camera. I would like to see Canon show some sign that they are innovating rather than copying or playing it safe. Canon grow a pair! You certainly have the ability.

[mathino]

Well I looked at EF 8-15 f/4L pics and the switch on new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II looks simillar to the LIMIT switch of fisheye. Maybe it is some sort of switch to lock on 24, 28, 35, 50 and 70 mm position - that's just my guess. I doubt it's IS on/off switch - it's usually below AF/MF switch.

What do you think ?

[april]

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))

The lack of IS doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think Tamron could do anything to temp me to buy their stuff again.

yeah something really is odd as i also noticed the ultrasonic motor written is so plain and different... all my L lenses have a logo for the ultrasonic motor & is red in color

[DarkKnightNine]

*nods*  It's in the same area as the lock switch on my 70-300mm f/4-5.6L.

I agree with earlier posters about mid-tones being flat and lacking contrast, and a lack of sharpness at f/2.8.

It's all about what you get used to. I thought the 24-70 was good until I got the 100mm L macro, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II, and the 8-15mm f/4L fisheye - especially the fisheye. Those lenses really punch out the color and contrast, and now the 24-70mm looks decidedly dull by comparison.

They need to improve the glass resolving ability, but huge improvements will come from improved coatings, and rounded aperture blades will help with creamier bokeh. New Canon lens designs from about 2005 have all come with the rounded aperture blades.

So it'll come with no IS, 82mm thread (at least matching the 16-35mm...makes sense),  improved design, improved glass elements, improved coatings, improved electronics and improved (rounded) aperture blades.  WIN!

IMO a win over a previous lackluster Canon lens is not a win. I'm looking for a win over competing brands to get my hard earned dollars (yen). If Tamron or Sigma can make a better lens for less money, they win! My mentor still uses a Canon 40D and shoots with Sigma lenses and yet he's one the best photographers I ever seen. He's shot Miles Davis, Stevie Wonder, James Brown, B.B. King (and too many more artists to mention) all with supposedly inferior Sigma lenses. Canon needs to step up their game. That Red Ring needs to stand for more than just higher cost.

[scrappydog]

Count me in for 24-70mm f2.8 IS - if not, I'll stay with my 24-105

Yep, me too.  I want that extra stop, but I don't want to give up IS.

[Burndav]

yeah something really is odd as i also noticed the ultrasonic motor written is so plain and different... all my L lenses have a logo for the ultrasonic motor & is red in color

All recent USM lenses (for instance : 100 f/2.8 L, 70-300 L, 8-15 L fisheye...) have the same "ultrasonic" printing instead of the "classic" USM logo.
The oddest part IMHO, is the lack of any description above the red ring, so that there is no L appearing on the lens.

[Positron]

My vote is also that it's probably just a mock-up by Canon. IS or no IS, I'm super excited about the prospect of a new 24-70, seeing as the current one is coming up on a decade old and Canon's recent lenses have been really impressive.

As for the lens being retracted at 24mm, it doesn't bother me personally that much since I do so much more wide shooting than tele, but I suppose we could always hope for a zooming lens hood!

[Isurus]

Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

My 17-55mm is disagreeing with you.

[willrobb]

I would be semi-happy with those specs, lack of IS doesn't bother me (not having it keeps weight and size down), being lighter makes me happy but the 82mm filters is a pain as I don't have anything over 77.

I'm happy with my current 24-70 and I amnot yet hearing anything to make me think "I wish I could get one of the new ones." I'm sure it will be a good lens, just not something I will be needing anytime soon (I hope, as needing it would mean my current one is bust).