Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[steven63]

  , but not surprised at this.  There is going to be alot more of this type of sticker shock and not only in the Camera world.  Fast as the Federal Reserve is printing $, won't be long till you have to have a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy something.

[KyleSTL]

Going to throw out a prediction -

The next 70-200mm f/2.8 will have an 82mm filter (not that I think it is or should be anytime soon).

Evidence:
72mm - 20-35mm f/2.8L USM (1989), 28-80mm F/2.8-4L USM (1989), 80-200mm f/2.8L (1989)
77mm - 17-35mm f/2.8L USM (1996), 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (2001), 28-70mm f/2.8L USM (1993), 24-70mm f/2.8L (2002),
     70-200mm f/2.8L (1995, 2001 - IS, 2010 - IS II)
82mm - 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II (2006), 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II (2012)

[wickidwombat]

I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that.

Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.

really? i was somewhat disappointed with the MTF charts. for that money i was expecting better

[D_Rochat]

No one expected Canon to give this lens away and I'm pretty sure everyone was being realistic with what they thought they were going to pay for this lens. Without IS, it should not break the $2000 price point, period. The only people I see buying this right away are maybe high end wedding photogs. I won't be surprised to see this price change soon. They sh*t the bed with this price tag.

Unless of course I'm correct with this lens being able to see through time......

[CrimsonBlue]

I think the people that keep talking about not needing IS is based on the idea that it wouldn't actually kick in for most uses.  It's really helpful for long primes/zooms, but you naturally gather a lot of light at the wide end and it wouldn't be engaged below 1/100 or so.

Someone else said it better in a previous post, but there are so many it's hard to keep up!   

[Cetalis]

Either I missed something or Canon hasn't announced it, but on http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm at the bottom of the page it says "FASC" among the rest of the alphabet soup. Anyone know what it means?

[gmrza]

I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that.

Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.

I believe that Canon probably is targeting mainly event photographers and photojournalists with this lens. - In both of these areas, you have to freeze some degree of motion of people - which means generally shooting at shutter speeds which do not require IS.  Hence why wedding photographers and PJs don't really care about IS on this lens.  They are probably also Canon's main target market for this lens.  Canon's reasoning is probably that you would still only get 1 stop advantage over the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, so they will rather direct users who require IS to that lens - which they probably regard as more of a general purpose lens.

This is not what everyone wants to hear, but I suspect that is most likely the rationale on Canon's part.

[wtf1234567]

Could weight be the main issue of not adding the IS to the lens? U and i know its (the mark I) already heavy...whats the weaight of mkII?

[D_Rochat]

Could weight be the main issue of not adding the IS to the lens? U and i know its (the mark I) already heavy...whats the weaight of mkII?

Ver I 950g - Ver II 805g

I don't think weight was the concern. I don't even think the weight is an issue with the version I. Get a good strap and weight will no longer be an issue.

[Kahuna]

sorry.  way late to the conversation.  Sticker shock to say the least.....

[K-amps]

Going to throw out a prediction -

The next 70-200mm f/2.8 will have an 82mm filter (not that I think it is or should be anytime soon).

Evidence:
72mm - 20-35mm f/2.8L USM (1989), 28-80mm F/2.8-4L USM (1989), 80-200mm f/2.8L (1989)
77mm - 17-35mm f/2.8L USM (1996), 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (2001), 28-70mm f/2.8L USM (1993), 24-70mm f/2.8L (2002),
     70-200mm f/2.8L (1995, 2001 - IS, 2010 - IS II)
82mm - 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II (2006), 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II (2012)

+1 Good, but dire analysis for people with 77mm accessories.

[Maui5150]

I know many folks are disappointed at the 24-70 II which does not have IS... but got me thinking.

This is a beast of a lens... and looking at the MTF graphs... looks to be a huge performer.

Does the lens come before the cart so to speak...

Would make sense to me, especially if Canon has a beast of a MP body on the forefront that there will need to be better glass to really take advantage of a more dense sensor.

So maybe the 24-70, and especially the larger filter size in the front has a lot more to do with a more complete higher performing package down the line.

And while some of the other lens releases have many shaking their heads, maybe Canon saw something with the old versions on their development bodies that required improvement.

When I start seeing the revamping of lenses going on, especially when some of them seem "lateral" in nature (i.e. no major improvement in speed of glass), it makes me think that Canon is paying attention to IQ and that they saw holes in their lens performance with the larger resolution that they wanted to correct up front.

It also may explain why many have commented that the High ISO images on the D800 seem noisy or unimpressive. 

Larger resolution without a doubt will show some flaws in lenses that might have otherwise been less apparent, just the same as why some lenses that have flaws on a FF often perform better on a crop (like soft outsides, vignetting, etc.)

Something tells me Canon is fine with what is going on and a flanking maneuver may be under foot

[Chuck Alaimo]

I like the specs, but, I don't like the filter diameter.  I have three lenses, all at 77mm and have been preparing to grab more filters (graduated ND, nd's, maybe some others).  So to upgrade to this, I would also need to collect a new set of filters (and then a step up ring?)  Ugggg...

http://chuckalaimo.com/

[well_dunno]

I know many folks are disappointed at the 24-70 II which does not have IS... but got me thinking.

This is a beast of a lens... and looking at the MTF graphs... looks to be a huge performer.

Does the lens come before the cart so to speak...

Would make sense to me, especially if Canon has a beast of a MP body on the forefront that there will need to be better glass to really take advantage of a more dense sensor.

So maybe the 24-70, and especially the larger filter size in the front has a lot more to do with a more complete higher performing package down the line.

And while some of the other lens releases have many shaking their heads, maybe Canon saw something with the old versions on their development bodies that required improvement.

When I start seeing the revamping of lenses going on, especially when some of them seem "lateral" in nature (i.e. no major improvement in speed of glass), it makes me think that Canon is paying attention to IQ and that they saw holes in their lens performance with the larger resolution that they wanted to correct up front.

It also may explain why many have commented that the High ISO images on the D800 seem noisy or unimpressive. 

Larger resolution without a doubt will show some flaws in lenses that might have otherwise been less apparent, just the same as why some lenses that have flaws on a FF often perform better on a crop (like soft outsides, vignetting, etc.)

Something tells me Canon is fine with what is going on and a flanking maneuver may be under foot

+1
That's my take too. Photokina will show...

[thepancakeman]

I know many folks are disappointed at the 24-70 II which does not have IS... but got me thinking.

This is a beast of a lens... and looking at the MTF graphs... looks to be a huge performer.

Does the lens come before the cart so to speak...

Would make sense to me, especially if Canon has a beast of a MP body on the forefront that there will need to be better glass to really take advantage of a more dense sensor.
...
Something tells me Canon is fine with what is going on and a flanking maneuver may be under foot

When you consider the 24 and 28 that just came out, I think this is sound logic. 

Let's think of it a different way--how many of you pros out there are going to make MORE money because you have the mk II of this lens?  (This is an honest question, not rhetorical.)  I think iff the answer is "not very many" that leads credence to the argument that there is a body coming that can better use the capabilities of the new lens(es).