Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced

[semola88]

USD/JPY 

[gene_can_sing]

This is so anti-climatic. Kind of reminds me of the wait for the "New" Star Wars Episode iV, and getting Jar Jar Binks.

But this is actually much worse because these are the tools that I use to make my living. If this lens was a 77mm filter and had IS, I would have gladly paid the extra 1K for this lens with little hesitation.

So I might be taking a look at the Tamron lens when the 4K Canon Full Frame VDSLR comes out. I hope the mechanics are better than their other lenses since I manual focus for video, or hoping that Sigma comes out with something in this range with IS.

[jlev23]

IS, no IS, i don't care for video production, what we film makers DO care about is if the end of the lens protrudes out when zooming or focusing so we can ride a matte box. if it does then i won't be buying this lens, id just get the 70-200mm and then one of the wide primes

[RuneL]

I hope it's better made than the current 24-70, I hate the build quality of that lens.  I don't care about IS at all.

 For me image quality is at best random in my copy.
It's wobbly (extending zoom - what the hell ), it's made of cheap plastic (like the 50 1.2). The older lenses were a lot better. My ancient 16-35 and 16 year old 70-200 feel more solid than the new ones.

[dealaddict]

US $2299 ??  ouch ... 
Although I expect it will be expensive, not that expensive though.  Even more expensive than the 70-200 F2.8 IS II?   
The guy who bought my MK I for $1040 must be very happy.

[RuneL]

IS, no IS, i don't care for video production, what we film makers DO care about is if the end of the lens protrudes out when zooming or focusing so we can ride a matte box. if it does then i won't be buying this lens, id just get the 70-200mm and then one of the wide primes

Get the 16-35 (not the II), awesome awesome lens. 70-200 is ok for video if you got one hell of an solid stabilization rig.

No L-lens protrudes or rotates during focusing... And won't a matte box usually be attached to the camera and not the lens (where you'd attach the hood doesn't move either...) and then you adjust it, if you use on of them extend / distend-lenses (which the old and the new 24-70 is).
If you have the money to throw at primes and you are only doing video I don't get why you just don't get CZ-lenses and old nikon ones? They are better in lot of cases too.

[DzPhotography]

US $2299 ??  ouch ... 
Although I expect it will be expensive, not that expensive though.  Even more expensive than the 70-200 F2.8 IS II?   
The guy who bought my MK I for $1040 must be very happy.

I bought a new one for € 1069 one week ago...

[pakosouthpark]

B&H is taking pre orders and - Expected availability: April 17 2012

but canon went nuts with the price

[keithfullermusic]

The only dissappointment I have with the lens is the 82mm filter size.  For ,my wide angle I specifically went with the 17-40 for the common 77mm threads.  Now, If I upgrade lenses to this, I will need to get several new filters adding significantly to the cost.  Oh well, when we get our annual bonus in September, this lens will be high on my wish list!

Square filters

[snideby]

Wasn't this lens suposed to be announced WITH a new DSLR (preferably the 5D3) according to latest rumors? Or did I get that wrong? Perhaps just wishful thinking?

[Mooose]

I hope someone makes a 82mm to 77mm filter adaptor so I don't have to buy all new filters when I get this thing.   

[Bruce Photography]

Well now we Canon people get to look at an overpriced 24-70 without IS where Nikon people wake this morning to see 2 new 36MP cameras complete with numerous new features.  I'm glad that the clock has now started ticking for Canon.  They must now decide if they wish to remain competive by not delivering the products they announced last summer as well as having cameras that are second place in resolution.  I will give them some time.  About as much time as it takes for Nikon to ramp up to full production volume so these new cameras are generally available.  After all I'm a Canon guy and I used to waiting for more than 6 months between release and when I can really buy them.

[KitH]

Question 1.  Multiple Choice (mark all that apply)

The lack of IS in this lens at this price is caused by:-

a) Canon have found the upper limit on image quality possible with image stabilisation using what is, after all, a wobbly lens element held in place by motors and springs and for this lens chose to tie the glass down tightly?

b) Canon don't want to kill any remaining sales of the 24-105mm f4 IS, which has been around for a while and has nicely paid back its investment already? 

c) Canon found they had sufficient image quality to do serious damage to the the L- prime lens market if they put this lens out with IS, because then only the bokeh-chasers would have any use for the big f1.4s? 


Question 2.  Short Answers

Discuss your answer to Q1, illustrating with visual aids, MTF charts, WTF charts and stuff pasted off the web as appropriate.

 

[Z]

I hate the build quality of that lens

Really? I don't own this lens, but I've never heard bad things about its build quality...

[ssrdd]

canon is lost. with 4kcine zooms,c300 and now 24-70 lens. no offense fan boys.