24-70 II in April? [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

Share

The end in sight?

A good source says “I’d be surprised to see the next 24-70 not announced in April”. The source does caution things could go awry because of these apparent lens delays.

The source also says the lens will be “with IS”.

I look forward to the end of the speculation on this lens.

cr

[KWSW]

April announcement means by the time it hits local shores (SG) could be 3 months or even longer later with the all the delays in lens these days?

Well honestly I am very satisfied with the current one (UZ code) and unless its a confirm IS, I might just continue using the current one since its been very decent on my 7D.

[Justin]

Why does this rumor seem so believable, this time and every time?

In any case, I look forward to the $2000 price and the year wait it will require to get one on a rebate status.

Mostly I look forward to having a fast zoom in this range. I bet Canon lightens it up a bit too. Without IS many people will not feel compelled to upgrade. Canon knows this.

The bigger question becomes will we see a new DSLR announced alongside?

[MK5GTI]

so far, i like my brother's Sigma HSM version of the 24-70 better than my Canon 24-70, hopefully the version 2 will be optically better!

[Bob Howland]

My question is whether this lens is being introduced to improve optical quality or to improve operation when new cameras are used in video modes. I own a current 24-70 and I can't imagine trying to zoom with it while taking video footage. It has been rumored that Canon will be introducing new video-oriented EF lenses in the near future. Could this be the first? One thing they might do is modify the EF lens mount to add power zoom functionality.

Just a conjecture.

[clicstudio]

I own a 24-70 F2.8L. My favorite lens but sometimes the zoom falls short...
I rented a 24-105 F4.0 L to test it out. I love the range but the lens is not good enough:
First of all, the hood is badly designed; there is noticeable light leak from backlit sources. I tried using the hood from my 24-70 and it vignettes at 24mm so no can do.
Second, the hood is attached to the front of the lens. You zoom in and out and the whole hood moves with it. The 24-70 has a fixed hood so you don't see the lens expanding when u zoom. Much neater and the lens is more protected from bumping while fully extended.
Sharpness is comparable but I believe the 24-70 at F8.0 is sharper.
Also the 24-70 is heavier.
The 24-105's IS works really well. Shooting handheld at 1/30 is not a problem.

So, my dream lens: 24-105 F2.8L IS priced at around $1500 should be fair...

[Justin]

It would be about 3.1 lbs. Lots of people I know would walk around with that all day though.

Here's to dreaming. 

[EYEONE]

I've got to say, I've used this lens a good bit and I'm not sure if I see the benefit of adding IS. So far I haven't noticed how IS would make it better. I'm not sure the focal range justifies it.

But, hopefully a MkII comes out so I can get the MkI cheaper.

[Justin]

I don't see Canon making this lens video optimized. None of the other recent releases have been. This lens has been on the short list for updating for quite some time: as long as I have been following canon rumors at least. Since 2006 or so. I'll be able to unload my 24-105 if this comes out. I'll miss the range, sure, but it'll force me to carry my 70-200 2.8 II more.

My question is whether this lens is being introduced to improve optical quality or to improve operation when new cameras are used in video modes. I own a current 24-70 and I can't imagine trying to zoom with it while taking video footage. It has been rumored that Canon will be introducing new video-oriented EF lenses in the near future. Could this be the first? One thing they might do is modify the EF lens mount to add power zoom functionality.

Just a conjecture.

[LuCoOc]

I don't see Canon making this lens video optimized. None of the other recent releases have been. This lens has been on the short list for updating for quite some time: as long as I have been following canon rumors at least. Since 2006 or so. I'll be able to unload my 24-105 if this comes out. I'll miss the range, sure, but it'll force me to carry my 70-200 2.8 II more.

My question is whether this lens is being introduced to improve optical quality or to improve operation when new cameras are used in video modes. I own a current 24-70 and I can't imagine trying to zoom with it while taking video footage. It has been rumored that Canon will be introducing new video-oriented EF lenses in the near future. Could this be the first? One thing they might do is modify the EF lens mount to add power zoom functionality.

Just a conjecture.

the new supertelephoto lense have this "power-focus"

[Breach]

That's more like it. Then again I'll have to sell my current 24-70...

[EYEONE]

If it is going to have IS, then it won't be called a Mark II. If, like your title says, it's the 24-70 II, then it won't have IS. So which is it?

As for the argument that a 24-70 doesn't need IS, AGAIN, FOR THE LAST TIME, video shooters need and appreciate it, and both the 17-55 and 18-55 have IS and why aren't people whining about those two lenses having it?

Well, I guess my line of thinking is that the 24-70 f2.8 is pretty dang heavy anyway. Doesn't seem like the ideal video lens anyway. I agree that IS is very useful (if not required) for video but I would want to do much video work with this lens away unless it was on a tripod.

[Etienne]

Sure IS would be great. I loved it on the 17-55 2.8 IS when I was using APS-C

The 24-70 is already big and heavy for this range. I would prefer a 24-50 2.8 IS with excellent IQ in a smaller, lighter package. I can always use the 70-200, or an 85 to get tighter.

I doubt I'll get one of these. I'll get the 24 1.4 II first, and hopefully a redesigned 35 1.4 (or 1.2), or an updated 50 1.2 if it comes out. f2.8 isn't bright enough for really low light, nor is it always shallow enough DOF. Furthermore, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the only FF f2.8 zoom currently available that is actually sharp enough at 2.8 , but the primes are very sharp by f2.8
.

[bvukich]

I still think the logical thing to do (which almost precludes it from happening), is for them to split the line.  Bring out a 24-70/2.8 II with greater resolving power to match modern sensor densities, and a 24-70/2.8 IS version for those that need it.  It's a good strategy for the 70-200/2.8, makes just as much sense on the 24-70.  I also strongly believe the 16-35/2.8 could benefit from this as well.

In the f/4 space though, and I'm primarily thinking of the 24-105/4 IS here, while I think that lens could also use an update, I don't see room in the lineup for a non-IS version.  In fact I'm really hoping to see a MkII released as a kit lens for the 5D3.

Along the same line, I don't see why there's a non-IS version of the 70-200/4, besides historical context.  So maybe I'm just way off base.

[gene_can_sing]

To the above poster frustrated with HD video in stills camera. I can see where you are coming from.

But for Canon, video is being so stressed on the 5D3 is because one of the main reasons why the 5D2 sold so many copies is because it was the first camera with HD video that your could change lenses, get a nice shallow DOF and actually afford to buy.

Here in LA, I work in Television and know numerous people who have bought the 5D and 7D only because of the video. The stills aspect was just a bonus.

The race is on now between Sony, Canon and Panasonic to make excellent Still / video hybrids because it's basically the future. Nikon is the only hold-out on the video thing, and I feel people are starting to by-passing Nikon because of the video issue.

Canon sees this new market they accidentally created and they need jump on it because they are already falling behind Panasonic. Canon was really surprised by how many people embraced the 5d2 video.

Plus, I'm sure the video presents a new, interesting challenge for Canon engineers. Still cameras are already really good, but for affordable pro HD video, it's still really just getting started.

I just hope the 5D3 video is a big step up from the 5d2, or else Canon will lose the market for sure.

I'm sure the stills and video can co-exist and both sides will win.