Patent - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

[AUGS]

Two possibilities.
1.) This was one of the lenses tested for the MkII of the 24-70L and it was just patented for the sake of being patented.
2.) Canon actually listens what people want and on top of that Tamron has put pressure on them with their stabilized lens, so they are bringing one out.
I'm willing to bet on the first option though...

The first option is most accurate.

The original patent filing date (Dec 2010) would have been made before they decided on which design option to release.  As soon as they make the options/alternatives available for field testing they become public domain and you can lose the opportunity to patent the idea later.  As such, all designs (5-6 as per CR original post) would have been patented at that time, to protect all designs they may release, and thats long before Tamron announced theirs.

Deciding to follow through and publish the patent indicates they want to protect their intellectual property in that design embodiment, but is no definite indicator they will ever produce one.

For now, I just want my 24-70 f/2.8L II......

[GMCPhotographics]

I've had two Tamron lenses and both broke under the riggors of professional use in less than a year. My current 24-70L, which is a good copy, has amazing build quality. It's never failed once over the last 4 years of use. It's almost bomb proof and it's performance isn't just measured in MFT charts.
If the new version can match the old one's build quality then yes it will be a winner with professional photographers. It'll be nice to have the newer coatings and improved optics. Do I need an IS equipped 24-70L? No not really...would I like one? Well, I'd want to try one out before I'd commit. There's more to a lens then optics and Image Stabilisers. Reliability is key for this particular lens.

[Dylan777]

Would be AWESOME if this lens has internal zoom - like 70-200 f2.8 IS II

My 2 cents: price tag will be $2999 and it be ready by 2014 - plenty of time for everyone to save $$$

[Fatalv]

I would also gladly take IS and Internal Zoom even if the weight increased. As long as the weight didn't exceed the 70-200 2.8 IS II I wouldn't care. I was really hoping for both of these features would have been in the new 24-70 at a price tag of $2500.

For those that argue against IS being useful, then why does the EF-S 17-55 have it? Or even the new primes?

[EYEONE]

The V II 24-70 might be a tad over priced (Nikon's is $1800 and doesn't have VR either). But the Tamron lens isn't an option because its a Tamron lens.

[dilbert]

The V II 24-70 might be a tad over priced (Nikon's is $1800 and doesn't have VR either). But the Tamron lens isn't an option because its a Tamron lens.

Wow Canon must love you.

For a company, there's nothing better than brand loyalty that gets in the way of smart purchasing.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Would be AWESOME if this lens has internal zoom - like 70-200 f2.8 IS II

My 2 cents: price tag will be $2999 and it be ready by 2014 - plenty of time for everyone to save $$$

If it's internal zoom all that means is it will be, ALWAYS, nearly the length of the 24-70 II out at 70mm all the time....

I could be wrong, but I think those designs sometimes require larger amounts of exotic glass too, not sure though.

[iaind]

Canon are just protecting their R&D costs.

Big question is how cost effective it was. It may never see production like so many other patents

[Dylan]

I don't understand why some people whine about this lens not having IS. I can shoot my 135 2.0, handheld at 1/80  without a problem. The focal range of this lens is a no brainer to me.

[Caps18]

I would like to see them merge the 24-70 and the 70-200 IS to create a 35-150mm IS f/2.8 (with internal zoom). (maybe 35-135mm)

I really would like one lens that I could take with me on a walking tour of a city on vacation.  It's not so much the weight as it is the swapping and having to put lots of lenses into pockets that bothers me right now.

I might still take the 16-35mm or 17mm TS-e around as well, but the 35-150mm range would be nice to be able to zoom and crop quickly.

[wickidwombat]

The V II 24-70 might be a tad over priced (Nikon's is $1800 and doesn't have VR either). But the Tamron lens isn't an option because its a Tamron lens.

Wow Canon must love you.

For a company, there's nothing better than brand loyalty that gets in the way of smart purchasing.

maybe he had a dodgy tamron previously, I did and so this is my main reason for not buying one, lack of confidence in the build quality and performance. same reason i wont buy old crinkle paint sigmas. however every new generation sigma with the new finish i have tried has been amazing

[Lee Jay]

I don't understand why some people whine about this lens not having IS. I can shoot my 135 2.0, handheld at 1/80  without a problem. The focal range of this lens is a no brainer to me.

I've shot my 24-105 at 1 second hand-held, and routinely do so from 1/4 at 24mm to 1/10th at 105mm.  Which would you prefer, ISO 12,800 and 1/80th or ISO 1,600 and 1/10th?

I was recently at the National Air and Space Museum (both locations) where tripods aren't allowed and more DOF is desirable (i.e. I didn't want to use my 35/1.4L or 85/1..  IS was exceptionally valuable at getting good shots with high image quality.

That's why.

[Dylan]

12800     I get what you're saying and without a doubt it can be useful for a select few situations. I typically don't run that slow of a shutter to avoid subect movement, not mine. I once went to Pioneer Square in Portland OR and was told by a security officer that I couldn't use my tripod because it was considered erecting a structure. 

[Lee Jay]

12800     I get what you're saying and without a doubt it can be useful for a select few situations. I typically don't run that slow of a shutter to avoid subect movement, not mine. I once went to Pioneer Square in Portland OR and was told by a security officer that I couldn't use my tripod because it was considered erecting a structure. 

When I was at the two museums, my most-used shutter speed was 1/6th, and I rarely went above 1/20th.  Without IS, that wouldn't have been possible.  My worst situation was 0.6 seconds at ISO 3200 and f/4 pushed two stops.  That's a dark environment!  I still got a solid, sharp shot.  I wouldn't have minded having f/2.8 on that one because DOF wasn't a problem.

Generally, I find f/2.8 lenses are too slow when I have moving subjects in poor light.  That's when I use the primes.  Just the other day I was again shooting at ISO 3200 and f/1.8 at a wedding.  So I consider an f/2.8 lens to be a lens primarily for stationary subjects where the IS is really helpful, or as a slow zoom where I'm going to add flash or I have good light anyway.

But oh well, I'll just keep my 24-105.

[Wideopen]

I better start saving. Hopefully it wont costs as much as a 70-200 2.8L II