EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

[J-Man]

It appears to me that Canon is compromising by sacrificing properties that can be fixed by in-camera software, or in post processing for properties that cannot.   They seem to be giving priority to center, corner and edge sharpness and to eliminating chromatic abberation.  Distortion at the wide end or long end can be fixed by software, while sharpness and LOCA's cannot. 

Sounds like photogs that have time critical deadlines will be forced to send sub par images to their clients,
unless Canon is planning to add correction capabilities to future bodies.
Time will tell if the lens is worth it or not.

[TexPhoto]

I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.

Wait for the real lens and not just pass judgment based on a patent and rumor? Madness!  That is like relying on a jury to sentence a criminal when you just totally know that based on 30 seconds of TV news that the person is guilty.

I will bet any new Canon lens, especially one so complex will have bunches of new patents, many of which don't make it in to the final production model, so I think i'll wait and see.

[JakiChan]

Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY.  *sigh*

[Flake]

I just thought I'd point out something which no one seems to have noticed - the date this was filed 5/10/2009 some 30 months ago.  The 70 - 300mm IS L was launched 8 months ago as for the 55 - 200mm I've no idea!  So why is it they haven't launched the 24 - 70mm ?

Todays zoom lenses are computer designed to get the maximum possible performance from them, it would be a strange thing to find a top end lens which doesn't offer some incredible levels compared with the previous one.  If the 24 - 70mm has some issues, it's likely that there is a compromise going on and performance in other areas will be spectacular!

However if it doesn't have IS it's going to be little more use than a paperweight in the late Autumn / winter months of the North and that would make it a very unlikely purchase for me no matter how good it is.

[neuroanatomist]

I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design.

Agreed.  Canon set the bar pretty high with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and I'd expect a revised 24-70mm to be stellar. 

[EYEONE]

I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.

I agree. We have people talking about switching to from Canon because of a lenses that has not be released and someone thought it might have issues based on the patent.... Seriously?

[Justin]

I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.

Wait for the real lens and not just pass judgment based on a patent and rumor? Madness!  That is like relying on a jury to sentence a criminal when you just totally know that based on 30 seconds of TV news that the person is guilty.

I will bet any new Canon lens, especially one so complex will have bunches of new patents, many of which don't make it in to the final production model, so I think i'll wait and see.

These patents are not new. Multiple patents can be put together to make a final product. A product and a patent don't have to be identical. The 24-70 could be a month away from announcement or 3 years. We don't know. And it could just as easily have IS as not. My money is on IS.

[Hypersonic]

Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.

Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor? Wow, new rumor hehe

[HughHowey]

Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.

Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor? Wow, new rumor hehe

If that's the case, it still begs the question: Why the update? One would have IS with the current version of the lens.

And I can't see Canon going in-camera with the IS. I wish they would, but it would hurt their lens market.

[EYEONE]

Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.

Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor? Wow, new rumor hehe

If that's the case, it still begs the question: Why the update? One would have IS with the current version of the lens.

And I can't see Canon going in-camera with the IS. I wish they would, but it would hurt their lens market.

They won't go in body IS and I'm glad. I like seeing the IS effect through the view finder. Much better for composition.

I don't think that 24-70mm is a range the demands IS. Is it better to have it? Of course. Is it weird that they aren't including it? Kinda. But does this bother me? Nah, not really. Give me a super sharp 24-70mm II with a bit better looking bokeh and I'm good.

And before anyone says it, I know IS is better for video. Or, required more like it. But is the 24-70 really a lens you'd want to use for video? Aren't light weight primes the more desired lens?

[bvukich]

They won't go in body IS and I'm glad. I like seeing the IS effect through the view finder. Much better for composition.

Seconded.

Given all the problems that Sony has with sensor overheating, and having the sensor move in general sounds like an engineering nightmare to me, It's not something I would desire to see Canon or Nikon pursue.

[kennykodak]

well i'm feeling stupid. i sold mine late last year anticipating the new release with IS.  okay i can live without IS and would have upgraded anyway but... lack luster performance on a replacement?

[Kuscali]

I decided to sell my old cropped sensor camera and wait for 5D mark III and this lenses. However, my friend told me to buy 70-200 2.8 is mark II instead. So , 24-70 mark 2 or 70-200 would be best pairing with a FF camera??? I'm looking to do a lot of portraits and some family events.

The 24-70 will be better for those group shots at family events, the 75mm end will do good for portraits. The 70-200mm you will find might be too long for family group shots.

[Lawliet]

Give me a super sharp 24-70mm II with a bit better looking bokeh and I'm good.

And reduced field curvature - good border sharpness is a nice thing, but I'd like to have it where it makes sense.

[JakiChan]

Well, I guess I'll be able to offload my 24-70 for a decent price.  I mean if I only take a $200 hit on it I guess I'm ok.  But I wish the new lens would get announced and reviewed so we can see what we're dealing with.

I *knew* I should have held off...I *knew* it...but I did it anyway.