Another Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L IS mention [CR2]

[nchoh]

An EOS R pro, would want the bread and butter pro lenses to match - if we are expecting a R pro in 6 months these these new pro lenses at 12 -18 months off seem unlikely to me. Unless proven new lens tech need a new manufacturing facility set up to produce them.
Regarding the slow sales of the R - sure i see that for working pro's, but for tech fans isn't it still very desirable body especially with the 28-70mm F2. I know i'd want to shoot with this combo loads if possible.

Why would you need a new manufacturing facility for RF lenses? Although the mount allows for new and better optical formulas, the components are all virtually the same. Same glass production, same motors, same barrel components, same assembly, even if the optical formula is different.

 

[mirage]

An RF 24-70 F2.8 IS makes sense to me if Canon wants to sell higher end R cameras. The RF 28-70 doesn't have IS and it is heavy and expensive. The RF 28-70 and the RF 24-105 should soon tell us whether the new R mount permits significantly better lens IQ. If better IQ is possible, then an RF 24-70 F 2.8 IS seems pretty much inevitable to me. An EF 24-70 F2.8 IS would be a different animal, with a much more retrofocal design.

Looking at MTF charts, RF 24-105 unfortunately is *not significantly* better optically than EF 24-105 Mk. II. And not much smaller/lighter easier. But more expensive.

... "innovative" Canon.

 

[xps]

RF 2.8 24-70 IS for 1900 EUR 900 g
EF 2.8 24-70 IS for 2900 EUR 1200 g

Because strong retrofocus design necessary for EF design is much more advanced / needs more/thicker/more extreme lenses (shape, material) ...
This will support automatically the RF system but opens a route for the DX-mark ii etc users which prefer e.g. the direct optical viewfinder.
And for the RF system you have a 1000 EUR "consumer" 24-105, a mid class 2000 EUR 24-70 and a high end 3000 EUR 28-70 with f/2 as top spec ...

Do you really think, the EF version will be priced almost double the price of th current version II? And the 2.8 RF version so muc cheaper? I think the price will be around 2300€

 

[xps]

Looking at MTF charts, RF 24-105 unfortunately is *not significantly* better optically than EF 24-105 Mk. II. And not much smaller/lighter easier. But more expensive.

... "innovative" Canon.

Yes, its about the same price or just about 100€ higher htan the 24-105 II was 2 years before, when it appeared on the market.
But - compared with the 24-105 II on the 5DIV and the 24-105 RF on my new R, the sharpness is (in my personal view) a little (but visibly) bit better. Especially, if you look on the sharpness outside of the center. There I see some improvements that are made.

 

[CanonFanBoy]

well, I don't think we're going to see a RF 70-200/2.0 any day soon.

Ahhh.... but I didn't say 70-200 f/2 did I? 70-150 f/2.

 

[stevelee]

Perhaps he's an extreme climate change doomsayer. Polar ice caps are melting at a rapid rate. Best to futureproof your gear, etc.

I didn't start worrying until Pittsburgh joined the Atlantic Coast Conference.

 

[mb66energy]

Do you really think, the EF version will be priced almost double the price of th current version II? And the 2.8 RF version so muc cheaper? I think the price will be around 2300€

IS in a high quality lens needs a lot of effort. And I think that Canon will - in the long term - only create new lenses for RF mount but wants also to deliver some good butter and bread lenses for journalists (and similar profesisons) which work well with existing flagship cameras like 1Dx and maybe 5D mark iv.

I spoke about introductory / list prices. A quick check at dpreview gave me 2200 $ (/EUR) for the 24-70 mark ii in 2013 so I do not think that you will get the IS version for just 2300 $/EUR (with added IS, improved IQ and inflation).

But that's just my guess ...

 

[mb66energy]

Looking at MTF charts, RF 24-105 unfortunately is *not significantly* better optically than EF 24-105 Mk. II. And not much smaller/lighter easier. But more expensive.

... "innovative" Canon.

MTF charts are one aspect to check for lens IQ but there are a lot of other factors which make a lens a good tool, just in the IQ department.

My EF-M 32 1.4 arrived just three days before. 500 bucks are a lot but this lens delivers: very crisp and natural photos straight from f/1.4 and the bokeh is very attractive. Add the 1:4 max. reproduction ratio and you have a premium walk around lens with 50mm equiv.
A 14 lens / 8 group standard prime was a big surprise for me and is - for me - like a micro Sigma Art / OTUS and hence innovative!

 

[xps]

@mb66energy: You might be right. The price at introduction was definitively much higher. But I hope Canon wil not exeed the price of the lenses like Sony does.
But Canon is definitively willed to milk this new cow as much as possible. And Canon will change their marketing more into advertising the ergonomics, sensorprotection, adapter-plusses and so on. Away from just comparing specs.
Mia hom des a bei ana Mass und ana guatn Brezn auf da Wiesn diskutiert. Und do worn de Japaner glei a bissl gsprächiger. ;-) A bissl de interkonitnentalen Beziehungen vatiaft. Und so hom gsogt: Kim zua Olympiade 2020. Do wean da de Augn aussafoiln. Do weama zoagn wos mia kena

 

[mirage]

Ahhh.... but I didn't say 70-200 f/2 did I? 70-150 f/2.

haha! no way, not even on mirrorfree FF with short FFD.


but ... i'd like an EF-M 50-150/2.8 IS STM ... with 58mm filter thread (works mathematically) ... for € 699 ... lol

 

[mirage]

MTF charts are one aspect to check for lens IQ but there are a lot of other factors which make a lens a good tool, just in the IQ department.

MTF shows resolution and contrast. Yes, there are additional factors for overall IQ, eg. color reproduction, vignetting, which are not directly visible from MFT charts. In practice however, lenses with better MTF values are typically also better in other IQ dimensions as well.

Comparing 2 different Canon lenses based on their Canon-supplied (theoretical, calculated) MTF charts gives a pretty good appreciation which lens is better in the IQ department, even in dimensions not directly included in MTF.

so, RF 24-105 / 4 L IS is NOT significantly better than EF 24-105 L IS Mk. II. Although I wish it were.

 

[LesC]

If the MTF charts are supplied by Canon, I wonder how they compare to their MTF chart for the EF24-70F2.8L MKII ?

I think we need to await some more reviews as I've seen a Pro landscaper commenting on how sharp it is & guy in a camera shop who knows his stuff saying it's up there with the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII.

One of the benefits of the new lens mount is supposedly the possibility to create even better lenses...

 

[Quirkz]

I don't know what the big rush is for 24-70/2.8IS. It's going to be a heavy and expensive lens that a lot of the people wish for it are never going to buy, because it will be, well, heavy and expensive.

I don’t know about that. I quite like my tamron - it’s not too heavy, quite reasonable size. But you’re right that the canon version will be a LOT more expensive. And if they continue the trend, better optics but more weight.

 

[TedYork]

My intel says a professional mirrorless body is coming "soon." I asked if I was going to have to buy another 5DSR iteration before them. He said, "no." I have been dragging my feet, not wanting to get onto the mirrorless bandwagon. But now I'm seeing the advantages of having the lens closer to the sensor. Still like the clarity of an optical viewfinder, but I looked through the Canon EOS R yesterday. While still not as good as an optical the technology has gotten better and I can live with it. So now I wait!

 

[jedy]

Make them both but make the RF version cheaper, lighter, and smaller than the EF version ... that'll get people looking at the EOS-R

The launch R lenses are huuuge and bigger than the equivalent EF lenses. I wouldn’t count on a stabilised 24-70 f2.8 R being smaller than an EF version or cheaper. The EF IS version will probably be bigger anyway as that seems to be the norm now.

 

[jedy]

Lens IS has worked great for me--both with stills and video. And while I've never used a camera with IBIS, I have seen some absolutely horrible videos/vlog footage using IBIS over the last few years (including Sony--DRoc filming Gary Vee, to be more precise). Maybe it's gotten better by now with the current models--tech is always improving--but it seems to me there's a big risk in using it and having some of the footage look weird.

I don’t like IBIS for video as it never works as well as claimed. A decent handheld camera rig always wins over IBIS. Camera rigs can get complicated and very expensive but there are quite a few budget options that work well enough.

 

[RGF]

Wonder if the R lens will be superior (weight, optical quality, ...) since the mount is wider?

 

[johnhalpern]

You should stop reading Canon Rumors then.

Ha!
You might be right, I guess I’m a glutton for punishment. But honestly, if Sigma and Tamron can put out pretty decent 24-70is lenses, why can’t Canon do the same? As I mentioned, I have the Tamron G2 but I’m always hesitant to shoot more open than f4 at the most because I worry about missing critical focus. My guess is that a Canon version would be a tad more reliable...

 

[miggyt]

Continue reading...

The 24-70/2.8 II should already have had IS a long time ago... sounds like Canon's way of milking more money.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Next 12-18 months? We may all be shooting Nikonos cameras by then...

Next 12-18 months? We may all be shooting Nikonos cameras by then...

Probably Panasonic rather than Nikon