Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS Development Continues [CR2]

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,749
382
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
We continue to hear that an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is in development, while we don’t believe it’s on the 2018 road map at this time, we are confident such a lens is coming.</p>
<p>The latest source claims that the lens is in the final stages of development and that the next phase will be testing by select photographers and manufacturing planning.</p>
<p>We haen’t seen any new 24-70mm optical formula patents for quite some time, but if this lens is in late stage development, we expect to see some clues over the coming months.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 

Chaitanya

EOS 6D MK II
Jun 27, 2013
1,127
207
33
Pune
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
 

kiwiengr

EOS M50
Feb 14, 2015
38
8
One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.
 

DrToast

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2016
25
23
Chaitanya said:
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
DrToast said:
Chaitanya said:
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.
The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,166
1,740
Irving, Texas
I'm all for IS in any lens. Frankly though, I have not missed not having it on my 24-70. Mine would have to disintegrate before I upgrade. Glad Canon is adding IS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpcanon

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
neuroanatomist said:
DrToast said:
Chaitanya said:
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.
The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.
it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).
 

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
780
201
AvTvM said:
neuroanatomist said:
DrToast said:
Chaitanya said:
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.
The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.
it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).
Or maybe the 70-200 f4 L IS more expensive because Canon chose to equip the lens with a fluorite element. Stupid Canon making great lenses with stupid fluorite. ;)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
AvTvM said:
neuroanatomist said:
DrToast said:
Chaitanya said:
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.
The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.
it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).
The faster the lens, the more difficult it is to implement IS.
 

SV

EOS M50
Aug 24, 2017
29
26
It's about time! How many lens formula patents does Canon have over the years for this unicorn?!?!
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
kiwiengr said:
One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.
I own the 24-105 (Mk1) and the 24-70 f/4 IS. Having used both extensively for product stills, I am quite sure that the 24-70/4 produces better images at both ends of the focal range and especially at f/4.

However, I keep the 24-105, because the top end of that zoom is super useful for portraits, and in a lot of my portrait shots, I'm not really concerned about the corners anyways.

If Canon puts out a top-of-the-line 24-70 f/2.8 IS -- IQ as good as the non-IS -- I will buy it!
 

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
kiwiengr said:
One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.
Take another look at the 24-70 2.8 L II. Mine is tack sharp, excellent IQ, and is simply an awesome lens.

Scott
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
scottkinfw said:
kiwiengr said:
One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.
Take another look at the 24-70 2.8 L II. Mine is tack sharp, excellent IQ, and is simply an awesome lens.
+1, I had two copies of the original 24-105/4L IS, and the 24-70/2.8L II delivers much better IQ. Having said that, if shooting studio portraits, where you're generally stopped down to f/8 of f/11, there's really not much difference. But then, in those conditions an EF-S 18-135mm would likely do just as well.
 

shutterlag

EOS T7i
Mar 5, 2013
64
6
Chaitanya said:
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
The Tamron 24-70 VC has been around for years and clocks in just a hair behind the Canon mk2. The real answer it to swap to a system that has IBIS and then this is a non-issue.
 

Ladislav

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2013
332
44
37
Czech Republic
For God's sake just release it! These rumors are coming for how long? Five years? My Tamron is slowly falling apart. I will need a new standard zoom soon and it looks like I will have to go either for 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 Mk.II. I checked my catalog and found that I need IS more often than 2.8 max aperture but I of course prefer to have both instead of having two lenses for different purposes.
 

mppix

EOS T7i
Feb 13, 2018
65
30
Larsskv said:
AvTvM said:
neuroanatomist said:
DrToast said:
Chaitanya said:
Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.
The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.
it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).
Or maybe the 70-200 f4 L IS more expensive because Canon chose to equip the lens with a fluorite element. Stupid Canon making great lenses with stupid fluorite. ;)
Hi IQ - small size/weight - inexpensive -> you can get only two