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

Jul 20, 2010
7,176
93
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
#1
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>
 
Jun 27, 2013
922
56
32
Pune
#2
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?
 
Feb 14, 2015
33
0
#3
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

I'm New Here
Mar 10, 2016
9
0
#5
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

Spends Too Much Time on This Forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,496
529
#6
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.
 
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
#8
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

Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Jun 12, 2015
683
96
#9
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

Spends Too Much Time on This Forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,496
529
#10
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.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,983
237
Vancouver, BC
#13
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
#14
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

Spends Too Much Time on This Forum
Jul 21, 2010
23,496
529
#15
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.
 
Mar 5, 2013
49
0
#18
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.
 
Feb 13, 2013
299
21
36
Czech Republic
#19
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.
 
Feb 13, 2018
65
30
#20
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