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

traveller

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 22, 2010
895
58
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?
That's a lot of very sweeping statement that you made in one short comment! First up, I disagree with your assessment that the 24-70 f/2.8 VR is "no where as good as their non VR lens", unless you are simply referring to resolution in the central part of the imaging circle in the 24-50mm focal length range. At 70mm, the VR lens is clearly better across the image circle. At 24mm and 50mm (to quote Roger Cicala -which he would hate):

"...Nikon has made a design choice with the new lens, and the design choice wasn’t ‘let’s make it look great for the bench testers’. They’ve given up the absolute best center resolution in exchange for good resolution across the entire image field. So in the center 1/3 of the image, the old lens had better MTF results, but across the remainder of the field the newer lens is far superior. Not just that the resolution is better, but there is very little astigmatism, which the old lens had in spades." [https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-ed-af-s-vr-sharpness-optical-bench-testing/]

No quite as clear cut as your sweeping statement presents. Nikon made a choice with the design of the new VR lens' optical characteristics, just one of the many trade-offs they had to make, including increased size, weight and price. Indeed, I seem to remember that size and weight was the reason that Canon gave for not including IS in the the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, rather than concerns over resolution (following feedback from professional customers, who have the lens hanging around their neck all day). The Sigma lens is a bit of a dud (though not so bad at the long end), so I'm not quite sure what their design choices were, but the earlier (pre-Art) non-OS version wasn't any better. Tamron's 24-70 f/2.8 VC is also superior to the non-VR Nikon away from dead centre.

To summarise, I think that it is too simple to make the statement that adding image stabilisation will inevitably compromise resolution. For sure, adding another variable to the len's design isn't going to make life any easier for the designer, but the outcome will depend upon the balance of priorities that has been set (probably by the marketing team).
 
Sep 26, 2017
3
0
United States
I'm excited for this!

The 24-70 f2.8L II is the *only* piece of equipment i;ve run across, as opposed to practice and learning better technique, that has made me a better photographer.


It's taken my *good* shots, ones I'd have been proud of taking with my 50mm f1.4 or the 135mm zoom, and made them *magic*.


I'm not shy about letting trusted friends use my 24-70, and *they've* all felt the same. Hell, this lens makes the shots that otherwise would have been thrown away at least moderately useful.


While I admit I'm not a professional, and I've not naturally a visually conscience person (I slid into photography from photogrammetry), The results I'm getting from this lens make it difficult to set the camera down....and I've had the privilege of playing with a substantial amount of high end gear.


So if the IQ of the IS is on par, or better, I'm getting this. I do a fair bit of impromptu indoor and firelight photography, and having a couple of stops of extra headroom will be bloody fantastic.


It would be cool if they could make the IS one a bit better for video, but that's *definitely* not a deal breaker for me. I'd like to play with video, but unfortunately the price of the gear is simply absurd...
 

3dit0r

EOS M50
Dec 4, 2017
46
6
dolina said:
Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?
Nikon already have one.

I’d upgrade to this in a heartbeat. Bring it on. Surprised it’s taken them this long.
 
Nov 10, 2016
32
13
Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way. Sigma is almost close.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,312
82
S Florida
AuroraChaserDoug said:
Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way. Sigma is almost close.
I'm always surprised by this attitude. I should qualify this by stating that I don't shoot fast action very often. Is it annoying? Certainly. Is it a deal-breaker? Certainly not. Of course, YMMV.
 

johnf3f

Canon 1Dx
Oct 25, 2012
925
18
Wales
So glad I have the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 Non IS - I certainly won't be buying an IS version - still if it keeps others happy?
 

lexaclarke

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2018
48
0
26
Southampton, England
brad-man said:
AuroraChaserDoug said:
Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way. Sigma is almost close.
I'm always surprised by this attitude. I should qualify this by stating that I don't shoot fast action very often. Is it annoying? Certainly. Is it a deal-breaker? Certainly not. Of course, YMMV.
I've got the Tamron 24-70 G1 along with Sigma primes, Canon primes and the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I can't say I've ever had a problem with the different focus and zoom directions either. Even when I do make a mistake it takes like a half second before I realise I've moved something in the wrong way and go back the other direction.
Yeah if we were talking about a top action lens like the 70-200s or 100-400s I can see how that little moment of hesitation before correcting yourself might get in the way of fast sports or I can see how it could be a problem for the kind of focal length where you swap it out often. But a 24-70 is the kind of thing you put on your camera to use for the whole day and it's not like anybody is shooting the 1000m sprint at the Olympics with it. I can't even imagine it being a problem for that lens.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
mppix said:
Hi IQ - small size/weight - inexpensive -> you can get only two
not true.

Even Canon manages to get all 3 from every once in a while.
EF-M 22/2.0 really small. excellent IQ. dirt cheap.
EF-M 11-22 - really small. arguably best IQ of all (crop) UWAs on market. inexpensive
EF 40/2.8 STM ... dito
EF-S 60/2.8 Macro ... dito
and some more ...
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
As far as 24-70/2.8 IS is concerned: Canon lost me on that one. Would have bought it 2 years ago. Had to settle for non-IS Mk. II because innovative Canon was not able to stick an IS unit into that lens then. Now, in 2018 ... I will definitely not buy any other mirrorslapper lens any longer ... no matter how big, small or good it may be.
 

kaptainkatsu

1DX Mark II
Sep 29, 2015
166
62
I've been holding off on the 24-70 range because of the IS version. I really want IS for video but also the 2.8 for low light action. I hate to have to purchase the same focal length twice, one with 2.8 non-IS and the other 4 IS.
 
Nov 10, 2016
32
13
brad-man said:
AuroraChaserDoug said:
Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way. Sigma is almost close.
I'm always surprised by this attitude. I should qualify this by stating that I don't shoot fast action very often. Is it annoying? Certainly. Is it a deal-breaker? Certainly not. Of course, YMMV.
brad-man said:
AuroraChaserDoug said:
Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way. Sigma is almost close.
I'm always surprised by this attitude. I should qualify this by stating that I don't shoot fast action very often. Is it annoying? Certainly. Is it a deal-breaker? Certainly not. Of course, YMMV.
I made this statement after shooting a dodsled race with 70-200 @f/8 1/1000 ISO 400 (thin cloud layer), which doesn't need IS at all. Looking at the images, I wish I had the 24-70, since it would have given me a wider FOV with a bit of the Alaska Range in the background. (Snow was deep, so I couldn't add FOV with my feet.) Wouldn't need IS or f/2.8 for this but then there was my daughter's performance last week that a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would have been very useful. In the UWA lens segment, I opted for the Tamron 15-30 over the Canon 16-35 because of IS. The Tamron will easily flair and I'm always turning it the wrong direction. So, my choices to make are real and based on need and usage. A Canon 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be an instant buy for me.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,307
569
If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it, but the IS part would find limited use, my subjects tend to move.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,052
317
Vancouver, BC
Mt Spokane Photography said:
If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it, but the IS part would find limited use, my subjects tend to move.
A lot of it has to do with your "next lens" in that focal range, for whatever reason. I mean, if you had to buy a 70-200/2.8, the chances of buying a non-IS new is pretty slim. The IS is still nice to have to compensate for my own movements.

The price will slowly narrow, and at some point, the IS will be nice for a new purchase, and the non-IS will be wonderfully less expensive, with some great deals used.
 

dolina

millennial
Dec 27, 2011
1,981
127
29
34109
www.facebook.com
3dit0r said:
dolina said:
Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?
Nikon already have one.

I’d upgrade to this in a heartbeat. Bring it on. Surprised it’s taken them this long.
Awesome to know Nikon has one already. I want to sell my 24-70/2.8 without IS for a 24-70/2.8 with IS.

And I think Sony's 24-70 already has IS on the lens and image sensor.
 

gmrza

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 21, 2011
521
1
neuroanatomist 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).
The faster the lens, the more difficult it is to implement IS.
There is a separate question about what the use cases are where IS is important. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is one of the most important lenses for event and press photographers. Most of them shoot subjects which are moving (at least slowly) which generally requires shutter speeds fast enough to make IS relatively unimportant. A 70-200mm lens is also very important for these photographers, but there the need for IS is fairly obvious, as there is often a need to shoot at or just under 1/100s.

I think a lot of photographers would not replace a 24-70 f/2.8 non-IS lens with one that has IS, quite simply because IS is not that critical at those focal lengths. When in the market for a new lens, however, having IS would do no harm, provided IQ is not impacted.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,052
317
Vancouver, BC
dolina said:
3dit0r said:
dolina said:
Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?
Nikon already have one.

I’d upgrade to this in a heartbeat. Bring it on. Surprised it’s taken them this long.
Awesome to know Nikon has one already. I want to sell my 24-70/2.8 without IS for a 24-70/2.8 with IS.

And I think Sony's 24-70 already has IS on the lens and image sensor.
The Nikon 24-70/2.8 VR is inferior optically to the non image stabilized version. In addition, it's huge at 155mm at 1070g. To put it in perspective, in comparison, the Canon 24-70 is 113mm and 807g.

The Sony does not have optical stabilization and it is 136mm and 886g, but that's just like every other Sony pro lens - what they took out of the camera body in flange in the body, they add back in the lens.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
986
204
gmrza said:
neuroanatomist 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).


The faster the lens, the more difficult it is to implement IS.
There is a separate question about what the use cases are where IS is important. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is one of the most important lenses for event and press photographers. Most of them shoot subjects which are moving (at least slowly) which generally requires shutter speeds fast enough to make IS relatively unimportant. A 70-200mm lens is also very important for these photographers, but there the need for IS is fairly obvious, as there is often a need to shoot at or just under 1/100s.

I think a lot of photographers would not replace a 24-70 f/2.8 non-IS lens with one that has IS, quite simply because IS is not that critical at those focal lengths. When in the market for a new lens, however, having IS would do no harm, provided IQ is not impacted.
No harm, but an IS version will be more expensive and it may well be heavier. We can anticipate the whining about the price. It will be a Canon lens after all. There is always whining about the price.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,052
317
Vancouver, BC
BillB said:
No harm, but an IS version will be more expensive and it may well be heavier. We can anticipate the whining about the price. It will be a Canon lens after all. There is always whining about the price.
At least it will not be the price of a Sony lens :p

People complain about the price of everything, Hehe he.
 

Ladislav

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2013
328
43
37
Czech Republic
brad-man said:
AuroraChaserDoug said:
Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way. Sigma is almost close.
I'm always surprised by this attitude. I should qualify this by stating that I don't shoot fast action very often. Is it annoying? Certainly. Is it a deal-breaker? Certainly not. Of course, YMMV.
I also used to be surprised before I purchased second body and shot event with Canon lens on one body and Tamron on the second one. Mistakes then become much more frequent and I missed quite a few very good shots just because I zoomed other way and that half second to get back was enough to be too late.

Apart from that Tamron has quite few other more severe issues which would make me swap it for Canon IS version instantly.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,331
945
Irving, Texas
gmrza said:
neuroanatomist 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).
The faster the lens, the more difficult it is to implement IS.
I think a lot of photographers would not replace a 24-70 f/2.8 non-IS lens with one that has IS, quite simply because IS is not that critical at those focal lengths. When in the market for a new lens, however, having IS would do no harm, provided IQ is not impacted.
I agree completely, gmrza. I've been surprised by how often I choose this lens (24-70 f/2.8L II) for portraits. I'm a shade tree photographer, far from being a pro, so this really surprised me. IS would have been a nice feature to have at the time of purchase, but I'm not going to shell out the $$$$ for a new one with IS as long as I have this one. People with deeper pockets, people replacing an old or broken lens, or people just getting into this lens might. Not me.

If a really good 135 f/2L IS hits the stores... I'm probably all in. 24-70 with IS? Not too critical for what I do. I'm sure it will be a fantastic lens though!