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

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
CanonFanBoy said:
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.
I would only consider one, because I cheaped out on my last 24-70 and bought the f/4 IS :)

I agree with you, though: for the majority of us non-pro's not earning big bucks on that FL, the current 24-70/2.8 is a spectacular lens that produces photos that always impress me. It's hard to imagine replacing it just to get IS.

On the other hand, there are lot of new 24-70's sold, and if I were making a decision between IS and no IS, assuming similar IQ, that would probably be an easy choice if the price and size weren't drastically more.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
236
44
gmrza said:
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.
I think the biggest thing for me though, as a press photog, is versatility. I don't find myself needing IS much at those focal lengths, sure, but if Canon releases this at a price that isn't astronomical, I would probably replace my 24-70.

Nowadays I find myself shooting video pretty often in the line of work, which makes IS a godsend without a tripod. I currently tend to use my 16-35mm f/4L IS for that, but all too often I don't have time to switch lenses, especially at breaking news. On top of video, stabilizing the viewfinder while shooting makes composing easier, even on the ultrawide 16-35.

Although it tends to get cliche if you do it too often, I do find myself attempting wide-angle panning shots with the 24-70, and IS would be a huuuge help for those kinds of shots, as well as the large amount of static scenes you stumble upon on a regular day of assignments.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,193
715
I'd love to see announcements for older lenses being updated as opposed to perfectly fine recently made workhorses. We all know which focal lengths I'm referring to.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,552
771
Talys said:
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.
As the focal length gets longer, IS can compensate for my movements, for shorter focal lengths, IS is less important. Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.
 

Ladislav

EOS RP
Feb 13, 2013
332
44
37
Czech Republic
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.
Isn't this the reason why you can turn the IS off on every Canon lens which have one? On the other hand, you can't turn it on, if it does not have one. ;)
 

lexaclarke

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2018
48
0
26
Southampton, England
It really doesn't take 1-3 seconds for a lens to stabilise. On my Tamron 24-70 G1 it's about half a second when coming totally out of sleep and on my Canon 70-200 f/4 it's stable in the blink of an eye.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,037
1,417
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.
lexaclarke said:
It really doesn't take 1-3 seconds for a lens to stabilise. On my Tamron 24-70 G1 it's about half a second when coming totally out of sleep and on my Canon 70-200 f/4 it's stable in the blink of an eye.
I must be doing something wrong, because I have never had to wait 1-3 seconds for a Canon lens to stabilize. Maybe some very old IS lenses were slow, but that has not been my experience with any recent lenses.

I leave IS on almost all the time and even shooting sports at high shutter speeds with IS on I have never had any problems.

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.
It depends on what you mean by "tend to move." Most humans (and probably a lot of animals) don't move constantly, but pause frequently. I've shot speakers and performers at 1/15 of a second with a telephoto zoom and if you time it right you can catch them when they are sufficiently still to avoid motion blur. Some of the best shots are when you get their face sharp, but their hands are slightly blurred by motion. Those shots would be impossible without IS.
 

mikekx102

1DX Mark II =)
Aug 2, 2015
52
0
Western Australia
I can't wait for this lens. Canon bring it out already!
I sold my 24-70 F2.8L II to buy a 35L and planned to buy the IS version when it came out - I wish it would hurry up :p
 
Nov 10, 2016
32
13
mikekx102 said:
I can't wait for this lens. Canon bring it out already!
I sold my 24-70 F2.8L II to buy a 35L and planned to buy the IS version when it came out - I wish it would hurry up :p
It's such a good lens, I decided to go for the 24-70 F2.8L II and not buy the IS lenses in this focal range. I need the fast lens more than F4 with IS. My luck is running out with 3rd party lenses and my refurbished deal price on the 24-70 f2.8L II was to good to pass up:)
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
H. Jones said:
gmrza said:
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.
I think the biggest thing for me though, as a press photog, is versatility. I don't find myself needing IS much at those focal lengths, sure, but if Canon releases this at a price that isn't astronomical, I would probably replace my 24-70.

Nowadays I find myself shooting video pretty often in the line of work, which makes IS a godsend without a tripod. I currently tend to use my 16-35mm f/4L IS for that, but all too often I don't have time to switch lenses, especially at breaking news. On top of video, stabilizing the viewfinder while shooting makes composing easier, even on the ultrawide 16-35.

Although it tends to get cliche if you do it too often, I do find myself attempting wide-angle panning shots with the 24-70, and IS would be a huuuge help for those kinds of shots, as well as the large amount of static scenes you stumble upon on a regular day of assignments.
Yeah, the days of newspaper photojournalists having the luxury of selecting gear based only on still image requirements is long gone. Video for the paper's website is almost a requirement now for every hard news assignment.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
unfocused said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.
lexaclarke said:
It really doesn't take 1-3 seconds for a lens to stabilise. On my Tamron 24-70 G1 it's about half a second when coming totally out of sleep and on my Canon 70-200 f/4 it's stable in the blink of an eye.
I must be doing something wrong, because I have never had to wait 1-3 seconds for a Canon lens to stabilize. Maybe some very old IS lenses were slow, but that has not been my experience with any recent lenses.

I leave IS on almost all the time and even shooting sports at high shutter speeds with IS on I have never had any problems.

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.
It depends on what you mean by "tend to move." Most humans (and probably a lot of animals) don't move constantly, but pause frequently. I've shot speakers and performers at 1/15 of a second with a telephoto zoom and if you time it right you can catch them when they are sufficiently still to avoid motion blur. Some of the best shots are when you get their face sharp, but their hands are slightly blurred by motion. Those shots would be impossible without IS.
The original EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS released in 2001 took about 2 seconds to spool up from rest. The newer IS lenses from Canon are much, much faster in that respect.

Timing performers (singers, dancers, etc.) at that precise moment when they stop going up and start coming back down is becoming a lost art. With insanely high usable ISO and 10-12-14 fps, too many younger photographers just machine gun it and pick which frame they like the best after it's all said and done.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,259
288
Davidson, NC
Back in ancient times we aimed for “the peak of the action,” when the subjects are still. The odds of hitting that on the nose in a burst of 6 to 10 shots in a second seem pretty slim.
 

Diko

7 fps...
Apr 27, 2011
433
5
37
Sofia, Bulgaria
neuroanatomist said:
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.
True that. But now you're ruined it all for me. :-( I was kind of hoping but now since you brought this quite logical argument you took it all from me.

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?
Either this or the regular one which I don't possess even though when I think about it it will be still the same price as it is today because most probably the stabilized version would be at least $300 more.

Mt Spokane Photography said:
If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it...
What do you mean? If it is 24-70 it can't be 24-85 or you mean something else?

Talys said:
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.
Not a chance after release it will be at least $300 North the price of the current model and it will stay that way for the next four years. That is from the official resellers. The gray market would shorten that price gap in about two years maybe.

stevelee said:
Back in ancient times we aimed for “the peak of the action,” when the subjects are still. The odds of hitting that on the nose in a burst of 6 to 10 shots in a second seem pretty slim.
So it is indeed. These days what I enjoy most of the future features is cropping without damaging the image. The best new lenses combined with very good bodies like 5D4 and 5Ds I have always the freedom to make 2 or 3 totally different photos of one raw shot. Taking it back 10-15 years ago that wasn't possible at all.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
Diko said:
Mt Spokane Photography said:
If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it...
What do you mean? If it is 24-70 it can't be 24-85 or you mean something else?
I think he means a shorter MFD.
 
Sep 11, 2016
3
0
Two months ago, I was this close of owning the entire 24-70 II 2.8 because of the price drop, I tested the Tamron and I liked it better because of the IS equivalent system. I did my search that evening and decided I would stick with Canon. The next morning I was at the store and the store manager told me about the new lens expected in October this year and Canon will keep the price drop on the current version for the summer. I know a lot of photographers like the new 24-105 F4 for its IS. So I guess I will wait and see. October shopping list: New lens. New iPhone, 3 birthdays
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
549
Mphotostyle said:
Two months ago, I was this close of owning the entire 24-70 II 2.8 because of the price drop, I tested the Tamron and I liked it better because of the IS equivalent system. I did my search that evening and decided I would stick with Canon. The next morning I was at the store and the store manager told me about the new lens expected in October this year and Canon will keep the price drop on the current version for the summer. I know a lot of photographers like the new 24-105 F4 for its IS. So I guess I will wait and see. October shopping list: New lens. New iPhone, 3 birthdays
The "old" 24-105 f/4 also has IS.
 
Sep 6, 2018
3
0
With the new eos r release, is this lens still confirmed in development? I've been holding off on a zoom for my run and gun work and wanted to know whether to wait for this lens. I returned a tamron g2 because I wanted to stay in the canon line even though the tamron had weather sealing, good autofocus and similar iq to my canon primes from what I saw. I don't need a zoom yet for paid work but if forced to, I'll pick up the 24-70mkii l lens.
 
Last edited: