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

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
10,779
3,158
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>
 

DrToast

CR Pro
Mar 10, 2016
69
157
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,098
12,860
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.
 
Upvote 0
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).
 
Upvote 0
Jun 12, 2015
852
298
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. ;)
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,098
12,860
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.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
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!
 
Upvote 0

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
CR Pro
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
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,098
12,860
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 13, 2018
209
178
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
 
Upvote 0