Canon in Active Development of EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
jolyonralph said:So, we're looking at probably close to $2,500 for this lens, weight well north of a kilo, and image quality no better than the 24-70 II (because, well, you can't really top that)
It's going to be hard to justify the extra expense upgrading from the current 24-70 to this one.
Yet I know I will have to do exactly that
Well..
I paid $2299 (ouch!) for the 24-70mm f/2.8 II on introduction back in Nov. 2012!.....so I would expect this proposed lens to be introduced at a considerably higher price 6 years later and also including IS. Buckle-up boys!
I am very happy with this piece of glass and would have no desire to upgrade (and take another financial bath in Canon soap suds
), what with the quality of the high ISO output of my 5D IV, I am all good here. 8)
Upvote
0
Sounds like the "target market users" need to hit the gym. I just got home from 6 hours in the blazing sun shooting track and field and a baseball game with a hand held 1dX with a 300 2.8L attached to it. I also had a gripped 5d3 with a 70-200 2.8l around my neck.
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
Guess we will get some sort of indication about how much weight matters for this type of lens by the response to the Sigma 24-70 OS Art when it arrives (and assuming it is otherwise up to snuff). I have to say my interest in that lens did cool a bit when I discovered it weighs 1 kg. No doubt that reflects the fact I am interested in a 24-70 as a general purpose walk around lens though (rather than, say, for professional events or sports work) - and I will wait to see reviews and price before coming to any firm conclusions.
Will be interesting to see what size and weight the upcoming Tamron 24-70 VC G2 is too. As others have already noted, Tamron's current 24-70 VC comes in only very slightly heavier than Canon's 24-70 2.8L II. If Tamron came make the G2 no heavier than it's current one, and it's up to the standard of the 70-200 G2 (not that I've used one, but its getting excellent reviews), it should make for a very interesting option.
Upvote
0
jd7 said:
I have no idea as to the Sigma or Tamron weights vs the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, but the Canon has become my favorite walk around lens. Keep in mind though that my only primes are the 35 f/1.4 and the 135 f/2. The rest of what I have are heavy zooms... so I have no real lightweight choice in a zoom and probably couldn't live with just 35mm attached. I should try that out though.
Upvote
0
Don't hold your breath for this one. Just think back to the years-long wait for the the 24-70 f/2.8II to finally be released. After five pretty hopeless copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI, I got a great copy of ther24-105 f/4is as a temporary measure just to see me through until the 24-70 f/2.8II shipped. That was four years of waiting and "coming-soon" rumors on this site...
In the meantime, that lens really woke me up to the value of IS in shorter focal lengths. My 24-70 f/2.8II is nothing less than amazing, but I'd be first in line for the upcoming IS version even with inevitable price and weight penalties.
-pw
In the meantime, that lens really woke me up to the value of IS in shorter focal lengths. My 24-70 f/2.8II is nothing less than amazing, but I'd be first in line for the upcoming IS version even with inevitable price and weight penalties.
-pw
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
If you're interested
TDP says 805g for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and 825g for the current Tamron 24-70 VC (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx),
Sigma says 1020g for the upcoming 24-70 Art (http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_70_28/specifications/).
Upvote
0
Canon Rumors said:
Having experience with both Nikon and Canon systems I will tell you that the Nikon 24-70 2.8 IS is a turd of a lens. The 17-55 2.8 on a D500 is sharper than the 24-70 on a D5.
Upvote
0
Three points to contribute...
1
The decision to ditch IS in the development on of the last 24-70L has to be seen in the context of the day:
- Pros were snitty about IS. Some still are. It was seen as more a consumer thing than it is today. Just look at the reaction to people when they launched the 16-35 f/5 L IS.
- Sigma hadn't yet spanked Canon on lens development for four years running with lenses that were very, very heavy. I credit Sigma with breaking through to pros with the idea that you could add a pound to a lens and potentially beat other pros with IQ. Sigma actually has now changed the very impression you get when you hold a lens for the first time. If it's small and light, there's a little shrug inside you, and you assume it can't be quite the best. But this wasn't yet true back then.
- Finally, the perception back then was that the low- and mid-range camera market wasn't going to evaporate, and having reasonably sized lenses was a necessity. No one really predicted the degree to which the DSLR lens market that did remain would have moved so far upscale. IQ became the paramount feature after 2012, where before it was more of a balanced logic in a wider market.
2
My impression is that IS does slightly degrade sharpness because of the introduction of another optical element. There is a cutthroat competition between Sigma, Tamron and Canon with their upcoming 24-70s, and none of them want to be the loser to this coming competition. That Tamron was able to provide amazing sharpness with its VC feature (its 85mm f/1.8 VC is superb, approaching Sigma IQ) means that now the others probably have to give it a go as well.
3
I'm curious as to Sigmas coming model, as they've done so well with some zooms of late, but all of them have been unusually narrow ranges of focal lengths. I'm interested to see if they can deliver that same IQ over such a wide range.
1
The decision to ditch IS in the development on of the last 24-70L has to be seen in the context of the day:
- Pros were snitty about IS. Some still are. It was seen as more a consumer thing than it is today. Just look at the reaction to people when they launched the 16-35 f/5 L IS.
- Sigma hadn't yet spanked Canon on lens development for four years running with lenses that were very, very heavy. I credit Sigma with breaking through to pros with the idea that you could add a pound to a lens and potentially beat other pros with IQ. Sigma actually has now changed the very impression you get when you hold a lens for the first time. If it's small and light, there's a little shrug inside you, and you assume it can't be quite the best. But this wasn't yet true back then.
- Finally, the perception back then was that the low- and mid-range camera market wasn't going to evaporate, and having reasonably sized lenses was a necessity. No one really predicted the degree to which the DSLR lens market that did remain would have moved so far upscale. IQ became the paramount feature after 2012, where before it was more of a balanced logic in a wider market.
2
My impression is that IS does slightly degrade sharpness because of the introduction of another optical element. There is a cutthroat competition between Sigma, Tamron and Canon with their upcoming 24-70s, and none of them want to be the loser to this coming competition. That Tamron was able to provide amazing sharpness with its VC feature (its 85mm f/1.8 VC is superb, approaching Sigma IQ) means that now the others probably have to give it a go as well.
3
I'm curious as to Sigmas coming model, as they've done so well with some zooms of late, but all of them have been unusually narrow ranges of focal lengths. I'm interested to see if they can deliver that same IQ over such a wide range.
Upvote
0
Of course, this lense does look fine on paper but im curious about the price tag.
The EF 24-70mm 2.8 II is about 1800€ incl taxes in Europe right now and this is quite much for an standard zoom lens. Sharpness is already very good so I don't know if an added IS is worth 1200€ because I expect the Lens to cost 3000€ or more.
IMHO this would be too much for a standard zoom, especially because the is the f4 IS if you dont need fast shutter speed.
The EF 24-70mm 2.8 II is about 1800€ incl taxes in Europe right now and this is quite much for an standard zoom lens. Sharpness is already very good so I don't know if an added IS is worth 1200€ because I expect the Lens to cost 3000€ or more.
IMHO this would be too much for a standard zoom, especially because the is the f4 IS if you dont need fast shutter speed.
Upvote
0
I am very interested in such a lens. I dream of an affordable two-body-two-lens solution. While the f/4 70-200 IS USM is a great lens for the tele range I cannot decide between 16-35 and 24-70 (IS USM f/4 versions) - 16-35 is too wide for me, in the 24-70 range I would like a larger aperture for smaller DOF but also IS to free me from tripods under normal conditions.
Maybe I should use my old-fashioned 28-70 more often to see if I would like thes FL range ...
Ideally Canon would relase a f/4 20-60 f/4 IS USM + a f/1.4 50mm IS USM but this will never happen. This would lead to a two-body-THREE-lens solution but with much greater flexibility!
So ... still waiting for solutions for my needs ... and saving lots of money
Maybe I should use my old-fashioned 28-70 more often to see if I would like thes FL range ...
Ideally Canon would relase a f/4 20-60 f/4 IS USM + a f/1.4 50mm IS USM but this will never happen. This would lead to a two-body-THREE-lens solution but with much greater flexibility!
So ... still waiting for solutions for my needs ... and saving lots of money
Upvote
0
Extreme shameful Canon doesn't have a stabilized 24-70/2.8, especially as the bodies are not stabilized. It always sucks to work like that. Canon has the only system without stabilization in a 24-70 zoom range now.
Third parties soon will already have 3 alternatives for EF mount. 2017 might be the historic year where a Canon camera user could work professionally without using one single piece of Canon glass.
Panasonic and Olympus have show that sensor stabilization can be way more effective than lens stabilization, so even if at some point Canon comes up with it, it is already behind.
Canon needs to wake up. You lose your reputation, which might not be reflected in today's, but tomorrow numbers.
Third parties soon will already have 3 alternatives for EF mount. 2017 might be the historic year where a Canon camera user could work professionally without using one single piece of Canon glass.
Panasonic and Olympus have show that sensor stabilization can be way more effective than lens stabilization, so even if at some point Canon comes up with it, it is already behind.
Canon needs to wake up. You lose your reputation, which might not be reflected in today's, but tomorrow numbers.
Upvote
0
Patience. It will happen and it will blow all 3rd party early to the party glass out of the water. Yes, it will cost more, perhaps it will weigh more.
But no one will look at the images and say "OMG it's so gorgeous, did the lens weigh a ton?"
But no one will look at the images and say "OMG it's so gorgeous, did the lens weigh a ton?"
Upvote
0
Always a little curious that such a "leak" comes from Canon just about the time that the Sigma 24-70 OS ART and Tamron 24-70 VC G2 are about to come to market.
Hmmm, kind of reminds me of how the "leak" about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS came about the time that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART came to market. Of course, we have yet to see that lens.
That remains to be seen. Those of us who actually test lenses found that the Canon 24-70L II was better than, say, the Tamron 24-70 VC, but barely so, and not at all focal lengths...and at twice the price. I fully anticipate that the G2 version will significantly close that gap on all fronts and still undercut the current version in price. It's been a long time since I have seen a lens blow away the competition...the competition is just too good, and at the moment we are at a point of diminishing returns.
Hmmm, kind of reminds me of how the "leak" about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS came about the time that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART came to market. Of course, we have yet to see that lens.
slclick said:
That remains to be seen. Those of us who actually test lenses found that the Canon 24-70L II was better than, say, the Tamron 24-70 VC, but barely so, and not at all focal lengths...and at twice the price. I fully anticipate that the G2 version will significantly close that gap on all fronts and still undercut the current version in price. It's been a long time since I have seen a lens blow away the competition...the competition is just too good, and at the moment we are at a point of diminishing returns.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
