Updated EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II on the Horizon? [CR1]

[blackcoffee17]

There are so many lenses Canon could update instead, many 20-25 year old designs. The M system could use a few higher quality zooms also. I don't understand how Sigma, a much smaller company can release many more new lenses a year, same for Tamron, even Olympus or Fuji.

 

[pd2002]

Let's bring new body's colour with same optics :

 

[Ozarker]

I think an update is needed but not only is IS required, but I'm not very impressed with the resolution and contrast of the lens in the edges and corners of the current lens. I'd like to see its optics upgraded.

The 24-70 f2.8L II is fantastic. One of the best IQ lenses in its range. Even in the corners

It is wonderful, isn't it? Very sharp. I'm even impressed with the bokeh at 70mm. What a lens. Just a great lens. IS would be great for those shots with slower shutter speeds, but what a lens.

 

[NancyP]

I suspect that a 24-70 f/2.8 L III no-IS would be made mostly if there was a manufacturing process improvement that lowered the cost of making the lens. That's what I think has happened with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS III. Now, the 70-200 f/4 L IS II has user significant improvement in IS, I understand.

 

[ahsanford]

Maybe the f/4 version will be first to be officially discontinued?

That wouldn't make much sense, IMHO. It's an engineering marvel -- I'm not aware of any other 24-70 with a nearly 1:1 macro onboard, and it is a more compact option for FF users than a 24-105 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8. I love my 24-70 f/4L IS.

If canon support 6 70-200s (surely 4 in the longer term once they shut down the f/2.8L IS II and f/4L IS I) and 3 16ish-35ish UWAs, I think Canon can offer three in the 24-70 zoom range.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.

The 16-35 f/4L IS came out a good 4 years ago now. I think the 17-40L might be here to stay as the budget L under the middle L (f/4L IS) and top L (f/2.8L III), but you may be right. They may just have a mountain of inventory piled up for what was at one point one of the higher (non-kit) sales runners for the L series.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I suspect that a 24-70 f/2.8 L III no-IS would be made mostly if there was a manufacturing process improvement that lowered the cost of making the lens. That's what I think has happened with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS III. Now, the 70-200 f/4 L IS II has user significant improvement in IS, I understand.

Keep in mind with all my asking of a precedent where Canon didn't change the optical design of a professional lens that was being 'sequeled', the most recent example was over 10 years ago (85 f/1.2L II). Canon typically does not do what it just did with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III.

It would be quite disheartening to see this as a trend for their best lenses. Do this for a 24-105 L lens, sure, or the nutty niche products that might just need the periodic facelift (the lesser used 200 f/2.8L II was the same optical design, I was told recently -- perfectly fine call there), but the highest end pro stuff needs to get better or it shouldn't get sequeled, IMHO.

- A

 

[Kit.]

Keep in mind with all my asking of a precedent where Canon didn't change the optical design of a professional lens that was being 'sequeled', the most recent example was over 10 years ago (85 f/1.2L II). Canon typically does not do what it just did with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III.

Canon "typically does not" try to fully automate lens assembly.

Still, it could be worse. Remember what they did with EF50/1.8 Mk I?

 

[Cali Capture]

I think we will see more IS lens introductions from Canon. The 85 f/1.4 is has been doing great, good reviews and has yet to be on sale ( usually means it's low inventory). Canon needs the 50mm 1.4 IS or the 135mm IS more than any other lens in in their current line up of primes. with the 5D mark IV at 30+ MP, IS makes a huge differenace when you go cropping down a frame. IS extends that ability, and that ability allows a prime shooter to essentially zoom a shot in post. The 24-70 2.8 would benefit this way at the wider end and also given it's 50-70mm capability with hand reach. I know these are holes in my bag that would be nice to fill.

 

[jolyonralph]

Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.

It's still listed as a current lens on Canon's website. And it's still popular.

The street price of the 17-40 is significantly lower than the 16-35 f/4L IS (around £350 cheaper according to Amazon UK) - so if you're into landscape photography on a tripod and IS is of no use to you, there are compelling reasons to buy the older lens.

They still sell the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS which I would have thought no-one would be interested in these days.

 

[transpo1]

If it doesn't have IS, this is a waste of a release.

 

[ahsanford]

with the 5D mark IV at 30+ MP, IS makes a huge differenace when you go cropping down a frame. IS extends that ability, and that ability allows a prime shooter to essentially zoom a shot in post.

I love IS myself and want it on everything, but what you are describing above could be managed without IS and simply a quicker shutter, no?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

They still sell the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS which I would have thought no-one would be interested in these days.

Some folks don't need IS. Possibly -- just riffing, thinking out loud -- someone shooting reportage or portraiture all day. Stationary targets that are well lit.

And Canon loves price points in this segment. They have effectively de-coupled IS vs. non-IS and f/2.8 vs. f/4 into a 'choose what you like, we have it all' 2x2 sort of value proposition. I often reference this 70-200 situation to friends buying their first camera after their Rebel/D5500/a6000 as a huge selling point for EF: Canon offers breadth of options in FF that no one can match.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.

It's still listed as a current lens on Canon's website. And it's still popular.

Indeed. If you are solely landscaping with it, you could save the money and get the 17-40L. There was one poster here who absolutely loved the sunstars the 17-40L created and felt the newer lenses' sunstars were a bit too clinical.

Where the 16-35 f/4L IS sings (beyond landscapes) is on the wide open end when you didn't think you'd need it -- it is gold for vacations for me.

Crowded street markets? 16mm ftw.
Judiciously framed candids? 35mm f/4 output is terrific.
Dark interiors with no flash/tripods allowed (old churches, museums, etc.)? The 16mm + IS is wonderful.

- A

 

[SkynetTX]

An EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II IS would be good but don't forget about the EF-S 250mm f/5.6 IS USM Macro. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 offers up to 5 stops of image stabilization and I will likely buy it as soon as I'll have the money unless Canon comes out with a better lens.

 

[Daan Stam]

yeah we are going to see a new lens within two years

 

[slclick]

Is the 17-40 still in production? Of course they will sell off inventory.

It's still listed as a current lens on Canon's website. And it's still popular.

Indeed. If you are solely landscaping with it, you could save the money and get the 17-40L. There was one poster here who absolutely loved the sunstars the 17-40L created and felt the newer lenses' sunstars were a bit too clinical.

Where the 16-35 f/4L IS sings (beyond landscapes) is on the wide open end when you didn't think you'd need it -- it is gold for vacations for me.

Crowded street markets? 16mm ftw.
Judiciously framed candids? 35mm f/4 output is terrific.
Dark interiors with no flash/tripods allowed (old churches, museums, etc.)? The 16mm + IS is wonderful.

- A

I love my 16-35 f/4 sunstars

 

[ahsanford]

I love my 16-35 f/4 sunstars

And the 24-70 f/4L IS sunstars are pretty great too. I'm amazed how much they pop in such a busy scene here (open to see).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

- A

 

[Cali Capture]

ahansford
I love IS myself and want it on everything, but what you are describing above could be managed without IS and simply a quicker shutter, no?

If you have enough light to up the shutter, with most new IS giving you 4 stops of correction, it makes natural light shooting in low light much more effective and crop worthy. We are talking 2.8 thru 1.4 lenses, so you're paying to gather more light as it is, IS helps you to gather it straight, and higher MP sensors will show more shake (cropped down) with all those extra little pixels rubbing shoulders!

Fast f/ combined with IS gives you more latitude and will get you shots you couldn't without IS, especially at longer Focal lengths. That's why the 200mm f/2.0 with is such a great tool, It's unique in what and where it can deliver.

 

[ahsanford]

If you have enough light to up the shutter, with most new IS giving you 4 stops of correction, it makes natural light shooting in low light much more effective and crop worthy.

Agreed, but I think you are blending the value of IS in general with faster shutter speed requirements for sharp high res output.

IS helps everyone keep their ISO down to earth when they are light constrained. This is true for everyone on every sensor.

Sounds to me like 'zooming in to a shot in post' is also known simply cropping a sharp photo.

Now what you need to do to get a sharp photo on your 5D4 may require a more stringent shutter speed rule than on my 5D3, but the principal is the same: you can get away with longer shutters and still get sharp output with IS.

(Flipping that last paragraph: if you weren't getting sharp output with your 5D4, the lack of IS is not the reason why. You simply weren't at a high enough shutter speed.)

Please straighten me out if I'm misreading this. I think we're both taking a couple legs of the exposure triangle for granted in different ways here.

- A