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

[infared]

???
...if it has no IS it makes no sense?
I have no reason to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III from my II..
...and I see no reason to upgrade to a new 24-70mm f/2.8 III from my II. ...even if it has IS. My 5DIV does just fine with that lens. IS not needed...not in my world. Odd "upgrades" in my world.

 

[lexptr]

Yes, the current lens is great. Not perfect, but great. Being 6 years old it still beats the newest editions of other brands in terms of IQ (may be except for Sony? Didn't check their comparisons). And yes, it lacks the stabilizer. I agree with above said, it is meaningless to upgrade it without adding IS. I will swap mine if they add IS without sacrificing IQ.

However, if we talk about upgrade, there are more things we can add to wishlist:
1) Better/more consistent IQ at 70mm. If I remember correct, Bryan Carnathan tested few copies and found that some of them had poor peripheral IQ at 70mm, worse than that of the older version. I don't have something to compare with, but I think mine is from the bad party. It is considerably soft at 70mm, so I tend to avoid shooting at that focal if possible. Would like to stop doing that with new version.
2) Other IQ improvements, e.g. better CA control. All the newest coatings, refractive elements and whatever they can add - welcome.
3) Shorter MFD is always a plus (at least for those, who like closeups here and there).
4) No body recolor please, it is fine as is.

Hope it won't come in a year or two, so I will spend money on some other cool things.

 

[Isaacheus]

At this point in time it absolutely has to have Image Stabilization. I imagine a lot of Canon shooters are already using Tamron or Sigma for their 24-70 2.8 for exactly this reason. (I use the Canon f4 version partly for this reason).

Family just bought the tamron version for a 5dmk4 due to the image stabiliser, even though there was a second hand Canon going for about the same price.
Just one example sure, but that was the only reason they didn't get the Canon

 

[YuengLinger]

???
...if it has no IS it makes no sense?
I have no reason to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III from my II..
...and I see no reason to upgrade to a new 24-70mm f/2.8 III from my II. ...even if it has IS. My 5DIV does just fine with that lens. IS not needed...not in my world. Odd "upgrades" in my world.

What makes you think you are in the target market?

 

[scottkinfw]

It needs a new paint color ;D

;D ;D ;D

I have and love all three. So NOT ME!

Scott

 

[scottkinfw]

This is some epic lens development trolling of those waiting for a 50 or 135 prime. :'(

Seeing as you raised trolling, I'll contribute mine by saying the EF 50mm f/1.4 will never be replaced and "mid-range" non-L primes will be exclusively EF-M mount in the future

You don't like the 24-7- 2.8L II?

You must have a bad copy or demand near perfection.

Scott

 

[slclick]

Two professional lenses before Photokina, the most noise/chatter would indicate two of the following:

• 24-70 IS
• 135 f/2 II
• 400 f/5.6 IS

That would be great.

Fixed it.

 

[Antono Refa]

The EF 28–70mm f/2.8L was released in '93

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L mkI was release in '02

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L mkII was release in '12

The mkII is an excellent lens, and DSLR lens sales aren't strong nowadays, so...

1. A refresh, a la the 24-105mm f/4L & 70-200mm f/2.8L, is far more likely than a big upgrade after just 5 years.

2. I wouldn't rule out a new 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM to compete with Nikon's 24–70mm f/2.8E ED VR and Tamron's 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC.

 

[sanj]

It needs a new paint color ;D

Hahahahahaha

 

[maxfactor9933]

First, they put a coat of white paint and some coatings on a nearly perfect lens and now it looks like they might do another one of those instead of the right thing.

This is some epic lens development trolling of those waiting for a 50 or 135 prime. :'(

- A

no one wants that lens.. everyone looking for L series 50mm 1.4

 

[fullstop]

???
...if it has no IS it makes no sense?
I have no reason to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III from my II..
...and I see no reason to upgrade to a new 24-70mm f/2.8 III from my II. ...even if it has IS. My 5DIV does just fine with that lens. IS not needed...not in my world. Odd "upgrades" in my world.

What makes you think you are in the target market?

1. Canon should and probably will consider any 5D4 owner to be rightcat the center of the target market for a EF 24-70/2.8

2. if Canon updates the 24-70/2.8 II, then IS definitely must be added. From a marketing point of view Canon has to end the situation of being the only competing brand without stabilization for the staple, overall probably (?) most often used pro-grade f/2.8 standard zoom lens. No way around that. Even if this means a "more significant upgrade" than just new coatings and new body paint. they may continue to sell the Mk. II as a (relatively) lower cost version to those who don't need IS on it, but still want an optically excellent lens. Which it is.

3. personally i will not upgrade, but wait until i can finally buy a very compact 24-70 f/4 (!) IS in new, native mirrorless FF mount. @Canon: no more mirrorslapper lens purchases from me, at least not for lenses that could lose size, weight or girth on a new "slim fit" mount.

 

[tmc784]

For 24-70mm f2.8, I don't really need IS.
When I shoot at VERY low speed, I always use tripod or friction arm clamp if space is limited.

 

[littleB]

3. personally i will not upgrade, but wait until i can finally buy a very compact 24-70 f/4 (!) IS in new, native mirrorless FF mount. @Canon: no more mirrorslapper lens purchases from me, at least not for lenses that could lose size, weight or girth on a new "slim fit" mount.

You can easily buy the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4, its IS, its FF, its mirrorless. This is your ticket to happiness, judging by your words. You are just $1.2K away from it.
Why bothering about fat, long, heavy, DSLR, f/2.8 lens if you do not want it anyways?

 

[jolyonralph]

Just a FYI, a 24-70 f/2.8L IS wouldn't be an update to the f/2.8L II, it'd be a completely new lens, and in all likelihood the existing f/2.8L II would continue to sell for those who didn't want the extra weight and expense of IS.

And I still think Canon are likely to update the 24-70 f/2.8L II in the same way as the 70-200 f/2.8L III by improving the coatings but essentially leaving the rest the same.

That way from a marketing reason you then have

16-35 f/2.8L III
24-70 f/2.8L III
70-200 f/2.8L IS III

So I think the 24-70 III will be a coating upgrade only, and any IS lens will come later, possibly for the new mount.

 

[YuengLinger]

Just a FYI, a 24-70 f/2.8L IS wouldn't be an update to the f/2.8L II, it'd be a completely new lens, and in all likelihood the existing f/2.8L II would continue to sell for those who didn't want the extra weight and expense of IS.

And I still think Canon are likely to update the 24-70 f/2.8L II in the same way as the 70-200 f/2.8L III by improving the coatings but essentially leaving the rest the same.

That way from a marketing reason you then have

16-35 f/2.8L III
24-70 f/2.8L III
70-200 f/2.8L IS III

So I think the 24-70 III will be a coating upgrade only, and any IS lens will come later, possibly for the new mount.

Keeping two 24-70mm 2.8's plus an f/4 version? I don't think this would be practical from manufacturing, inventory, or marketing standpoints. And then there is repair support.

Your conjecture is reasonable based on the current situation with the three 85mm versions, but my guess is that, though there is still a large inventory of 85mm 1.2's, manufacturing has already been phased out--or will be by end-of-year. I can't even make a guess regarding the 1.8--it might still be profitable, but wouldn't it come from a very old manufacturing process that at some point begins to cost too much to maintain and support?

True, the 24-70mm 2.8 II is still a relatively new version, but I don't think the price and size difference between it and a new IS model will be drastic enough to justify keeping both...though Canon might surprise yet again.


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

 

[jolyonralph]

Keeping two 24-70mm 2.8's plus an f/4 version? I don't think this would be practical from manufacturing, inventory, or marketing standpoints. And then there is repair support.

Well, let's see:

L-series Ultrawide angle lenses (excluding the 11-24)

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III
EF 17-40mm f/4L

And, of course, there are 4 different 70-200 options right now.

So I don't think Canon would have any problem with selling three variants of the 24-70 lens

 

[jeffa4444]

Given the way full frame video is going and Canon move with the EF85mm f1.4L IS USM the EF50mm f1.4L IS USM is in the works. The current CN-E 50 T1.3L cine lens is long in the tooth and behind the industry best and given what Sigma, Ziess etc. have done Canon will be able to repurpose a EF50mm f1.4L IS USM lens as a cine variant.

The need for a EF24-70mm f2.8L IS USM is not in doubt and is a prerequisite to maintain the holy trinity.

 

[BeenThere]

Wasn’t there some reports of the lens coating peeling or flaking off on a number of the 24-70 2.8 II units? Here is a iii with a new coating. Be happy with the upgrade.

 

[jolyonralph]

Also, keeping a 24-70 f/2.8L III in the lineup means they can add a nice price markup on the inevitable IS version.

 

[YuengLinger]

Keeping two 24-70mm 2.8's plus an f/4 version? I don't think this would be practical from manufacturing, inventory, or marketing standpoints. And then there is repair support.

Well, let's see:

L-series Ultrawide angle lenses (excluding the 11-24)

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III
EF 17-40mm f/4L

And, of course, there are 4 different 70-200 options right now.

So I don't think Canon would have any problem with selling three variants of the 24-70 lens

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