14-24L & 24-70L II Talked About Again

[RandomDude]

Adding IS isn't all positives. It adds significant size, weight, complexity, and the biggest issue for most; cost. Best case scenario, IS will only add $500-600 to the cost. That's still a fairly significant sum. I'm sure many people that don't want or need IS would opt for the non-IS version.

There are many lenses with IS that cost less than $500 - so the IS system itself cannot cost that much. They may charge that much more because they *can*, but not because they have to. When comparing the 70-200 f2.8 IS and non-IS, we see about 10% increase in weight and a slight increase in size. On the f4 versions, the weight increase is about the same, but the size increase is negligible (+1mm diameter). The optics are more complicated in the IS versions, but the image quality isn't worse - especially not if you consider the new mkII IS version.

My point is merely that Canon could *choose* to release an IS version of the 24-70mm f2.8 without sacrificing performance, weight or the price point if they wanted to. They will almost certainly release the new lens at a significant price premium, at the very least until supplies are high, but that will likely be a business decision rather than a engineering necessity.

I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but with Canon's position/reputation in the market as the video leader but low-light loser, putting IS on the standard zoom ought to be a priority for Canon. First to solidify their lead in video performance and secondly to counter their reputation as trailing in low-light performance.

TL;DR? I think you're overestimating the problems with IS, and I would be very surprised if a new 24-70 did not include it.

 

[Picsfor]

12-24 is the only lens Nikon have, that would cause me to want to get a Nikon body.

If Canon are going to release this, i'll purchase it along with a 1D5 or 5D3...

 

[bvukich]

My point is merely that Canon could *choose* to release an IS version of the 24-70mm f2.8 without sacrificing performance, weight or the price point if they wanted to. They will almost certainly release the new lens at a significant price premium, at the very least until supplies are high, but that will likely be a business decision rather than a engineering necessity.

They absolutely could. The question is, will they? I think a 24-70/2.8L IS would come in somewhere in the $2200-2300 range, and a non-IS MkII version would be $1700-1800. If they could do an IS version for $1800-ish however, it would greatly reduce the need for a cheaper non-IS version.

I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but with Canon's position/reputation in the market as the video leader but low-light loser, putting IS on the standard zoom ought to be a priority for Canon. First to solidify their lead in video performance and secondly to counter their reputation as trailing in low-light performance.

I agree completely. I think they should put IS on nearly every lens they have, even some of the short primes.

TL;DR? I think you're overestimating the problems with IS, and I would be very surprised if a new 24-70 did not include it.

I would be surprised (and disappointed) if the new version didn't come with IS. But I would also be surprised if they didn't either continue to offer the old non-IS version, and/or release a MkII (non-IS) a couple of years down the road.

 

[Ricku]

I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4

What is there to update?

 

[EYEONE]

I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4

What is there to update?

The Non-L has plenty of things to update. It's freakin' old.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4

What is there to update?

The Non-L has plenty of things to update. It's freakin' old.

Which 24-70 non L? or 35mm f/1.4 non L?

 

[Dymonds]

Re: 24-70L ii - Appreciate that IS is not usual for this size zoom. That said, @ 2.8, personally, I think that IS would greatly assist given the size & weight for a everyday zoom.

Re: 14-24L 2.8 - I have not yet purchased any equipment (waiting for these announcements) but was considering the 16-35L 2.8 to partner the 24-70L and 70-200L. Given that the 16-35 covers a large spectrum for wide angle shots, what benefits would the 14-24 provide (one downside I can see is that you would have to change lenses above 24 whereas with the 16-35, you have a crossover range)

 

[EYEONE]

I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4

What is there to update?

The Non-L has plenty of things to update. It's freakin' old.

Which 24-70 non L? or 35mm f/1.4 non L?

Actually neither. The 35mm non L is a f2.0 not 1.4
What I meant was the 35mm 2.0 is freakin' old.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Actually neither. The 35mm non L is a f2.0 not 1.4
What I meant was the 35mm 2.0 is freakin' old.

You are just too young. Your perspective will change in 50 years. Nikon lenses are still in regular use on DSLR's that were made in the 1960's. The Canon EF lenses are new by comparison.

 

[illyusha]

Not to detract the thread too much but is it possible to make a 24-70mm that doesn't externally extend while going through the focal lengths and if so how much additional costs would that tag to the price? I could have sworn at one time Sigma made such a midrange zoom lens.
[/quote]

not only Sigma, Tokina has made a whole bunch of different midrange zooms (few versions of 28-70, then 28-80), none of which had the extending front element issue. Shame that apparently it's not optimal design IQ-wise, as no one else is producing such zooms now.

 

[dr croubie]

Re: 24-70L ii - Appreciate that IS is not usual for this size zoom.

efs 15-85IS, 17-55IS, 17-85IS, 18-55IS, 18-135IS, 18-200IS,
ef 24-105LIS, 28-135IS, 28-300LIS,
sigma 17-50OS, 17-70OS,
tamron 17-50VC and i'm getting bored of looking already.

a) it's easy to put IS in that zoom range for efs
b) it's easy to put IS in that zoom range for efs f/2.8
c) it's easy to put IS in that zoom range for FF f/4
but somehow a full frame is just too expensive?


Comparing the 70-200s with and without IS isn't so useful, at 200mm f4 iris size is 50mm for a €500 premium non-IS to IS, f/2.8 size is 72mm for a €1000 premium. Also, don't forget that price premium includes weathersealing.
The bigger the iris size, the bigger the glass that has to be shifted around in the IS, more powerful motors and complex design.

On a 24-70 f/2.8, the iris size is only 25mm. the 24-105 iris is just a smidge bigger at 26.25mm, both FF image circles.
my price list has the 24-105LIS at €1050, 24-70L at €1140.
i'd be guessing a 24-70L II would come in around €1400 if they fixed the curve of focus back to a plane, and/or the 24-70LIS would be around €2000...
I see no reason to not bring out both models, a basic economic principle is to fragment the market and get more sales in, people who want IS will pay for it, people who don't will pay less and get the nonIS.

 

[EYEONE]

Actually neither. The 35mm non L is a f2.0 not 1.4
What I meant was the 35mm 2.0 is freakin' old.

You are just too young. Your perspective will change in 50 years. Nikon lenses are still in regular use on DSLR's that were made in the 1960's. The Canon EF lenses are new by comparison.

Oh please. There is nothing wrong with saying that a lens old. Canon has updated all their L primes and have abandoned their non-L primes. Canon has updated several lenses that don't need updates instead of updating their old non L Primes.

I understand that Nikon's mount is old and that great old lenses get used all the time. Awesome. But these primes aren't exactly "great old lenses" and I don't shoot Nikon.

 

[dr croubie]

Canon has updated all their L primes and have abandoned their non-L primes. Canon has updated several lenses that don't need updates instead of updating their old non L Primes.
I understand that Nikon's mount is old and that great old lenses get used all the time. Awesome. But these primes aren't exactly "great old lenses" and I don't shoot Nikon.

and the irony being that using a Nikon lens through a $10 ebay adapter on a Canon camera, you can use all the older lenses (up to the newest ones without an aperture ring only wide-open).

And nikon body users have to check and double check tables to see what lens they can use on what body in what modes.


and i certainly understand what you mean about abandoning their non-L primes. think you may be right. i really really hope you're not. but probably are.
(Where's my EFS Primes already?)

 

[bvukich]

And nikon body users have to check and double check tables to see what lens they can use on what body in what modes.

Gotta love the Nikon lens secret decoder ring...

 

[Loswr]

Canon has updated all their L primes and have abandoned their non-L primes. Canon has updated several lenses that don't need updates instead of updating their old non L Primes.

and i certainly understand what you mean about abandoning their non-L primes. think you may be right. i really really hope you're not. but probably are.
(Where's my EFS Primes already?)

I'm pretty sure he's right. The reality is that the non-L EF primes were designed when all cameras were FF (i.e. film), and zoom lenses had a horrible reputation for low IQ (although that was changing when the most recent - and I use the term loosely - round of non-L EF primes was released) - so, consumers wanted affordable prime lenses. Today, the IQ of a zoom can meet or exceed that of a prime (e.g. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II vs. 200mm f/2.8L II), the vast majority of consumers use APS-C, and they want zoom lenses for convenience.

You might see an EF-S prime to rival the Nikon DX-format 35mm prime - Canon's 50mm f/1.8 II is a big seller despite it's age, but that's mostly because it's cheap. If Canon does come out with an EF-S 35mm prime, don't expect good build or excellent IQ wide open, since that would be Canon's 'replacement' of the 50mm f/1.8 II (in the philosophical sense of a 'normal' lens for the typical consumer camera), so it will be priced to compete there ($150-200), probably have a plastic mount, cheap build, and decent IQ especially stopped down...but it's IQ won't rival the 35L when shot wide.

 

[1982chris911]

Well I guess the logic for the future of canons lens lineup is very simple:

Full Frame = Prosumer and Pros = EF lenses with all in L quality (Primes and Zoomes)
APS-C = Amateur and demanding amateur segment = EF-S Zooms for them ... if so demands better image quality than the EF-S could provide he/she should get an L-lens for that reason (and maybe soon switch to FF...)

Regarding the 14-24mm f2.8 L - I would really love that lens. THIS is THE ONE LENS I sometimes am kind of sad I did not get a Nikon System ... anyway there are other Canon lenses that more than compensate for that but I still find the price of the 14mm F2.8 II L ridicules high compared to the Nikon Zoom which has an IQ I would only wish to see on the Canon Prime ...

In Regards of the 24-70mm f2.8 L II if it has IS nice if not also OK ... I have the current one and it is quite OK for me ... However a significant improvement of IQ would make me change it at some point ...

 

[moreorless]

With reguards to the business(rather than purely production) side of the 24-70 2.8 IS might not its status as a standard zoom and possible FF "kit" lens make Canon less likely to charge the same IS prenium as at 70-200? Draw in more business with the first purchase then charge a prenium for UWA and Tele lenses instead.