Canon 24-70 f/2.8 IS? Nikon has it!

[niels123]

Nikon just released a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 8). It will be available for about $2400

Would Canon do the same in the next year or so?

 

[arthurbikemad]

Running around taking action shots on the move, never felt I have missed IS on my 24-70Mk2.. If it had it I'd prob turn it off haha

 

[Ruined]

Nikon just released a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 8). It will be available for about $2400

Would Canon do the same in the next year or so?

One thing to keep in mind, the Nikon looks huge compared to the 24-70 II. Dont think that size is worth IS to me.

 

[Viggo]

Nikon just released a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 8). It will be available for about $2400

Would Canon do the same in the next year or so?

One thing to keep in mind, the Nikon looks huge compared to the 24-70 II. Dont think that size is worth IS to me.

It weigs the same as the 85 L, I really appriciate the weight loss from the mk1 to mkII with Canon, and absolutely do not miss the IS, I'm basically never slower than 1/250s ever.... Only time I'm slower is with wider angle, and I do not find the 16-35 IS REALLY useful either.

 

[niels123]

I'm just curious. I shoot 99% with primes. The *only* zoom I own is the 24-105 f/4L and I hardly use it.

 

[Patak]

the old Nikon version with no VR is excellent. I believe the reason the lens look so long could be the internal zooming just like in new 16-35 f4. I did not see this info anywhere on Nikon site.

The weight and the length could be an issue, since it weighs more than Canon 70-300L and is longer than the same lens. The Canon counterpart with no IS is 265gm lighter.

 

[Rahul]

That's good news for people shooting with Nikons.

Personally, while I don't find lack of IS limiting my use of the 24-70 II, I won't mind the slightest if Canon were to release one in the near future.

 

[scottkinfw]

I love my 24-70 2.8 II so much, and don't miss is, that I wouldn't even be tempted by an is mode.

Sek

 

[dolina]

Looking forward to updating my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM to one with IS.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I really like my 24-70 F2.8 V2 and simply have no use for IS on a lens of this type. The introduction of the increased weight, bulk and price for a feature that I won't use that also puts an extra piece of useless glass in the focal path is not something I want.
I have 3 Canon IS lenses (16-35 F4, 300 F2.8 L IS and 800 F5.6 L IS) and I don't use IS (or want it) on any of them, unfortunately there is no alternative so I just have to turn it off and just live with it.

 

[dolina]

Canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

3.5 x 4.4 in., 28.4 oz.
88.5 x 113mm, 805g

Nikon's AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR

3.4 x 6.0 in., 38.4 oz
88.0mm x 154.5mm, 1070g

 

[NancyP]

We shall see. If the image quality of the Nikon zoom is as good as the current Canon 24-70 f/2.8 no-IS lens, then yes, I will be jealous.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Probably the one time I'm actually a bit jealous of the Nikon folks. An IS version of the 24-70 2.8 is a lens I've wanted for quite awhile now...and now they've got a native option.

Hopefully this will push Canon to respond soon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nikon needed a upgrade, the old lens had a huge amount of CA's. They were likely getting hit hard by third party lenses which were pretty good for less.

I expect Canon to follow up with a IS lens as well. There are those who will shell out $2400, so why not.

 

[bmwzimmer]

Or put IBIS on the next 5D/6d/1D bodies. But that will not happen any time soon

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Nikon just released a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8 8). It will be available for about $2400

Would Canon do the same in the next year or so?

One thing to keep in mind, the Nikon looks huge compared to the 24-70 II. Dont think that size is worth IS to me.

For some, size matter a lot, while for others the benefit of IS is important, particularly for an all-around lens. I love my 24-70mm f2.8L II however, I'd like to count with one that not only delivers great IQ and fast & accurate AF but adds 4-stops IS for low light and slow moving subjects.

 

[bholliman]

Personally, while I don't find lack of IS limiting my use of the 24-70 II, I won't mind the slightest if Canon were to release one in the near future.

+1 I'm extremely happy with my 24-70 2.8 II and don't think IS would help much in this focal range. If a Canon IS lens was as large and heavy as the rumored Nikon I would not upgrade.

 

[ashmadux]

Personally, while I don't find lack of IS limiting my use of the 24-70 II, I won't mind the slightest if Canon were to release one in the near future.

+1 I'm extremely happy with my 24-70 2.8 II and don't think IS would help much in this focal range. If a Canon IS lens was as large and heavy as the rumored Nikon I would not upgrade.

IS always helps, and is always a net positive.

I will never understand folks arguing against IS. it's just the most ridiculous argument ever. Especially the guy saying that he turns it off, or actively tries not to use it...that's just nonsense. Wherever helps get a sharp shot, no one cares if someone else has the ultimate steady hand.

Baffling.

 

[Ruined]

Personally, while I don't find lack of IS limiting my use of the 24-70 II, I won't mind the slightest if Canon were to release one in the near future.

+1 I'm extremely happy with my 24-70 2.8 II and don't think IS would help much in this focal range. If a Canon IS lens was as large and heavy as the rumored Nikon I would not upgrade.

IS always helps, and is always a net positive.

I will never understand folks arguing against IS. it's just the most ridiculous argument ever. Especially the guy saying that he turns it off, or actively tries not to use it...that's just nonsense. Wherever helps get a sharp shot, no one cares if someone else has the ultimate steady hand.

Baffling.

Given the size of the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 VR I would not say its a net positive. For me that would be a push or even net negative. 70mm is simply not long enough for me to want to carry along such a big lens just to get IS that I dont need since I would shoot at 1/100 minimum with that lens anyway to reduce motion blur.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Personally, while I don't find lack of IS limiting my use of the 24-70 II, I won't mind the slightest if Canon were to release one in the near future.

+1 I'm extremely happy with my 24-70 2.8 II and don't think IS would help much in this focal range. If a Canon IS lens was as large and heavy as the rumored Nikon I would not upgrade.

IS always helps, and is always a net positive.

I will never understand folks arguing against IS. it's just the most ridiculous argument ever. Especially the guy saying that he turns it off, or actively tries not to use it...that's just nonsense. Wherever helps get a sharp shot, no one cares if someone else has the ultimate steady hand.

Baffling.

Then you certainly will not understand me!
As per my previous post I have 3 IS lenses topping out at 800mm and I turned off the IS on all of them specifically to get sharper shots due to the improvements in AF acquisition, speed and improved tracking.
Frankly the difference with my 16-35 F4 L IS is not that much but with the 300 F2.8 and 800 mm the difference is significant and has led to a much higher keeper rate. It is nice to have IS "In Reserve" but not having used (or wanted it) it for over 19 months I would be happier if IS wasn't fitted in the first place.