Canon 24-70mm 2.8L IS II mentioned in an issue of popular photography

[AndersBorg]

In the October 2011 issue of popular photography on p. 65 it says:

"...Davises shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark IV and 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II for an exposure that slighly underexposed the sunset beyond..."

To me this sounds very interesting - this could confirm the rumor that the new 24-70mm wil have IS?

Or could it just be a mistake?

Any thoughts?

 

[Loswr]

In the October 2011 issue of popular photography on p. 65 it says:

"...Davises shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark IV and 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II for an exposure that slighly underexposed the sunset beyond..."

To me this sounds very interesting - this could confirm the rumor that the new 24-70mm wil have IS?

Or could it just be a mistake?

Any thoughts?

It's a goof/typo. They meant either a 24-70mm f/2.8L or a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

There cannot be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II released any time soon (i.e. it's many years away). Either they release a 24-70mm f/2.8L II (no IS, MkII version) or they release a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS (would be a MkI version, since there is no current 24-70 with IS).

 

[AndersBorg]

In the October 2011 issue of popular photography on p. 65 it says:

"...Davises shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark IV and 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II for an exposure that slighly underexposed the sunset beyond..."

To me this sounds very interesting - this could confirm the rumor that the new 24-70mm wil have IS?

Or could it just be a mistake?

Any thoughts?

It's a goof/typo. They meant either a 24-70mm f/2.8L or a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

There cannot be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II released any time soon (i.e. it's many years away). Either they release a 24-70mm f/2.8L II (no IS, MkII version) or they release a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS (would be a MkI version, since there is no current 24-70 with IS).

Good point!
I think you are right.

 

[AprilForever]

Maybe they did it on purpose to get free publicity in the rumor forum world...

 

[thepancakeman]

There cannot be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS II released any time soon (i.e. it's many years away). Either they release a 24-70mm f/2.8L II (no IS, MkII version) or they release a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS (would be a MkI version, since there is no current 24-70 with IS).

Although I believe you are correct, I would not be quite as emphatic as you appear. To me it's a little like saying there cannot be a 1DX because they haven't had V-IX yet. I can certainly see someone in marketing deciding that it's a 24-70mm f/2.8L II and it includes IS, which would be a true statement (it is the second incarnation of the lens, but not the second incarnation of the lens with IS.)

And yes, you could argue that that would have to be the "24-70mm f/2.8 II IS" instead of "24-70mm f/2.8 IS II". But a) I'm not trying create an argument, and b) naming conventions are not subject to engineering standards of accuracy.

 

[Loswr]

I suppose the difference there is that while Canon is certainly free to do what they want, there's a difference between the naming conventions for bodies and the naming conventions for lenses. Body names have regional specificity, and in the case of the 1D X, there is a logic in changing the convention (much like releasing the 7D), to signify the merging of the two 1-series sub-lines. OTOH, the lens naming convention is quite well established. Look at the 70-200mm series, the 75-300mm series, or the 18-55mm series. An IS lens is a different lens, as is USM, as is the aperture value/range. That's why the CR2 rumor on the 100-400mm indicates an EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS, not a MkII version - the aperture range starts at 4, not 4.5, so it's a new lens, not a revision. Could Canon change the convention? Of course. But it's unlikely...almost as unlikely as a print photograph being published with an unannounced lens.

 

[thepancakeman]

But isn't IS a feature as opposed to changing the aperature or focal length? I dunno, maybe I'm just having a bad day at work and my subconscious is looking for an argument to distract me even though I say I'm not...

 

[Loswr]

But isn't IS a feature as opposed to changing the aperature or focal length? I dunno, maybe I'm just having a bad day at work and my subconscious is looking for an argument to distract me even though I say I'm not...

IS and USM are both features, but they change the name of the lens, not the version. So we had a 70-200mm f/2.8L (1995) and a 70-200mm f/4L (1999). Then there was a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (2001) then a 70-200mm f/4L IS (2006), and most recently, a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (2010).

Other examples are the super tele lenses, say the 400/2.8 lenses. The first was the 400mm f/2.8L (1991), followed by the 400mm f/2.8L II (1996). Then they added IS, but we didn't get a MkIII, we got a 400mm f/2.8L IS (1999). Now, this year, we have a 400mm f/2.8L IS II (ok, I'm using 'have' metaphorically, since at $11500 a pop, not many of us actually have one...).

Or, look at the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 consumer zooms. There are actually 7 versions - original, II and III, original USM, II USM, and III USM, and IS USM.

Bottom line, adding IS with no change in focal length or aperture still restarts the version numbering.

 

[thepancakeman]

Alas, you are quite correct. Thanks for the real-world examples!

Since I am here avoiding work anyway...are there any features like IS and USM that get added but do not result in a name change? But versions of existing features like IS just roll into the lens version, right? What I mean is if the "same" lens comes out with newer IS, the IS isn't given a version, just the lens?

 

[branden]

Canon's naming scheme is very detail oriented. I had to flip back and forth between the product listing and yesterday's rumors piece to discover that the only naming difference between the existing 100-400L and the rumored 100-400L is minutia that the newer is 1/3 stop faster at the lower end of the zoom range, since all other specifications and features are identical, yet there was no "II" tacked onto the end.

 

[decltype]

Alas, you are quite correct. Thanks for the real-world examples!

Since I am here avoiding work anyway...are there any features like IS and USM that get added but do not result in a name change? But versions of existing features like IS just roll into the lens version, right? What I mean is if the "same" lens comes out with newer IS, the IS isn't given a version, just the lens?

To the best of my knowledge Canon has not released a lens whose sole advantage over its predecessor was an improved IS system. On the other hand, there are a few lenses with unchanged optics between vI and vII (85mm f/1.2, 200mm f/2.8 ). In the latter case, only the lens hood was changed from a built-in variant to a standard bayonet-style hood.

 

[recon photography]

maybe canon have decided to break the silly rule that putting IS in a lens makes it a different lens and therefore u cant call it mkII

 

[sushyam]

Also bear in mind that CR Rumours has posted the patent for a new 24-70 2.8 L MkII only. There was no IS in the patent.

 

[JR]

It would be cool though to get IS on the next version of the 24-70mm 2.8, no matter what it gets called, for video purposes. That is my wish list for Xmas

 

[Meh]

Neuro is correct, of course, about the naming conventions and clearly it's a typo but there are other possibilities on what the typo is... for example the lens could be a "24-70mm f/2.8 IS" and the writer mistakenly added the "II". Wouldn't that be the most likely mistake since many people, possibly even experienced photographers/writers, would not have the proper naming conventions top-of-mind?

 

[EYEONE]

Just a typo folks. We'll see a correction in the January issue.

And here is a ton of examples at the Canon Museum: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/standard_zoom.html

Unless a lens has identical features it will not get the Mk II. Notice that we haven't had a xx-70mm f2.8 II at all yet because the focal length has changed each time one comes out. 35-70mm to 28-70mm to 24-70mm. Add IS and we still won't see a II.

 

[ferdi]

Actually the text was slightly different:

The Davises shot with a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV and 24–70mm f/2.8L IS II EF Canon zoom, for an exposure that slightly underexposed the sunset beyond: 1/160 sec at f/5.6, ISO 250.

That order does not make sense to me, so indeed a typo.
Full text with picture: http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2011/11/how-to-camera-flash-photography-any-skill-level?page=0,2

Sometimes it can be worth looking up the photographers themselves, to get inspired or just to look at the pictures. Unfortunately Bob and Dawn do not provide lens brand or model in their meta data, the rest of the data seems intact in photos on their website.
Check out more photos from that particular workshop here: http://bobanddawndavis.info/?catID=43&workshops

As far as I can tell from the photos (and meta data) on their site, they are using a 24-xxx zoom, I spotted the 24-105 f/4L in one of the pictures but a 24-70 f/2.8L is probably in their kit too, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 85 f/1.2L.

 

[branden]

45 wirelessly controlled flashes? That's ridiculous. There has to be a better way to light that shot.