Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced

[timkbryant]

Well then. I had been debating either the 24-70 or the 24-105.

Since I am still a ways away from buying that lens, I would have been interested in the 24-70 MkII. Well, not at that price. But that's just me.

 

[ions]

For people who are supposed to be visual the dismissal of this lens with its impressive MTF is disappointing. Like I said above my initial reaction too is disappointment, I'd have liked IS but if it had that it'd be bigger and heavier and you'd all be whining about how feeble you are and can't carry it. The same thing happened with the 1Dx specs, there hadn't been a single sample shot worth looking at and many of you were selling your gear and going to Nikon.

It's quite possible that this lens is expensive because it has very expensive glass in it. Maybe it's been designed to work well on a very high MP 5DIII? Sensors are getting close to outpacing glass. Making sure that isn't the case is not a cheap endeavour. It's entirely possible they've improved on what they learned with the 70-200 MK II and that would make this a very nice lens to use. Potentially. I'm going to reserve my judgement for when I see what it can actually do.

 

[Dylan777]

With the price tag on MRK II- I hope i can buy this lens for $950...stay tune for an update

http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/pho/2836486105.html

 

[kautzy]

hi!

i'm new to this forum, 24-70 f/2.8 for 2300 euros (thats $ 3050,-) made me sign up for an account ;-)

after reading all the comments in this thread i have to say that i totally agree with all of you arguing that canon might have gone nuts... that price can never be justifiable keeping in mind that the current 24-70 and the 24-105 f/4.0 IS are both excellent lenses.

either that's how canon is trying to deal with the lower business volume caused by various environmental desasters or the lens will sale much cheaper than the MSRP once available.

wouldn't be too surprised if the actual price will drop to 200 euros/300 usd over the current 24-70 (I) models price in april.

for example the 24-105 currently has an MSRP of 1299 euros here in Austria and sells for 880 euros in various online stores...

i'll wait and see. but if there won't be a significant price drop in April they are going to push people towards nikon.

chris

 

[japhoto]

For people who are supposed to be visual the dismissal of this lens with its impressive MTF is disappointing.

I'm pretty much with you on this one, the MTF looks impressive and yes the lens probably has really expensive glass in it which reflects to the price.

I'm also going to see how it reviews and when the retailers get one here, I'll probably take it out for a spin.

That said, I'm still pretty certain that this lens isn't for me because of the lack of IS. It will be interesting to see if I can get more keepers with the MkII than I do with my MkI.

 

[7enderbender]

canon is lost. with 4kcine zooms,c300 and now 24-70 lens. no offense fan boys.

What do you mean lost? Do you mean they aren't making everything that you want them to make?

Let's be honest, the old school canon people obviously care more about straight photography and not much about video. If canon only catered to people like you then they would be lost. Let's look at other companies that decided to not progress with the market's demands:

Every single US automaker - people have been buying big trucks for years, so let's keep doing that and screw these babyman eco battery cars...

RIM - touch phones are toys...

Kodak - digital will never catch on...

Borders - people only want paper books...

The list can go on.


I'm sorry to say it, but video is the future. I want photography first, and it seems like you do also, but we are not the majority. And who cares if they incorporate video into their amazing dslrs, and who cares if they make lenses that work great for video and stills?

People saying canon is lost, and they are just screwing everyone don't really know what they are talking about. They might be screwing a few people, but if they just made stuff that you wanted they wouldnt even stay in the dslr business.

You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.

There are certain aspects of quality that grew over decades and sometimes centuries that people are a little too willingly tossing out in the name of "progress". Call me old-fashioned or reactionary. I won't take it as an insult.

I can't wait for the day when some Panasonic or Fuji puts out a full frame poor-man's Leica...or if one day there will be a full-frame digital body that is manual focus works and with my FD glass. I'm going to open a 1983 Bordeaux when I come home and put on a few vinyls - you know "the large CDs" as my 5-year old calls them...

 

[blarygake]

I have only ever owned Canon gear.
But I echo the poster that said Canon is lost.


This is a worthless update.
The only worthwhile upgrade is the form factor, but nobody with a current 24-70L would even consider burning over a thousand dollars to update.


They should have added 5mm on the top end while maintaining the 2.8 and the IQ.
Or they should have added IS.
Or they should have found a way to make it an f2 lens

SOMETHING new and noticeably upgraded.
I will be waiting to hear about the Tamron 24-70.

 

[zim]

You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.

There are certain aspects of quality that grew over decades and sometimes centuries that people are a little too willingly tossing out in the name of "progress". Call me old-fashioned or reactionary. I won't take it as an insult.

I can't wait for the day when some Panasonic or Fuji puts out a full frame poor-man's Leica...or if one day there will be a full-frame digital body that is manual focus works and with my FD glass. I'm going to open a 1983 Bordeaux when I come home and put on a few vinyls - you know "the large CDs" as my 5-year old calls them...

Amen to that.
How much fun would it be if the guts of a GX1 were put into the F1n body with an EF mount. Yeh I know it's as likely as me getting my youth back....

I've got my FD glass on a 500D at the moment with confirm manual focus, works pretty well you should try that. Only thing I've found is that the 200 f2.8 is very diffucult to use hand held, used to be able to but combined with crop factor I really need IS nowadays

 

[RuneL]

I hate the build quality of that lens

Really? I don't own this lens, but I've never heard bad things about its build quality...

It's too plasticky, the hood woobles because of same plastic, the extending front element wobbles and sometimes breaks off half way, the lens will still work, but it still broken off. AF sticks sometimes. I'm comparing this to the 16-35 and 70-200 that are just miles away in terms of build quality. Had 2 broken 24-70 2.8's so far. I like the lens, I use it a lot, it's just poorly made, obviously built down to a price, so that this new one is more expensive is not really of any concern to me, I just hope it will be better.

 

[Canon 14-24]

I applaud how lenses are getting center stage in the recent announcements.

I am interested to know why the 24 and 28 2.8 IS primes were released with a white/silver ring like an ef-s lens? They should have released a 50 1.4 IS instead and charge that $800 price range!

On another note, if they priced a canon 14-24 2.8 without IS at 2299, I would still so snap it up! Just hope there won't be another disappointment in a similar lens hood design like the nikon version and the canon 8-15 fisheye version!

 

[Matthew19]

Everyone that has mentioned the currency aspect of the price point is correct. Its important not to think of things in terms of dollars because dollars have no fixed value. The federal reserve printed trillions of them in 2008 to bail out the banks and keep interest rates artificially low. Thats why it cost more. More supply of currency = less value per unit. If you price the new lens in term of real assets i.e. how many barrels of oil, or gold, silver, corn, did it cost in 2002 vs 2012 the price has actually gone down. Thats why I don't like to save money in USD. Everyone is slowly finding out why.

P.S. There is only one presidential candidate that understands how fiat currencies work. He wrote a book on it.

 

[Caring]

I think the comments about a $1,000 increase in price for Mk II is a bit exaggerated. It is not fair to compare Amazon.com prices against the RRP for a lens (even if it is comparing Mk I Amazon price vs the RRP for Mk I!).


For a more accurate representation of RRP comparison in my country (Australia!):


[From http://camerapro.net.au *Note - Not sure how reliable this website is for Australian RRP of Mk I*]
"Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
RRP :$2,299.00"


[From www.photoreview.com.au]
"The EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM will be available in Australia from April 2012 for $2899"


This represents only an increase of AUD$600 in RRP. So is AUD$600 more worth the increase in MTF / IQ based on improved technology since Mk I was introduced in 2002?

 

[jm345]

Obviously there will also be an IS version of the 24-70 f/2.8 II - coming next - to be announced with the replacement of the 5dMKII. And the IS version will be priced at $2999. Stay tuned.

 

[Matthew19]

Caring, your quoting in Australian dollars, which has doubled in value vs the USD over the past 10 years.

 

[Caring]

Caring, your quoting in Australian dollars, which has doubled in value vs the USD over the past 10 years.

Yes, but $2,229 should be the current RRP? Not the RRP at the time that Mk I was released?


For the avoidance of doubt, Canon USA now quotes "Estimated Retail Price" for the 24-70mm, not the RRP:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_usm

 

[Caps18]

Obviously there will also be an IS version of the 24-70 f/2.8 II - coming next - to be announced with the replacement of the 5dMKII. And the IS version will be priced at $2999. Stay tuned.

Maybe if it was a 16-105 f/2.8 IS, I would be willing to pay that much.

I'm sure this lens is better in terms of IQ and what not, but it is kind of disappointing that they did nothing to improve it. Especially when you consider the price they are charging.

I think people need to look into the 16-35mm or a 17-40mm, a 50mm or 85mm to get more interesting pictures.

 

[takoman46]

Does anybody think that the benefits/advantages of the 24-70 version II justify the massive price increase from the version I? I mean... I can see bigger glass and 9 aperture blades causing a price increase... but $1100 is difficult to comprehend. I would have expected an increase of maybe $500 at most considering. All I have to say is "WOW!" For some reason, I'm still thinking about biting the bullet and purchasing the version II.

 

[bchernicoff]

I've made an animated gif comparing the resolution charts of this new lens at 70mm to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L II at 70mm, since that is something a lot of us can relate to. It seems like it will deliver some stunning results (better at 70mm anyway).

 

[7enderbender]

You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.

There are certain aspects of quality that grew over decades and sometimes centuries that people are a little too willingly tossing out in the name of "progress". Call me old-fashioned or reactionary. I won't take it as an insult.

I can't wait for the day when some Panasonic or Fuji puts out a full frame poor-man's Leica...or if one day there will be a full-frame digital body that is manual focus works and with my FD glass. I'm going to open a 1983 Bordeaux when I come home and put on a few vinyls - you know "the large CDs" as my 5-year old calls them...

Amen to that.
How much fun would it be if the guts of a GX1 were put into the F1n body with an EF mount. Yeh I know it's as likely as me getting my youth back....

I've got my FD glass on a 500D at the moment with confirm manual focus, works pretty well you should try that. Only thing I've found is that the 200 f2.8 is very diffucult to use hand held, used to be able to but combined with crop factor I really need IS nowadays

Ah well, we can dream, can't we? I want my 5DII sensor in a F1n or AE-1p body. Or alternatively a way to convert my 5DII to full-time manual focus with an AE1-p viewfinder and made-in-Germany Zeiss lenses...

The problem is that a majority of folks don't even understand what we are after with this - and what has been lost. I really should put a darkroom in the basement...

 

[RedEye]

All I have to say is "WOW!" For some reason, I'm still thinking about biting the bullet and purchasing the version II.

As an ex floor trader and market maker... it's not what it's worth, it's what the bid and ask let you take them for

I'm in your camp, chips in.