Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced

[D.Sim]

A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit, while a water and dustproof construction2 enables users to continue shooting in harsh conditions.</p>

Locked at the wide end? Wait, does that mean no more reverse zoom?

 

[Meh]

A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit, while a water and dustproof construction2 enables users to continue shooting in harsh conditions.</p>

Locked at the wide end? Wait, does that mean no more reverse zoom?

Yes, you can see on the photo of the lens it is in the retracted position at 24mm

 

[D.Sim]

A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit, while a water and dustproof construction2 enables users to continue shooting in harsh conditions.</p>

Locked at the wide end? Wait, does that mean no more reverse zoom?

Yes, you can see on the photo of the lens it is in the retracted position at 24mm

Geee... thats... depressing...
*goes out to order a MkI*

 

[Meh]

A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit, while a water and dustproof construction2 enables users to continue shooting in harsh conditions.</p>

Locked at the wide end? Wait, does that mean no more reverse zoom?

Yes, you can see on the photo of the lens it is in the retracted position at 24mm

Geee... thats... depressing...
*goes out to order a MkI*

Get 'em while you can!

 

[ssrdd]

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.

old school blah blah blah....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sorry I type on a Dvorak keyboard, the M and the W are right next to each other, slip of the finger for unintentional hilarity.

You type on a Dvorak keyboard, MTF!?
;D

 

[jaetm83]

Don't know why folks here are so upset about the price of the Mk II, below is from a press release for Mk I dated Sep 29, 2002:

The new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM measures 4.9 inches in length and weighs 33.5 ounces. The new lens, equipped with a lens hood, will be available at authorized Canon dealers in November and have a suggested retail price of $2,100.

The new lens got an increase of 200 bucks only.

 

[D.Sim]

Don't know why folks here are so upset about the price of the Mk II, below is from a press release for Mk I dated Sep 29, 2002:

The new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM measures 4.9 inches in length and weighs 33.5 ounces. The new lens, equipped with a lens hood, will be available at authorized Canon dealers in November and have a suggested retail price of $2,100.

The new lens got an increase of 200 bucks only.

You're taking a 10 year old release, and comparing to whats available now? You do realise that the current price of the 24-70 is way below that, right?

 

[jaetm83]

You're taking a 10 year old release, and comparing to whats available now? You do realise that the current price of the 24-70 is way below that, right?

But we are looking at MSRP at the time of announcement, not street price, right now. The new MSRP seems perfectly reasonable considering the sharpness improvement proved by MTF graphs. The street price in a few months will be much lower than $2299. I just don't think blaming Canon for the huge price bump is right.

 

[Mark1]

I remember everyone lambasting Canon when they announced the 70-300L. Now it's held in high regard for it's image quality, build and weight relative to range.

Let's not forget that ultimately this lens will have been tested extensively by seasoned pros and they like it, clearly, otherwise they would have told Canon to go back and try again.

Can we wait to see how it actually feels and performs? It might actually be worth the money, heaven forbid!

 

[D.Sim]

You're taking a 10 year old release, and comparing to whats available now? You do realise that the current price of the 24-70 is way below that, right?

But we are looking at MSRP at the time of announcement, not street price, right now. The new MSRP seems perfectly reasonable considering the sharpness improvement proved by MTF graphs. The street price in a few months will be much lower than $2299. I just don't think blaming Canon for the huge price bump is right.

You can hardly compare prices from two different decades, especially when its from two different products. It doesn't calculate out economically. Its like saying Oranges in 2002 cost more than Apples in 2012

While the price jump is more caused by economics, as pointed out by the various commenters before on Japan prices being pretty similar, you cannot escape the fact that face with a choice, consumers are going to have to get the older version, or pay 1,000 extra for IQ. Are the consumers going to care that it cost about 2k 10 years ago? Can they go back in time? No, what matters is now, and what the two products are at this point in time.

 

[jaetm83]

You can hardly compare prices from two different decades, especially when its from two different products. It doesn't calculate out economically. Its like saying Oranges in 2002 cost more than Apples in 2012

Simply put, wrong economics. You could have gotten a fresh orange in 2002 for 3 dollars but also had an option of getting a-few-days-old pear for a dollar. Now in 2012, you can get a fresh apple for 4 dollars but an old orange for 2 dollars.

If you want to get your hands on great new product first, you've got to pay more. However, you wait some time, and the price will eventually match your expectations, and more importantly, market demands. The prices of the fresh fruits were never wrong.

 

[bigblue1ca]

Hmmm....I have a strange craving for a fruit salad.

 

[kautzy]

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.

no, this price increase can't be justified if you use the lense for photography. mtf chart looks better than version I, but not $1100 better.

keep in mind that the version I is an excellent lens, also the 24-105 4.0 is.

 

[kautzy]

the 24-70 II is showing up at some uk stores already, for $ 3670,- / € 2770,-


http://geizhals.at/eu/734241

 

[sphax]

It's funny how everyone's begging for an IS-isation of the 24-70 when I'd rather see an F/2,8-isation of the 24-105 ;D

 

[Pixyl]

The big question I'm facing is if I should take the plunge and buy the current 24-70 or wait til the new model arrives. After all, here in Norway the price of the II is announced to be US$ 3476 (the current model goes for US$ 1720). I assume the stores will have all their current 24-70 lenses sold out before they take in the version II, so there will be little chance of actually comparing the two and make a choice then.

If it's a general concensus that the current 24-70 is as bad as RuneL points out (in reply #89) it may just be worth the wait for the II and fork out the hard earned cash (or look for some other lens). What do you suggest I do?

 

[briansquibb]

It's funny how everyone's begging for an IS-isation of the 24-70 when I'd rather see an F/2,8-isation of the 24-105 ;D

I'm with you on that!!

 

[wickidwombat]

It's funny how everyone's begging for an IS-isation of the 24-70 when I'd rather see an F/2,8-isation of the 24-105 ;D

I'm with you on that!!

me 3

 

[psolberg]

As far as I know, IS is not so good for the video folks. If canon releases a video centric 5DM3 and some video concept camera, this new non IS camera might be for them.

I hope canon isn't trying to turn photographers into videographers any more than they are trying already because all they needed was an OFF switch on the IS.