Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8617"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8617" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8617"></a></div>
<strong>More information

</strong>With all the additional 5D Mark III conversation coming about, I’ve also experienced an increase in EF 24-70 f/2.8L II talk.</p>
<p>The latest I have heard is the suspected final prototype is in the hands of the select few for testing. It has the same external zoom and is slightly shorter than the current model. It is also lighter.</p>
<p>There has been an IS version that was bigger and a lot heavier, as well as an internal  zoom model, both of which were deemed too big and/or heavy.</p>
<p>There is also a suggestion that the <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html">24-70 f/2.8L II could end up a kit lens</a> for the next 5D camera.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[candyman]

Less heavy & shorter is very nice.
And what about the IQ and other possible improvements?

 

[infared]

I never really understood this lens. I prefer the 24-105mm f/4. More range, especially for headshots (more compression) and with a 5DMark II the one stop usually isn't that much of a deal breaker. If I really have no light or need bokeh...I am going to fast primes, anyway..so this lens never really fit in for me. Guess it is just different needs and some prefer this lens. Glad to see it is about to improve though.

 

[funkboy]

There is also a suggestion that the 24-70 f/2.8L II could end up a kit lens for the next 5D camera.

Makes a lot of sense to me. Almost all the time when I've come across people in the field shooting video with the 5DII they're using a 24-70, primarily for its shallow DoF. Of course since they're shooting video they don't care about IS either...

 

[Drizzt321]

I really wish they had gone ahead and made this an internal zoom I love my 24-105, but if the next 24-70 was internal, I'd buy it for when I'm in dusty, dirty places like Burning Man. I wish Canon had more internal zooms in my book, even though they'll mostly be larger and heavier.

 

[Picsfor]

Much makes sense, but i do wish they'd gone with the internal zoom option.

External zooms just strike me as asking for weather and environment based trouble over internal zooms.
I mean, how many people baulk at the idea of buying a 70-200 L IS2 f2.8, even though size and weight are more suited to a weight lifting competition at the Olympics...

 

[benlila]

A kit lens without IS seems unlikely. 5D fans will want to shoot video with IS.

Internal Zoom and IS seem too drastic to be likely improvements. Despite the patents, I would want a change in zoom range, e.g. 24 - 85 mm. This would make it similar in range as the EF-S 17 - 55 mm IS .

 

[briansquibb]

I mean, how many people baulk at the idea of buying a 70-200 L IS2 f2.8, even though size and weight are more suited to a weight lifting competition at the Olympics...

Proably most small people - both my lady friends last night struggled with the 1ds3 + 70-200 f/2.8II.

 

[japhoto]

I'm actually quite interested in how this all will play out, IS, no IS etc.

Also never say never, but the IQ boost will have to be really really massive for me to open my wallet if the lens ships without IS.

 

[traveller]

I mean, how many people baulk at the idea of buying a 70-200 L IS2 f2.8, even though size and weight are more suited to a weight lifting competition at the Olympics...

Proably most small people - both my lady friends last night struggled with the 1ds3 + 70-200 f/2.8II.

Is your real name Peter Stringfellow?

Seriously, I can't see how size and weight would be a problem for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS version; most people that would be in the market for such a lens would be using it alongside a 70-200 f/2.8 lens anyway.

 

[japhoto]

Seriously, I can't see how size and weight would be a problem for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS version; most people that would be in the market for such a lens would be using it alongside a 70-200 f/2.8 lens anyway.

I agree here, the MkI is 950g and the 70-200II is 1490g and I for example don't find the latter to be especially heavy lens.

So add IS and internal focusing to the 24-70 and I bet it still wouldn't weigh over the 70-200II or be physically larger than it is.

The only problem I could see here is if you need it for longer hikes where the weight might be an issue, but like I've said before, 500g in my backpack wouldn't change a thing...

 

[photalian]

just when I finally busted loose and bought an original brick... but I'm sure this sucker will be in the $2500-3000 range.

 

[Stone]

If this is the final version, the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase. On the other hand, I'll be quite disappointed with no internal zoom and to a lesser extent no IS. This is supposed to be the top of the line lens in this range and leaving out these two things I think is a mistake. Weather sealing while good would be better with internal zoom and slow SS can only be helped by IS especially at the longer end of the zoom range. I'll probably still buy it once I pick up a FF body this year, as I'm sure Canon will improve on it's already great optics, but after the kit lens and my 15-85, I hate external zooms...

 

[Loswr]

the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.

Pure, unfettered optimism. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was the same basic physical design as its predecessor (internal zoom, with IS), and still Canon managed to set an MSRP that was a 32% premium over the original (translating to >$1800 for the 24-70mm II).

 

[japhoto]

the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.

Pure, unfettered optimism. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was the same basic physical design as its predecessor (internal zoom, with IS), and still Canon managed to set an MSRP that was a 32% premium over the original (translating to >$1800 for the 24-70mm II).

Well, the price increase will probably be less than it would with IS and internal zoom, but I agree with Neuroanatomist here, there's nothing stopping them doing the same thing as they did with the 70-200II pricing.

@Photalian,

Enjoy the lens, since it'll probably take a lot of time for the new one to hit the shelves if and only if it's released in the near future. I'd do extensive MA-testing on it though if you have a body that you can do that with.

 

[Stone]

the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.

Pure, unfettered optimism. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was the same basic physical design as its predecessor (internal zoom, with IS), and still Canon managed to set an MSRP that was a 32% premium over the original (translating to >$1800 for the 24-70mm II).

Definitely wishful thinking on my part, Canon could at least give us internal zoom to soften the blow.
Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....

 

[EYEONE]

Weight is not an issue to me nor size really. Though the current model is a beast. What I really want from the Mk II version is more sharpness. The original is fine, nothing outstanding. Nothing that will blow your mind like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I walked around London for several days with the 24-70 on a 7D. I pretty much kept it stopped down to F6.3-8 the whole time since i was mainly doing architecture shots. It was pretty razor sharp but being sharp at f8 isn't really impressive. I've used it for weddings at f2.8 and it performs well enough however.

I like seeing this lens without IS. I have no good reason for saying so. I don't think it would add much to cost or weight to include IS. I just don't think the focal range justifies IS and I like to see that Canon realizes that. If you are a videographer this really isn't a ideal lens for you anyway.

 

[00Q]

lets just say that I have already been emtionally devastated by this lens that i refuse to imagine and fantasise what the new model is gonna be like and imagine the date that it will arrive ever again. this is because i was so hyped up for it for the jan 3rd announcement and it never came.

so im emotionally protected for another potential upset.

 

[bigblue1ca]

Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....

I agree, I'd take the added weight for the internal zoom and IS. I carry my 70-200 with no problems.

 

[briansquibb]

Tomorrow I am going on a shoot with the 1d4 and the 70-200 f/2.8

That is the light camera

The main camera will be the 1Ds3 + 400 f/2.8

No monopod or tripod just handshooting.

Can't see many size 0's managing that ??? ???