Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[DEFILER]

Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun. I bet IQ is phenom.

I concur on that front.

 

[markko]

Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.

I have the same feeling; I don't trust the red color of the 'red ring'. It seems a bit too orange for me, but it could be white-balance of the image of course.

 

[marius]

Somebody says this is a fake.

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...

 

[Z]

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

Maybe someone just got bored of waiting for the 24-70 II, so they made their own.

 

[K-amps]

Somebody says this is a fake.

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...

If it is a prototype, then I can understand Canon not wanting to print the version info at the end of the barrel...

 

[candyman]

Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.

I have the same feeling; I don't trust the red color of the 'red ring'. It seems a bit too orange for me, but it could be white-balance of the image of course.

Just checked some older L-lenses. attached the 135L
Looks to me same color "red" or "orange"

 

[DzPhotography]

Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers? Do any of you use photoshop? That is a rubbish PS image there are so many reasons why the is fake it is comical.

First on my list would be when did Canon change their lens coatings to amber paint that spills over onto the barrel? But the list is so long and extensive it really is a joke that anybody, let alone keen photographers, could give this a second look.

yer that amber coating is really fishy, come to think of it

 

[EYEONE]

Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers?

Yes.

Do any of you use photoshop?

I don't.

First on my list would be when did Canon change their lens coatings to amber paint that spills over onto the barrel? But the list is so long and extensive it really is a joke that anybody, let alone keen photographers, could give this a second look.

Please, do tell. If you have photoshop proof we all would like to see it.

 

[marius]

Somebody says this is a fake.

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...

If it is a prototype, then I can understand Canon not wanting to print the version info at the end of the barrel...

This could be.

 

[Steb]

Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun. I bet IQ is phenom.

I think the 82mm have not helped that much on the 16-35mm mkII.

 

[EYEONE]

Somebody says this is a fake.

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...

True the font is different. Also, neither my 24-70 nor the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II have "Ultrasonic" written below the focal range by the distance window...

Oh, scratch that, the 8-15mm has it. Could be a new thing.

 

[Steb]

this looks a lot like the 16-35 II, which is also a 82mm front.

Looks similar but definitly is not. The 16-35 does not extend when zooming and it does not have that gap visible in the picture where the inner barrel comes out...

 

[photogaz]

To me what seems off about it is that it looks cheap and tacky! No L lens does!

Also why would Canon take a photo of a prototype lens?

 

[gferdinandsen]

Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.

Maybe it's the lack of writing around the red ring. Or, does it look too small to anyone else? (despite the 82mm filter threads (which is also really odd))

I thought something looked wrong too. The font used for the labeling (24-70 Ultrasonic) is the same as a traditional EF lens, rather than L lenses. Also missing is the red lettering indicating mm near the focus/distance window.

If you hold your hand over the red ring, this lens looks more like a standard EF than an L.

The red numbering on the scale is for IR. This is not such an issue with digital as it was with film (when you just put in a new roll of film versus now having to send the entire camera out to have the IR block filter removed). So Im not that surprised to see the lack of IR focal indicators on any new lens.

 

[kozakm]

I thought something looked wrong too. The font used for the labeling (24-70 Ultrasonic) is the same as a traditional EF lens, rather than L lenses. Also missing is the red lettering indicating mm near the focus/distance window.

If you hold your hand over the red ring, this lens looks more like a standard EF than an L.

Maybe Canon changed it's default font, 'cause EF 8-15/fL fisheye also uses different one.

 

[Loswr]

The red numbering on the scale is for IR. This is not such an issue with digital as it was with film (when you just put in a new roll of film versus now having to send the entire camera out to have the IR block filter removed). So Im not that surprised to see the lack of IR focal indicators on any new lens.

But...the two newest zoom lenses - EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS - both have IR focusing marks on the distance windows.

 

[Z]

Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers? Do any of you use photoshop? That is a rubbish PS image there are so many reasons why the is fake it is comical.

Your observations may be correct, but you've jumped straight to the conclusion that errors in the image = a fake picture.

Let's say the lens is real, a prototype; whatever. Don't you think Canon alter their product shots in photoshop? Are they not capable of post-production errors? I'm not trying to call you out here or to question your expertise, but perhaps turn your critical eye to official Canon product photos from the past, I'd be curious to know if there's any bad masking etc. in those.

 

[pdirestajr]

I believe these are digital renderings. If you open these images in Photoshop and click on the "Paths" Pallet, you can see some leftover masks. There is one on the 24-70 f2.8II image, and 2 on the 24mm f2.8IS image.

 

[kozakm]

Top switch looks exactly the same as the one on 8-15/4L fisheye - focal lenght limiter.

 

[marius]

I believe these are digital renderings. If you open these images in Photoshop and click on the "Paths" Pallet, you can see some leftover masks. There is one on the 24-70 f2.8II image, and 2 on the 24mm f2.8IS image.

Well, this is a strong argument. The path schould not be there, unless the canon photoshoped the image itself
Hmm, this will be interesting.