Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[waving_odd]

Will people feel better if they remember a CR2 couple weeks ago suggested that "...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..."?

Will people consider the possibility that Canon's design choice is different to Tamron's, and the possibility that this Mark II is primarily an optical upgrade (after all, the current version is already 10 years old) more than anything else (like 70-200 f/2.8 IS II to its original version)?

And as far as the print of labels goes, would it look weird just because it's still a prototype (...the suspected final prototype is in the hands of the select few for testing...)?

 

[kozakm]

Well, this is a strong argument. The path schould not be there.
Hmm, this will me interesting.

This could be a residue of som Photoshop retouching - adding more saturation to the front lens or so.

 

[Loswr]

OMG - I just checked the EXIF. This image was shot at ISO 12800 on a 36 MP Nikon D800!!!









Made ya look...

 

[K-amps]

OMG - I just checked the EXIF. This image was shot at ISO 12800 on a 36 MP Nikon D800!!!





;D


Made ya look...

 

[Narcolepsy]

For what its worth - here are the results of image analysis in www.pskiller.com
I much prefer errorlevelanalysis.com for judging if images are composite, but it is down at the moment

 

[EYEONE]

OMG - I just checked the EXIF. This image was shot at ISO 12800 on a 36 MP Nikon D800!!!









Made ya look...

No ya didn't

 

[kozakm]

Front lens element looks weird - it's all yelow and ugly, compared to product images of other Canon lenses...

 

[Tiosabas]

Looks to be a very bulbous element inside the front element that doesn't look right on the 24-70. Also the two primes have silver rings indicating ef-s?

 

[EYEONE]

Looks to be a very bulbous element inside the front element that doesn't look right on the 24-70. Also the two primes have silver rings indicating ef-s?

The current 24-70's front element has significant curve to it.

No, the pictures show the red EF mount marking. The EF-S marking is white.

 

[marius]

I looked to the File information in PS and I saw that this image was modified many times in:
- June 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011

If this image is a fake, then why appeared this fake not earlier in net?!
Spent somebody really a half of a year for this project?! ... the poor man

 

[JR]

Real or not, this image makes me want this lens even more ... and it would be lighter then the older model on top! Cool!

 

[jbooba]

hey guys,
as i posted http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3208.msg67356.html#msg67356 ... 24+28 looks to me like fakes. most likely this 24-70 is also not real.

JB

 

[TexPhoto]

I suspect payoffs from the filter manufacturers. 82mm?

 

[Gcon]

All I know is there's another bump at the top of the image on the barrel. Zoom lock would be highly unusual for this type of lens. No lens creep on L zooms that I know of.

I don't think there is something like a second switch. If there is, in that position, it would be a zoom lock switch. Nothing IS related for sure.

I am sure the second switch is a lock. My 70-300L has one. Why not the 24-70?

*nods* It's in the same area as the lock switch on my 70-300mm f/4-5.6L.

I agree with earlier posters about mid-tones being flat and lacking contrast, and a lack of sharpness at f/2.8.

It's all about what you get used to. I thought the 24-70 was good until I got the 100mm L macro, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II, and the 8-15mm f/4L fisheye - especially the fisheye. Those lenses really punch out the color and contrast, and now the 24-70mm looks decidedly dull by comparison.

They need to improve the glass resolving ability, but huge improvements will come from improved coatings, and rounded aperture blades will help with creamier bokeh. New Canon lens designs from about 2005 have all come with the rounded aperture blades.

So it'll come with no IS, 82mm thread (at least matching the 16-35mm...makes sense), improved design, improved glass elements, improved coatings, improved electronics and improved (rounded) aperture blades. WIN!

 

[Ryusui]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I feel the most interesting feature of this new image is the fact that it's retracted at 24 as opposed to 70; which has been brought up at least three times before in this thread.

The coloring, extra switch area, fonts...that seems kind of dull in comparisson...

 

[awinphoto]

whether the photo was photoshopped or not, you dont think CANON out of all companies, would post or leak photos out on the web without sending it to their marketing and graphic dept do ya?

 

[LostArk]

Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

 

[moreorless]

Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

I don't see why thats "proof", the previous Canon lens retracted at 70mm but other similar designs from Sigma and Tamron havent.

 

[Caps18]

Or it could be an internal zoom like the 16-35mm...

 

[EYEONE]

Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.

Not all Canon zooms are extend at the wide end. In fact, the old 28-70 and the current 24-70 are the only ones that do. All the other Canon lenses extend when zoomed.