Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[dstppy]

As people point out regularly, Canon has never done IS on any EF lens below 100mm . . . nice as it would be, why the intense surprise?


-> EDIT
Looking back, the two other rumored lenses have IS? So, we either have to believe that canon suddenly is going to go IS on their normal/wide EF lenses . . . and this one won't have it?

Something doesn't add up. Maybe Iran is behind the photos, they like photochop

 

[pedro]

It seems like canon are getting ready for whatever body to come out, 1Dx, next 5D, ... I guess I've read some posts refering to this lens in relation to the 1Dx or the next 5D. So as the lenses are coming, new FF bodies can't be that far off from launch 8)

 

[Justin]

The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.

I'd think the switches would be together, but who knows. Maybe internal design choices necessitated its separate location. Come on IS! In fact I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's an IS lens. There is another switch. No way it's a focus limiter.

 

[Mooose]

Why would the second switch -- whatever it is -- be shorter than the focus switch? It's not just perspective, the 2nd switch doesn't extend as close to the focus ring.

 

[Steb]

The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.

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.

 

[EYEONE]

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))

The lack of IS doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think Tamron could do anything to temp me to buy their stuff again.

 

[awinphoto]

Maybe if it has better macro capabilities, it could be a focus limitator or macro work? With no IS, i'll pass and keep my 24-105. With the 16-35 2 being 82mm, i wonder if the 82 is going to be the new 77? Probably a ploy canon has with B&H and Adorama to get people to buy new filters =)

 

[mkln]

As people point out regularly, Canon has never done IS on any EF lens below 100mm . . . nice as it would be, why the intense surprise?


-> EDIT
Looking back, the two other rumored lenses have IS? So, we either have to believe that canon suddenly is going to go IS on their normal/wide EF lenses . . . and this one won't have it?

Something doesn't add up. Maybe Iran is behind the photos, they like photochop

idk, IS = more weight, and 2.8 is sufficient in most situations.
having IS would of course be really nice. but the 24-70 (used to?) is really large and heavy.
I would sacrifice IS for less weight and overall size.
I mean, it's still a zoom lens, it already has a lot of flexibility.
having a 24-70 that makes the camera more "normal" is great.

and no name next to the red ring? that doesn't sound like a big deal.there doesn't seem to be space under it anyways?

 

[Justin]

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.

The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.

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.

 

[Mooose]

The focus ring is bigger than mk I hence no room for the description - at least where they usually put it.

 

[PeterNeff]

Where is the mounting of the lenshood?

 

[clarkia]

If that's it, and it doesn't come with IS at that price, I'm very happy that I just bought the current version

in my opinion, the current version leaves a lot to desire. In particular weak 2.8 sharpness and mediocre mid contrast killed it for me (had one, sold it). If they fix it and we see a similar improvement as the 70-200 did, I'm happy

Glad they didn't incorporate IS, for me at least. I like it on longer lenses, but I don't think I would use it a lot on this lens, and I'd still pay for it - in hard currency upon purchasing, and after a long day of shooting, in neck and shoulders since it all just adds up to the weight

Agreed. Despite the steep price, i'd certainly pay that much to actually have great 2.8 and improved image quality across the frame (and hopefully without the field curvature). if they can improve IQ similar to the 70-200mm II, i won't ever need another canon lens. Perhaps i just 3 bad versions over the years but i won't buy another normal focal length zoom until they step up their IQ.

 

[candyman]

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?

 

[candyman]

Where is the mounting of the lenshood?

On the front of the lens. Like with the 24-105

 

[DzPhotography]

If that's it, and it doesn't come with IS at that price, I'm very happy that I just bought the current version

in my opinion, the current version leaves a lot to desire. In particular weak 2.8 sharpness and mediocre mid contrast killed it for me (had one, sold it). If they fix it and we see a similar improvement as the 70-200 did, I'm happy

Glad they didn't incorporate IS, for me at least. I like it on longer lenses, but I don't think I would use it a lot on this lens, and I'd still pay for it - in hard currency upon purchasing, and after a long day of shooting, in neck and shoulders since it all just adds up to the weight

Agreed. Despite the steep price, i'd certainly pay that much to actually have great 2.8 and improved image quality across the frame (and hopefully without the field curvature). if they can improve IQ similar to the 70-200mm II, i won't ever need another canon lens. Perhaps i just 3 bad versions over the years but i won't buy another normal focal length zoom until they step up their IQ.

I don't have any issues with sharpness at 2.8 but I could surely use IS for low light on this zoom range. Now I'm forced to use my 70-200 most of the time in that kind of situations...

Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...

 

[candyman]

Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...

...weathersealing.... good point.
I was hoping they would release the 24-70 with internal zoom like the 70-200 models. But unfortunately not.

 

[unruled]

if I'm not mistaken, this Image shows the lens at 24mm without being extended-- unlike the current model. does that mean its internal zoom, or extending at 70 instead?

 

[DEFILER]

In my opinion, they've really cheapened the design. The V1 lens hood design was actually innovative and useful, provided good protection, as well as ideal light blockage for the given focal length on the reverse-zoom. The omission of IS, cheap hood attachment, and external zooming will hopefully be overshadowed by the fact that it must surely be capable of shooting of rainbows out of the front element. It needs to be THAT good in order to sell. Surely it has all the latest coatings as well.

 

[EYEONE]

Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...

Well, this one is shortest at 24mm instead of 70mm like the old version so the old hood design would not work. If they changed to a normal zoom motion to increase the optical quality I don't think we should complain about the hood design. The old design was great but the IQ of the old version @ f2.8 is far from outstanding. I'd trade sharpness wide open for a static hood design any day.

Obviously we have no idea why this lens has normal zoom function but I think we can assume there is a reason for it.

 

[DzPhotography]

Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...

Well, this one is shortest at 24mm instead of 70mm like the old version so the old hood design would not work. If they changed to a normal zoom motion to increase the optical quality I don't think we should complain about the hood design. The old design was great but the IQ of the old version @ f2.8 is far from outstanding. I'd trade sharpness wide open for a static hood design any day.

Obviously we have no idea why this lens has normal zoom function but I think we can assume there is a reason for it.

Correct, it wouldn't. But I really don't have problems with sharpness at f/2.8 ???