Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[DzPhotography]

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.

My point exactly ;D

 

[jm345]

If Canon can put IS in the excellent 17-55f/2.8 (and 24-105f/4) there is no reason they can't or shouldn't put it in a new 24-70f/2.8. If they don't it will be a huge marketing mistake. I sold my 24-70 because it didn't have IS and I was not really happy with the IQ. I kept the 24-105 because of the IS but I find (with my copies at least) the 17-55 IS is sharper.

The existing 24-70f/2.8 didn't need a focus limiter switch or a lock to prevent lens creep. Besides I am hoping a new 24-70f/2.8 will be internal focus (no barrel extension). So the if there is a second switch it must be for IS.

So here's to hoping there will be a 24-70 (or 105) f/2.8 IS, internal focus with center and corner IQ as good as the 70-200f/2.8 II IS

 

[DzPhotography]

If Canon can put IS in the excellent 17-55f/2.8 (and 24-105f/4) there is no reason they can't or shouldn't put it in a new 24-70f/2.8. If they don't it will be a huge marketing mistake. I sold my 24-70 because it didn't have IS and I was not really happy with the IQ. I kept the 24-105 because of the IS but I find (with my copies at least) the 17-55 IS is sharper.

The existing 24-70f/2.8 didn't need a focus limiter switch or a lock to prevent lens creep. Besides I am hoping a new 24-70f/2.8 will be internal focus (no barrel extension). So the if there is a second switch it must be for IS.

So here's to hoping there will be a 24-70 (or 105) f/2.8 IS, internal focus with center and corner IQ as good as the 70-200f/2.8 II IS

Correct. Why a 17-55 for the crop with IS and a 24-70 for FF without IS :-\ doesn't make sense imho. If there's a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS coming out and internal focus, I'm ordering one right away ;D

 

[torger]

The Tamron with image stabilization look more interesting I think. The Canon will more than likely have better image quality, but when I need resolution (i e tripod-mounted photography) I go for primes anyway in this focal length range. This would for me be an all-around lens for hand-held causal shooting and as such image stabilization is more valuable than high resolving power and other optical qualities (as long as they don't suck too bad).

 

[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.

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

Fair enough, but a lot of people do have a problem with it. Me included.

The IQ is perfectly ok. But it's nothing to write home about and I don't think it's any better than a Non-L lens.

 

[DEFILER]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

 

[DzPhotography]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

 

[scubasteve03]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

How so?

 

[thewallbanger]

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.

 

[jm345]

If Canon doesn't include IS in a new 24-70f/2.8 I might be buying my first Tamron - if the IQ is good enough.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371808-264/tamrons-24-70mm-lens-takes-image-stabilization-lead/?tag=txt;title

 

[dryanparker]

Provided this is real, it's obviously a new design. At 24mm, the current model is fully extended...

 

[gene_can_sing]

Why no IS? That's really lame.

Also, why an 82mm filter size? At that size, or once you go past 77mm, filters take a huge leap in cost. Also, many people I know use a step up ring to 77mm to have a unified filtered system (including myself). So if I were to go to 82mm, I would have to buy all new filters including a Fader ND for video, which at 82mm, would be hard to find and really, really expensive.

They have IS in 17 to 55mm EF-S, so why not add it to 24-70, especially when it's the MOST REQUESTED feature by nearly everyone.

 

[AJ]

Suppose Canon is all set to announce a non-IS lens tomorrow, and Tamron beats them to the punch with a VC lens...

If so there would be some very interesting last-minute discussions between Canon's marketing and R&D folks.

Interesting times, for sure!

 

[DzPhotography]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

How so?

take a look at the gap just behind the lens hood mount.

 

[K-amps]

Suppose Canon is all set to announce a non-IS lens tomorrow, and Tamron beats them to the punch with a VC lens...

If so there would be some very interesting last-minute discussions between Canon's marketing and R&D folks.

Interesting times, for sure!

Like! ;D

 

[marius]

I can't belive it! ... maybe I will not desert to the "dark side" anymore.
I had no "first love" for my Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L ... not even a "second one".
But no IS? Why? Even Canon EF 24 and 28 have IS. Strange.

Now, if the Canon 5D Mark (III)(X) will have a higher DR and no pattern noise, I will be very, very, very happy.

 

[DEFILER]

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.

I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me

How so?

take a look at the gap just behind the lens hood mount.

True, but the focus ring and its associated mechanics are also in the way. Does not seem to leave much room for an inner barrel at that location unless its focus-by-wire a-la 85L II....which would not help this lens' cause any further...

 

[Dylan777]

"Lighter than version I" = no IS???

Can't wait to see the reviews on Tamron with IS.

 

[DEFILER]

...and on the other hand, comparing to my 16-35L II (which does not extend on zoom) is completely flush towards the end of the barrel without the gap so I suppose many will be a bit disappointed. Does look a lot shorter as well so no way it's internal zooming. Just wishful thinking.

I realize it seems frivolous to look at things such as internal zooming and fixed lens hoods but to me form and ergonomics are as big a factor as function in lens design. The 70-200 IS II is a great example of near-perfection in my book.

 

[moreorless]

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.

Compair it to the 100mm L macro released recently rather than L lenses from several years ago and it looks very similar in design to me.