Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[photogaz]

Is Canon on cheap drugs??? No IS and a ridiculous price increase? I damaged my current 24-70 and was holding out to get this but now I am looking at the Tamron.

Why is it that everyone says about the Tamron but never gave the Sigma 24-70 HSM the light of day.

 

[Canon-F1]

Why is it that everyone says about the Tamron but never gave the Sigma 24-70 HSM the light of day.

i don´t want to buy 5 to get one good one.

been through this before with sigma....

 

[Gravitom]

It doesn't matter if you need IS or if it makes a big difference. It matters that people WANT IS in the 24-70. People were willing to shell out cash to upgrade and many people were sitting on the fence to get there first one. Not giving consumers what they want is the mistake here.

So what are our next lens predictions? A new 50mm f/1.8 co-branded with Versace for $600.

 

[kubelik]

It doesn't matter if you need IS or if it makes a big difference. It matters that people WANT IS in the 24-70. People were willing to shell out cash to upgrade and many people were sitting on the fence to get there first one. Not giving consumers what they want is the mistake here.

So what are our next lens predictions? A new 50mm f/1.8 co-branded with Versace for $600.

more like a 50mm f/2.8 ... that costs $800

 

[K-amps]

I was was hoping to upgrade my 24-105 F4 IS with a faster lens, hopefully priced in the $1400 - 1600 range.

This offering fall short on IS and falls short on price. It's close in price to the 70-200 f2.8mk.II. which has IS.

It's like Honda saying next year's model will cost 50% more and won't have bluetooth that you have been waiting for.

I am sure this will be a very nice lens, but I think the price is excessive.

 

[leonbones]

I am with everyone else who is disgusted with the price. I sell this equipment for a living and I actually feel horrible now for the cost of this lens. All I can say is Tamron better thank Canon for causing so many people buying their new 24-70. And bravo on the image stabilization. I am not saying it needed it, but people wanted it, and you need to at least take that into consideration. Man 2300 is awful!

 

[SpareImp]

According to the Norwegian press release, the recommended price for this lens is $3 438 in Norway (19 990 NOK). That’s a $1 139 difference for the same lens – which is out of my reach, so I’ll be looking at the old version or the Tamron. I can’t wait for the reviews of this thing. It’s going to be an interesting year for eye shopping.

 

[evenfy]

According to the Norwegian press release, the recommended price for this lens is $3 438 in Norway (19 990 NOK). That’s a $1 139 difference for the same lens – which is out of my reach, so I’ll be looking at the old version or the Tamron. I can’t wait for the reviews of this thing. It’s going to be an interesting year for eye shopping.

Haha, I am also from Norway, and was planning on the 5D mark III/X and the 24-70 II as a "finished-my-university-degree-present" to myself this summer. Seems like that was more of an economic long-shot than I had imagined

 

[smirkypants]

I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that.

Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.

 

[well_dunno]

According to the Norwegian press release, the recommended price for this lens is $3 438 in Norway (19 990 NOK). That’s a $1 139 difference for the same lens – which is out of my reach, so I’ll be looking at the old version or the Tamron. I can’t wait for the reviews of this thing. It’s going to be an interesting year for eye shopping.

Haha, I am also from Norway, and was planning on the 5D mark III/X and the 24-70 II as a "finished-my-university-degree-present" to myself this summer. Seems like that was more of an economic long-shot than I had imagined

Euro equivalence should be around 17500 NOK if I am not mistaken. With that price, you might be able to go to Germany and come back with the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

Joke aside, gear prices are really in Scandinavia...

 

[JR]

I dont like the retail price on the new 24-70 II like many of us, however if the MTF chart are an indication of its performance and if Canon was able to create another 70-200 2.8IS II type quality zoom, then maybe it will be money well spent?

 

[Kliphten]

I think Canon did a crappy or a great thing depending on who's perspective. They've upped the IQ (according to the MTF) but they've left out the IS (crappy for the consumer). What's this mean? Well, if IQ is really good, what will they do for the next upgrade? Add IS, great for the company because they get people to upgrade to Mark II and then to Mark III when that comes out.

Personally, I think it is crap what I believe them to be doing. Nikon comes out with a monstrous camera and price it way below what I was expecting. Canon keeps dragging it's feet on the 5D (or whatever is next) and they come out with a few new lenses recently that are waaayy overpriced (according to the consensus on this forum).

I am now highly considering switching over to Nikon. I'll wait for the next body announcement and if it doesn't blow the socks off my feet (meaning great features, great price), then hello Nikon.

 

[steven63]

, but not surprised at this. There is going to be alot more of this type of sticker shock and not only in the Camera world. Fast as the Federal Reserve is printing $, won't be long till you have to have a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy something.

 

[KyleSTL]

Going to throw out a prediction -

The next 70-200mm f/2.8 will have an 82mm filter (not that I think it is or should be anytime soon).

Evidence:
72mm - 20-35mm f/2.8L USM (1989), 28-80mm F/2.8-4L USM (1989), 80-200mm f/2.8L (1989)
77mm - 17-35mm f/2.8L USM (1996), 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (2001), 28-70mm f/2.8L USM (1993), 24-70mm f/2.8L (2002),
70-200mm f/2.8L (1995, 2001 - IS, 2010 - IS II)
82mm - 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II (2006), 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II (2012)

 

[wickidwombat]

I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that.

Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.

really? i was somewhat disappointed with the MTF charts. for that money i was expecting better

 

[D_Rochat]

No one expected Canon to give this lens away and I'm pretty sure everyone was being realistic with what they thought they were going to pay for this lens. Without IS, it should not break the $2000 price point, period. The only people I see buying this right away are maybe high end wedding photogs. I won't be surprised to see this price change soon. They sh*t the bed with this price tag.

Unless of course I'm correct with this lens being able to see through time......

 

[CrimsonBlue]

I think the people that keep talking about not needing IS is based on the idea that it wouldn't actually kick in for most uses. It's really helpful for long primes/zooms, but you naturally gather a lot of light at the wide end and it wouldn't be engaged below 1/100 or so.

Someone else said it better in a previous post, but there are so many it's hard to keep up! 8)

 

[Cetalis]

Either I missed something or Canon hasn't announced it, but on http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm at the bottom of the page it says "FASC" among the rest of the alphabet soup. Anyone know what it means?

 

[gmrza]

I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that.

Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.

I believe that Canon probably is targeting mainly event photographers and photojournalists with this lens. - In both of these areas, you have to freeze some degree of motion of people - which means generally shooting at shutter speeds which do not require IS. Hence why wedding photographers and PJs don't really care about IS on this lens. They are probably also Canon's main target market for this lens. Canon's reasoning is probably that you would still only get 1 stop advantage over the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, so they will rather direct users who require IS to that lens - which they probably regard as more of a general purpose lens.

This is not what everyone wants to hear, but I suspect that is most likely the rationale on Canon's part.

 

[wtf1234567]

Could weight be the main issue of not adding the IS to the lens? U and i know its (the mark I) already heavy...whats the weaight of mkII?