Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Thinks that make you go…..

</strong>I have received two separate communications in regards to an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS  being in the wild in prototype form. We knew this prototype has existed for quite some time, however we figured the concept was dead with the release of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. Canon would bring this lens to market alongside the non-IS version. Canon already does this with the 70-200 f/2.8s & 70-200 f/4s, so it’s possible they bring it to the standard zooms as well.</p>
<p>It’s a bit early to talk about pricing strategy, but the new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II will drop in price over the next 12 months, as you can see by the recent big drops to the EOS 5D Mark III.</p>
<p>This is from a new source, take this with a grain of salt. I’m intrigued as I do know the IS version exists.</p>
<p>The timelines for future lenses seem to all be going into 2013, more on that later.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[marekjoz]

If it really appears, will it have...
1. IQ of 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3k$
2. IQ of 24-70 2.8 I and price over 2.5k$
3. IQ better than 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3.5k$
??

 

[pedro]

If it really appears, will it have...
1. IQ of 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3k$
2. IQ of 24-70 2.8 I and price over 2.5k$
3. IQ better than 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3.5k$
??

If I am right on this one, IS today is a much required element due to the whole movie stuff. Well, still hope that there will be a 12-24/14-24 f2.8 NON IS by Canon sometime in the next two to three years....Although, non IS seems as unlikely as the rumored lens (wishful thinking?) itself...And 1.8k might not be enough for purchase once it is announced...;-)
Cheers, Pedro

 

[Ew]

Unexpected pressure from Tamron?

 

[Etienne]

Unexpected pressure from Tamron?

My thoughts too.

However I shudder at the thought of the price of the IS version. Tamron will probably still be the way to go.

 

[dolina]

Thank God for competition then. This is the lens I wanted from the get go.

 

[Lee Jay]

For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.

 

[spinworkxroy]

If it's true, i don't think it's pressure from Tamron since the Tammy IQ isn't as good as the 24-70LII

I would bet that if Canon does release this the IQ will not be as good as the mkII but will rival the Tammy at a similar price to the mk1.
Why? Because if the IQ is on par with the mk2 and with IS included, then those who bought the mk2 would be kinda disappointed and this will be prices too ridiculously high.

If they released it with the mk1 IQ but with IS, then at least for people who have IQ in mind, they buy the mk2, for those who want to do video and need IS, they buy this…

 

[KyleSTL]

Seriously, if they release a 24-70mm IS, it'll be like $3K. That'll make it the second most expensive Canon zoom ever (behind the waiting-to-be-released 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x USM). Undoubtedly, it will have none of the compromises of the Tamron VC (distortion, slow AF).

 

[willis]

Between $2799 - $3299. :

 

[RLPhoto]

Canon is finally releasing the lens we've really wanted, After we've recieved the lens that we've really wanted, after the lens we've really wanted.

 

[robbymack]

Finally a $3500 zoom for the video crowd

 

[kirillica]

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

 

[friedrice1212]

If this happens I'm way more interested in a cheaper non-IS 24-70L II than the (will be) absurdly expensive IS version. If we consider the price gap in the 70-200 range I think that the non IS will be a killer deal

 

[Loswr]

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

It's about having the flexibility to go slow when there's a need. The two new wide primes with IS - I wonder if the people using them turn IS off? I'm betting no...

 

[tron]

For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.

+1

 

[marekjoz]

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

Introducing this lens together with high MP body will force you to use higher shutter speeds at the same time even for static objects... or simply leaving IS on
After having spent 7-9k$ for body it doesn't make a big difference to add another 500-1k$ for IS in a lens costing 2k$ itself

 

[kirillica]

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

It's about having the flexibility to go slow when there's a need. The two new wide primes with IS - I wonder if the people using them turn IS off? I'm betting no...

well, as I said, this possibility exists only for non-moving subjects

 

[kirillica]

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

Introducing this lens together with high MP body will force you to use higher shutter speeds at the same time even for static objects... or simply leaving IS on

how MP are connected to SS?

 

[marekjoz]

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?

Introducing this lens together with high MP body will force you to use higher shutter speeds at the same time even for static objects... or simply leaving IS on

how MP are connected to SS?

If your object moves you can do nothing but increase the shutter speed anyway, but for static objects (at 100% magnification) you will notice more blur on a camera with high MPs - assuming of course you don't intend to make 800x533 photos for web from 40MPs body....