Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Mentioned Again [CR2]

[Antono Refa]

How can we be frustrated? 11-24 f4L, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II, 5DS/DSR, 7DII, 35 f1.4L II, 16-35 f4L IS, 400mm f4 DO II ....

I think it is understandable how a large portion of the FF camera owners would rather have a fast standard zoom w/ IS over any of the items on the list.

[Personally, I would love having the 11-24 f4L & 35 f1.4L II, but I'm not rich enough to buy either. At most, I would replace my 16-35mm f/2.8 with the 16-35 f4L IS.]

 

[Don Haines]

18-24 months? My frustration with Canon grows a little more.

.....ummmm....remember, Canon hasn't said anything about this lens. This is a rumor. So you are frustrated that you potentially have 18-24 month notice of a lens release due to a rumor mill....

Canon has been releasing some gems lately.

True. I'm just venting.

I've just been waiting for this lens for what seems like a long time now.

I feel your pain..... I have been waiting for an updated 400F5.6 since way back when the dinosaurs walked the earth.....

 

[Ladislav]

How can we be frustrated? 11-24 f4L, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II, 5DS/DSR, 7DII, 35 f1.4L II, 16-35 f4L IS, 400mm f4 DO II ....

I think it is understandable how a large portion of the FF camera owners would rather have a fast standard zoom w/ IS over any of the items on the list.

[Personally, I would love having the 11-24 f4L & 35 f1.4L II, but I'm not rich enough to buy either. At most, I would replace my 16-35mm f/2.8 with the 16-35 f4L IS.]

I bought 16-35 f4L IS and that lens replaced my 24-70 Tamron as city walkaround lens. It is simply amazing lens with great IS and nice price tag. You can actually have both 16-35 f4L IS and 24-70 f4L IS for less than 24-70 f2.8L MkII without IS. And that is a big deal for many enthusiasts.

 

[JonAustin]

I'll toss my hat into the ring with those who would rather see an updated 24-105L. It's my most used lens (I'm now on my 2nd copy), and I would really like to see it replaced with a new model that sports the latest tech (better optical performance, latest generation IS, new lens coatings, etc.). And a little FL extension on the long end would be nice, too!

 

[jeffa4444]

The lens overdue updating is the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM whilst it still produces great results the chromatic abberations especially at 24mm and 105mm should be able to be bettered today as should the small amount of shading either end.
This lens is a staple for many photographers and as sensor MP increases the weaknesses become more apparent.

 

[rs]

Nikon's VR was a turd because they rushed it to market, and they further delayed released, so all you people complaining about 18 months for a lens with a 15-30 year cycle are idiots. You should buy the 24-70 VR from Nikon which is available now and is sharper and faster focusing than the non VR lens... Oh wait! It's none of those things!

At least the Nikon 24-70 VR is smaller than the Canon 24-70 II. Oh, hold on...

 

[ahsanford]

I believe that Canon must have co-developed an IS version of a 24-70 f/2.8L II on or around the same time as the 24-70 f/2.8L II itself. They likely did this to...

• ...future-proof the design from the threat of a Nikon 24-70 2.8 IS offering. They didn't have to go to the expense of offering both a pricey L II and an even pricier version with IS, but if they needed to, they could do so relatively quickly.
  
  
• ...be able to share they vast majority of lens elements, subcomponents, outer housing, etc. I mean, they did something similar with the 70-200 f/2.8 models and the 70-200 f/4 models, didn't they?

It's 2015 and Canon are notorious slow/planning/execution people -- I refuse to believe a 24-70 f/2.8L IS hasn't (a) been largely designed already and (b) doesn't fit in an almost identical housing. It will weigh more, but I think it will fit right inside of the current 24-70 f/2.8L II.

So as much as this forum has BR fever with the 35L II MTF charts, I highly doubt we'll see a new optical formula, BR, etc. with the 24-70 f/2.8L IS. Expect the current 24-70 f/2.8L II (a stellar zoom lens) with the added weight and performance of IS. For Canon to do anything else would be impractical, expensive, and (even) slower to market.

- A

 

[TeT]

24-105 f4 IS II please ...

I'm sure we'd all like a little extra length.

This ......

There is absolute no need for canon to add IS to the 24-70 f2.8 if They make a 24-105 f4 II.

That is incorrect... f/4 with or without IS cannot support fast enough shutter speeds to stop action indoors in dim/poor lighting. F/2.8 does; F/2.8 with IS lets you shoot slow shutter speeds indoors to capture images that you would otherwize be flipping to Primes for...

on the otherhand, I would love to have a 24 105 II

 

[TeT]

Get ready for sticker shock when this comes out. This thing is going to approach $2999.

with IS and improved optics, it may be worth it (assume it would settle in at 2K to 2.5K eventually)

 

[verysimplejason]

24-105 f4 IS II please ...

I'm sure we'd all like a little extra length.

...and a little more.... 24-135 f/4 IS. A EFS 15-85 equivalent focal length with constant f/4 aperture. What an amazing walk around lens that could be if Canon nailed the optical formula. Trade off would likely be size.

I would rather have that than a 24-70 f/2.8 IS. If we are talking about a lens bigger than the current 24-70 II.

+1. 24-135 F4 IS is also my dream lens especially for events. With my 6D, I can go as high as 6400 anyway so, the extra length for me is more useful.

 

[ahsanford]

The lens overdue updating is the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM whilst it still produces great results the chromatic abberations especially at 24mm and 105mm should be able to be bettered today as should the small amount of shading either end.
This lens is a staple for many photographers and as sensor MP increases the weaknesses become more apparent.

Disagree on the 24-105L getting replaced -- it already was replaced, and it was also moved to a lower price point / feature set as a non-L budget lens. Canon couldn't make a 24-105 optically good enough and cheap enough to serve as that starter-L kit lens, so they offered a 24-70 f/4L IS that they could make and they offered a 24-105 non-L to those that still needed the length.

Yes, they still sell the 24-105L, but we don't know for how much longer. I don't see it (or a replacement) figuring prominently in their future plans.

My thoughts on their past/present/future on three price points is attached -- it obviously leaves out some odd ducks like the the fishbowls, 28-300L, 70-300L, all the sub-price-points in the 70-200 space, etc. but you get the idea.

- A

 

[andrewflo]

Do not expect this lens from Canon for 18-24 months at the earliest, as there’s no pressure to release it, even after Nikon recently announced a VR version of their 24-70 f/2.8</a>.</p>

Gotta love the logic here...

Agreed. I know many don't consider non-Canon lenses a real option, but the Tamron SP 24-70mm is fantastic, especially at the price.

And the newer Tamron SP lenses have been even better. 24+ months could be enough time for Tamron to consider a version II of their SP 24-70mm, which if performed on par with their SP 15-30mm, would easily compete with L glass image quality.

Completely hypothetical guess, of course, but a Tamron SP 24-70 II (for < $1,500) would have me over a Canon 24-70mm IS (at ~$3,000).

 

[jeffa4444]

The lens overdue updating is the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM whilst it still produces great results the chromatic abberations especially at 24mm and 105mm should be able to be bettered today as should the small amount of shading either end.
This lens is a staple for many photographers and as sensor MP increases the weaknesses become more apparent.

Disagree on the 24-105L getting replaced -- it already was replaced, and it was also moved to a lower price point / feature set as a non-L budget lens. Canon couldn't make a 24-105 optically good enough and cheap enough to serve as that starter-L kit lens, so they offered a 24-70 f/4L IS that they could make and they offered a 24-105 non-L to those that still needed the length.

Yes, they still sell the 24-105L, but we don't know for how much longer. I don't see it (or a replacement) figuring prominently in their future plans.

My thoughts on their past/present/future on three price points is attached -- it obviously leaves out some odd ducks like the the fishbowls, 28-300L, 70-300L, all the sub-price-points in the 70-200 space, etc. but you get the idea.

- A

I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.

 

[ahsanford]

I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.

I think a lot of people got emotionally attached to that 24-105L or strongly prefer the added length, even if it limits the IQ somewhat. It's a fine lens and I have nothing against it.

But consider some headwinds that a 24-105 f/4L IS II would face to get made:

• The current 24-105 f/4L is in spectacular supply in the field, and you can't walk two feet on the internet without bumping into a $600 24-105L deal. Sure, a great deal of that is due to resellers prying that lens out of 6D and 5D3 kits to maximize their profits, but the fact they need to resort to such low prices implies that (a) folks already have a standard EF zoom and don't need another, (b) they don't find the 24-105 f/4L IS desirable over alternatives, or (c) they don't find the 24-105 f/4L to be worth it at a higher price. Two out of three of those reasons might scare Canon off from making another.
  
  
  
• There is now a better lens sitting in the starter L bucket, the 24-70 f/4L IS. It's shorter, yes, but it's sharper and offers the 0.7x macro. Canon would clearly rather push that lens than the 24-105 f/4L IS: it is now starting to be kitted with FF bodies.
  
  
  
• Canon wants FF body owners to buy pricey 70-something L lenses. Overlapping into those FLs might deter people from looking into buying one. (This is a bit of reach of course, but I don't put it past Canon to think this way.)
  
  
  
• A 4-5x zoom lens is not for IQ snobbish pros, so this lens needs to be inexpensive. I think that's why they put out the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM -- it's just as sharp at the 24-105 f/4L IS from what I've read, but losing the constant aperture, weather-sealing and USM lets Canon reduce the cost of this lens to something that is right-sized for its slot in the market.

I could be terribly wrong here, and I know (believe me) how many folks strongly prefer a 24-105 or pine for a 24-120, but I just don't see Canon offering an a new L-level offering like that in the future.

- A

 

[Hjalmarg1]

24-105 f4 IS II please ...

I'm sure we'd all like a little extra length.

...and a little more.... 24-135 f/4 IS. A EFS 15-85 equivalent focal length with constant f/4 aperture. What an amazing walk around lens that could be if Canon nailed the optical formula. Trade off would likely be size.

I would rather have that than a 24-70 f/2.8 IS. If we are talking about a lens bigger than the current 24-70 II.

EF 24-135mm f/4L IS would be a great alternative for those that need longer reach in a compact package

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Nikon's VR was a turd because they rushed it to market, and they further delayed released, so all you people complaining about 18 months for a lens with a 15-30 year cycle are idiots. You should buy the 24-70 VR from Nikon which is available now and is sharper and faster focusing than the non VR lens... Oh wait! It's none of those things!

At least the Nikon 24-70 VR is smaller than the Canon 24-70 II. Oh, hold on...

..........the Nikon has internal focusing..................

 

[PureClassA]

I thought the Nikon VR 24-70 pictures were a joke the first time I saw them. Damn thing is as a big as the 70-200.

And yeah, loads of wishful thinking on a 24-105 II ... but that's isn't going to happen for all the reason earlier stated. Retailers use them as paper weights and door stops.

Plus the 2.8 aperture is a virtual must in that range for full time pros who shoot weddings. It's not just about light gathering and stopping motion, it's also about the DOF difference. That 24-70 gets used a lot at the 70mm end for portrait work, and as a guy that does portrait work, I live between f2 and f4, and rarely into 5.6 and 8. the 2.8 can produce a very different look with loads more bokeh potential than f4.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I know they want to milk the 24-70 f/2.8L II as much as possible, but it is really annoying if they can have it in 6-12 months but delay it for 24 just because they don't feel the pressure...

I suspect the current 24-70 f/2.8L II would remain current if/when the IS version comes.

Then what would be the reason to hold off the IS version, if they can sell well both?

Probably because:

1. at the very least that part of the rumor is BS

2. the video/sensor/body division was getting embarrassed by the lens division not holding back enough and milking things and acting like a follower and had upper management force them to join the fold

3. something was a little lost from A to B to C to D to E to Z by the rumor got here and they more meant that they didn't feel an urgent pressure to rush out some half-baked design just to say they have a 24-70 2.8 with IS and felt they could manage to hold off long enough to get the lens done properly instead of it being some kind of ultra conservative, reactive marketing scheme nonsense

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I would also rather see an update of the 24-105 instead of this one.

they did, the 24-70 f/4 IS

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.

I think a lot of people got emotionally attached to that 24-105L or strongly prefer the added length, even if it limits the IQ somewhat. It's a fine lens and I have nothing against it.

But consider some headwinds that a 24-105 f/4L IS II would face to get made:

• The current 24-105 f/4L is in spectacular supply in the field, and you can't walk two feet on the internet without bumping into a $600 24-105L deal. Sure, a great deal of that is due to resellers prying that lens out of 6D and 5D3 kits to maximize their profits, but the fact they need to resort to such low prices implies that (a) folks already have a standard EF zoom and don't need another, (b) they don't find the 24-105 f/4L IS desirable over alternatives, or (c) they don't find the 24-105 f/4L to be worth it at a higher price. Two out of three of those reasons might scare Canon off from making another.
  
  
  
• There is now a better lens sitting in the starter L bucket, the 24-70 f/4L IS. It's shorter, yes, but it's sharper and offers the 0.7x macro. Canon would clearly rather push that lens than the 24-105 f/4L IS: it is now starting to be kitted with FF bodies.
  
  
  
• Canon wants FF body owners to buy pricey 70-something L lenses. Overlapping into those FLs might deter people from looking into buying one. (This is a bit of reach of course, but I don't put it past Canon to think this way.)
  
  
  
• A 4-5x zoom lens is not for IQ snobbish pros, so this lens needs to be inexpensive. I think that's why they put out the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM -- it's just as sharp at the 24-105 f/4L IS from what I've read, but losing the constant aperture, weather-sealing and USM lets Canon reduce the cost of this lens to something that is right-sized for its slot in the market.

I could be terribly wrong here, and I know (believe me) how many folks strongly prefer a 24-105 or pine for a 24-120, but I just don't see Canon offering an a new L-level offering like that in the future.

- A

exactly

If they made it a true top quality upgrade it might be as big and heavy as the 24-70 f/2.8 II and cost a ton.
Heck look at the Sigma 24-105 OS. The crazy thing isn't even a match for the 24-70 f/4 IS at the wide end or long end (only in the 50mm zone), it's not really all that optically stunning and it's larger and heavier, I believe, than the 24-70 f/2.8 II! And they already discontinued it as a failed lens just like half a year after it came out, I'm pretty sure.

It's hard to make really long focal ranges top quality, even with today's processes, without going pretty large, heavy and expensive. At which point, maybe they are afraid too many would just nab say a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC instead.

I mean who knows, but I tend to agree with ahsanford.