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

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One note, regarding adding a BR element. Perhaps they might to bring it to unprecedented levels or to help keep the costs size down a little while retaining solid LoCA performance, but one should keep in mind that the 24-70 II already acts pretty much like it has a BR element, it's very close to APO performance. The 24-70 II fights of LoCA like a beast! Even tough things like branches against clouds under nasty lighting or f/2.8 specular highlights and very nasty boken fringing scenarios it does super well at.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I think Sigma horrifically mis-stepped with their 24-105. They should not have chased the Art lens brand out to the 4-5x multiple zoom territory. Such lenses are for folks that favor versatility over best possible IQ.

Trying to make a killer 24-105 lens worthy of the Art name led to a two pound heavy f/4 standard zoom -- that's ridiculous. For those who want a 24-105 f/4L IS II, there you go. Canon probably did the math on what it would take to make that lens and said 'no thank you'.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

Well canon's focus seems to have shifted to upgrading primes as of late, and that's a great thing. The new 35 will sell very well as would a new 50 I assume that isn't too far behind. If they get to putting the new tech in a MkII weather sealed 135, lots of folks including me would be happy campers. I saw the rumor on the 85 but that lens isn't very old by comparison, and I'm not how many people would upgrade at this point.

 

[ahsanford]

Rubbish. f-stop has nothing to do with shutter speed. I can use 1/8000 quite ok with an f/5.6.

On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.

And that's why Sony is rolling out a new line of f/8 zoom lenses; the camera exposes a shot like it were an f/2.8 lens and you just push it three stops in post, easy-peasy. You don't need to chimp because your shots are nearly pitch black and your back pain is solved because the lenses only weigh 100g.

#thankyousony

- A

 

[denomite]

Canon, please release your product ASAP. We are tired of waiting and see the competitors getting all the goodies.
I am sure the non IS version will continue to have their market share. But there is also demand on the IS version.

 

[AvTvM]

"One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"

Urban myth. IS adds very little size/weight to a lens. Just look at Canon 70-200/4 L with and without IS. Hardly any difference in size and weight to talk about.

24-70 is not a huge focal length range, not even 3x. F/2.8 is not a very fast aperture. We are not talking about a 24-120/1.4 L IS. No reason at all for a 24-70/2.8 L IS to be any bigger than the current non-IS.

 

[privatebydesign]

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...

Rubbish. f-stop has nothing to do with shutter speed. I can use 1/8000 quite ok with an f/5.6.

On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.

Yes they do, they don't let you lift exposures more then three stops better than the Sony, but one stop is no issue.

 

[privatebydesign]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

Have you ever done a test to measure the actual IQ hit from using the lens corrections button in DPP or LR?

 

[ahsanford]

"One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"

Urban myth. IS adds very little size/weight to a lens. Just look at Canon 70-200/4 L with and without IS. Hardly any difference in size and weight to talk about.

24-70 is not a huge focal length range, not even 3x. F/2.8 is not a very fast aperture. We are not talking about a 24-120/1.4 L IS. No need for a 24-70/2.8 L Is to be any larger than the current non-IS.

Size? No.
Weight? It depends.

The 70-200 f/2.8 lenses have a good 20% higher weight with IS, but the 70-200 f/4 lenses do not. However, that particular 70-200 f/2.8L IS II was a redesign of a prior IS lens so they possibly beefed up some components that warranted some improvements.

So I think it depends. However, if the IS 24-70 f/2.8 was designed at the same time as the non-IS 24-70 f/2.8 -- and I contend Canon did exactly that -- the lenses should be virtually identical internally and I would not expect the weight difference to be large.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

Have you ever done a test to measure the actual IQ hit from using the lens corrections button in DPP or LR?

I respect the feedback from privatebydesign, but I see this as 'your first L zoom' more than I see it as a top-to-bottom 30 year lens with everyone question answered.

So basic things like build quality, handling, sharpness, AF speed/accuracy, basic features (weather-sealing, IS, etc.) are at the top of my list for a lens like this. However, legit optical concerns like focus-breathing, curvature of the field, CA, transition to defocused areas, etc. are absolutely important but perhaps they are less important on your first L zoom. (If those variables really matter to your livelihood, you should reaching for primes or possibly ponying up in the bucks for the 24-70 f/2.8L II.)

So do I worry about the field curvature of the 24-70 f/4L IS? Nope. I just check the lens correction box in ACR and call it good.

- A

 

[rs]

"One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"

Urban myth. IS adds very little size/weight to a lens. Just look at Canon 70-200/4 L with and without IS. Hardly any difference in size and weight to talk about.

24-70 is not a huge focal length range, not even 3x. F/2.8 is not a very fast aperture. We are not talking about a 24-120/1.4 L IS. No reason at all for a 24-70/2.8 L IS to be any bigger than the current non-IS.

Where does the IS group sit in a typical lens? Near the rear. What lenses have a natural gap near the rear? Telephoto lenses or retrofocus lenses? Employing IS on a wide angle lens is much less straightforward that a tele lens. Compromises have to be made. Usually size and weight lose out.

 

[privatebydesign]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

Have you ever done a test to measure the actual IQ hit from using the lens corrections button in DPP or LR?

I respect the feedback from privatebydesign, but I see this as 'your first L zoom' more than I see it as a top-to-bottom 30 year lens with everyone question answered.

So basic things like build quality, handling, sharpness, AF speed/accuracy, basic features (weather-sealing, IS, etc.) are at the top of my list for a lens like this. However, legit optical concerns like focus-breathing, curvature of the field, CA, transition to defocused areas, etc. are absolutely important but perhaps they are less important on your first L zoom. (If those variables really matter to your livelihood, you should reaching for primes or possibly ponying up in the bucks for the 24-70 f/2.8L II.)

So do I worry about the field curvature of the 24-70 f/4L IS? Nope. I just check the lens correction box in ACR and call it good.

- A

That was my point. I am still happily using my MkI 2.8L because it is more than good enough, even when I click the box. In fact when I did blind tests against a MkII at 100% I couldn't reliably choose one over the other.

People talk about this aberration and that lens defect but how much does it actually impact your own output? Generally not visibly.

I hate the current 35 f1.4L and would take my f2 IS over one on every occasion. But does anybody but me and a geek here and there actually notice? Probably not........

In other words, even when we are pretty anal about it clicking the lens corrections option doesn't have a noticeable negative impact on output at most reasonable sizes.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I think Sigma horrifically mis-stepped with their 24-105. They should not have chased the Art lens brand out to the 4-5x multiple zoom territory. Such lenses are for folks that favor versatility over best possible IQ.

Trying to make a killer 24-105 lens worthy of the Art name led to a two pound heavy f/4 standard zoom -- that's ridiculous. For those who want a 24-105 f/4L IS II, there you go. Canon probably did the math on what it would take to make that lens and said 'no thank you'.

- A

It really was - their strength should be hitting Canon where they aren't (35A launching before the 35Lii, 50A launching WAY before a new 50/1.4...), and the 24-105 range was decisively satisfied in the market as mentioned above. If there's a choice between the Sigma or the Canon for a bit more, most will pick the Canon. Heck, the 24-105 was actually more expensive than a new white-box Canon!

I struggled for a while to figure out the reason for the Art designation, by the way, and I think it really comes down to wanting to match the L of the Canon. Nevermind what Sigma said about constant-aperture zoom; they didn't want to send their product into the marketplace with a lower-level badge than the Canon. That's all.

 

[ahsanford]

In other words, even when we are pretty anal about it clicking the lens corrections option doesn't have a noticeable negative impact on output at most reasonable sizes.

Yep. It's only critical for me to hit the LCP when I am correcting lens vignetting on wide-open shooting or if I've got an expectation of a very very straight line in the shot -- architecture, ocean at the horizon, etc.

But not being able to tell the 24-70 f/2.8L I vs. newer glass, I would disagree. I've never shot the 24-70 f/2.8L II, but my 24-70 f/4L IS absolutely outclassed my 24-70 f/2.8L I on a same-aperture tripod test, esp. in the corners.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

In other words, even when we are pretty anal about it clicking the lens corrections option doesn't have a noticeable negative impact on output at most reasonable sizes.

Yep. It's only critical for me to hit the LCP when I am correcting lens vignetting on wide-open shooting or if I've got an expectation of a very very straight line in the shot -- architecture, ocean at the horizon, etc.

But not being able to tell the 24-70 f/2.8L I vs. newer glass, I would disagree. I've never shot the 24-70 f/2.8L II, but my 24-70 f/4L IS absolutely outclassed my 24-70 f/2.8L I on a same-aperture tripod test, esp. in the corners.

- A

Disagree as much as you like, as always I have comparative images to back up my assertions. But I was only talking about the 24-70 f2.8 MkI and MkII, for instance I owned the 16-35 f4 IS and that was a substantial improvement in IQ over any other ultra wide zoom Canon had made to that point, it blows the various 16-35 f2.8's (and 17-40 f4) out of the water!

But back to the 24-70 f2.8's, after looking at hundreds of 100% crops like these two I realised the only differences I was seeing in actual real world images were to do with the point of focus, not the lens IQ. I did comparisons at all focal lengths and all apertures, nothing convince me to get a MkII.

Initially the right hand images looks much sharper, but open the file at full size and look at the trunk and the left image is sharper........

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"

Urban myth. IS adds very little size/weight to a lens. Just look at Canon 70-200/4 L with and without IS. Hardly any difference in size and weight to talk about.

24-70 is not a huge focal length range, not even 3x. F/2.8 is not a very fast aperture. We are not talking about a 24-120/1.4 L IS. No reason at all for a 24-70/2.8 L IS to be any bigger than the current non-IS.

Where does the IS group sit in a typical lens? Near the rear. What lenses have a natural gap near the rear? Telephoto lenses or retrofocus lenses? Employing IS on a wide angle lens is much less straightforward that a tele lens. Compromises have to be made. Usually size and weight lose out.

Yeah it can be trickier to manage for some designs.

 

[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...

Rubbish. f-stop has nothing to do with shutter speed. I can use 1/8000 quite ok with an f/5.6.

On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.

not rubbish.. I can use 1/8000 with f/5.6 as well ; what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china.

1/500 at f/4 will be more than just a bit darker than 1/500 at f/2.8.

 

[sanj]

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...

Rubbish. f-stop has nothing to do with shutter speed. I can use 1/8000 quite ok with an f/5.6.

On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.

NOT RUBBISH. Proper exposure has its merits.

 

[rs]

Rubbish. f-stop has nothing to do with shutter speed. I can use 1/8000 quite ok with an f/5.6.

On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.

Aperture and shutter speed are two of the three factors that make up exposure. Without stating whether ISO is fixed (and you are exposing correctly for constant lighting), arguing whether aperture and shutter speed are linked or not is pointless.

But even that isn't as stupid as debating about exposing wrong, just to make a point about inadequacies of any brands sensor. You can much more easily use a higher ISO, an area where Canon typically beats the competition. However, even with the best high ISO or PP push, noise will increase as you do that.

One fact remains constant - a brighter aperture with all else being equal will allow for faster shutter speeds.

 

[Maiaibing]

On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.

But then again Canon will let you shoot with AF @f/1.2 which SONY will not...