Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS Development Continues [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

We continue to hear that an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is in development, while we don’t believe it’s on the 2018 road map at this time, we are confident such a lens is coming.</p>
<p>The latest source claims that the lens is in the final stages of development and that the next phase will be testing by select photographers and manufacturing planning.</p>
<p>We haen’t seen any new 24-70mm optical formula patents for quite some time, but if this lens is in late stage development, we expect to see some clues over the coming months.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Chaitanya]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

 

[kiwiengr]

One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.

 

[bsbeamer]

Been waiting for a long time... finally can maybe replace the Tamron F2.8 VC?

 

[DrToast]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.

 

[Loswr]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm all for IS in any lens. Frankly though, I have not missed not having it on my 24-70. Mine would have to disintegrate before I upgrade. Glad Canon is adding IS.

 

[AvTvM]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.

it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).

 

[Larsskv]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.

it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).

Or maybe the 70-200 f4 L IS more expensive because Canon chose to equip the lens with a fluorite element. Stupid Canon making great lenses with stupid fluorite.

 

[Loswr]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.

it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).

The faster the lens, the more difficult it is to implement IS.

 

[jayjay88]

oh good to know. really looking forward to this anyway

 

[SV]

It's about time! How many lens formula patents does Canon have over the years for this unicorn?!?!

 

[Talys]

One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.

I own the 24-105 (Mk1) and the 24-70 f/4 IS. Having used both extensively for product stills, I am quite sure that the 24-70/4 produces better images at both ends of the focal range and especially at f/4.

However, I keep the 24-105, because the top end of that zoom is super useful for portraits, and in a lot of my portrait shots, I'm not really concerned about the corners anyways.

If Canon puts out a top-of-the-line 24-70 f/2.8 IS -- IQ as good as the non-IS -- I will buy it!

 

[scottkinfw]

One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.

Take another look at the 24-70 2.8 L II. Mine is tack sharp, excellent IQ, and is simply an awesome lens.

Scott

 

[Loswr]

One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.

Take another look at the 24-70 2.8 L II. Mine is tack sharp, excellent IQ, and is simply an awesome lens.

+1, I had two copies of the original 24-105/4L IS, and the 24-70/2.8L II delivers much better IQ. Having said that, if shooting studio portraits, where you're generally stopped down to f/8 of f/11, there's really not much difference. But then, in those conditions an EF-S 18-135mm would likely do just as well.

 

[lexaclarke]

So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

Yes. A thousand times over. IS means so much more than a clearer test chart. Camera shake spoils clarity way more than a slightly softer lens.

 

[dolina]

Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?

 

[shutterlag]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

The Tamron 24-70 VC has been around for years and clocks in just a hair behind the Canon mk2. The real answer it to swap to a system that has IBIS and then this is a non-issue.

 

[Ladislav]

For God's sake just release it! These rumors are coming for how long? Five years? My Tamron is slowly falling apart. I will need a new standard zoom soon and it looks like I will have to go either for 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 Mk.II. I checked my catalog and found that I need IS more often than 2.8 max aperture but I of course prefer to have both instead of having two lenses for different purposes.

 

[mppix]

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?

It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.

it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).

Or maybe the 70-200 f4 L IS more expensive because Canon chose to equip the lens with a fluorite element. Stupid Canon making great lenses with stupid fluorite.

Hi IQ - small size/weight - inexpensive -> you can get only two