Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS in Development? [CR1]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thank you, LSX.
But in Japan, there is no stock anywhere.
I can't risk of "no warranty", so I shouldn't buy it from U.S.

I will wait four months and let's see when "Canon's new IS model" and "Sigma's Art-lense" will be on market.

Thanks again.

I think they are all being sold in the USA on ebay as Gray Market Lenses.

Here is one being sold by a Japanese dealer.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2-8-L-II-USM-camera-Lens-Japan-model-New-/161193066927?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2587db01af

 

[andrewflo]

I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 with IS, and I have to admit not been entirely happy with it, especially the sharpness when I AF it to a distant object at 24mm for landscape shots, specifically that should be at the hyperfocal distance. I probably need to spend time with MFA on my 6D to get it into better focus.

Also, if you forget to turn off IS on the Tamron when you are using it on a tripod, the results don't just sacrifice a little sharpness, they are quite blurry. The Tamron IS is very unforgiving in this respect. I've achieved excellent results even when I forget to turn the IS off for tripod shots on my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, but the Tammy makes you pay dearly for this gaffe, at least my copy of this lens does.

One silver lining is that I am getting much better at remembering to flip that IS switch off now. I used to forget about 25% of the time, since I tend to be mostly a handheld shooter. Now I forget maybe 5% of the time. Another thing is that the resulting blur is so bad that chimping on the camera reveals it pretty readily, so I usually catch it in time to correct it. With the Canon 70-200, sometimes I would fool myself because the images were still sharp -- in fact I usually don't really see a difference when I turn off the switch (I did notice a difference on my gen 1 of the same lens). Hopefully if Canon produces a 24-70 IS it will be on a par with the 24-70 II, and have IS that is forgiving of absent-minded photographers like me when using it on the sticks.

Agree with you here! I've owned the Tammy for about 2 years now and LOVE it... but for most images, they just don't have the same eye popping sharpness as my Canon lenses (70-200, 16-35 f/4), even when stopped down.

Tbh I attribute it mostly to it being slightly out of focus, but I haven't done scientific testing to prove this. I AFMA it on the 6D only to find it seems front focused at certain focus distances and back focused at the others, so it's not really a perfect solution.

On the flipside, my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 get blistering sharp images nearly every time with proper technique.

I feel kinda disappointed looking at eyes in my portrait photos with the Tammy. But the VC is quite nice (especially for casual video shooting) and the extra cost of the Canon has made me hesitant for the upgrade. Overall not a bad lens, I'm just spoiled by the latest & greatest offerings from Canon.

Plus clients rarely complain about sharpness

 

[H. Jones]

Well crap, right aound the time I build up enough in my equipment account for the 24-70mm F/2.8 II, I hear about this!

I prefer to buy lenses that I can keep for 10 years, so this makes me doubt investing in a lens if there'll be a better option around the corner a year from now. Perhaps I'll use the money towards the 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 IS II, as that lens will definitely not be getting an upgrade for a long while, and would have a bigger impact on my work as a photojournalist as it would extend my working distance, while a 24-70mm is just more convenient versus my 16-35mm and 70-200mm.

Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.

 

[Loswr]

Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.

Bad a$$umption, considering how close in price the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS II are at launch and now.

 

[ahsanford]

Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.

We'd like to think that, but that (admittedly legendary) 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens was sold at roughly the same price as the 24-70 f/2.8L II when it launched -- i.e. the non-IS standard zoom cost about the same as the much bigger and heavier short tele zoom with IS.

So I expect the IS version of the 24-70 to cost even more yet. Design-wise, I don't know the optical formula well-enough to know if that's justified based on the 24-70 II having additional aspherical / fluorite / supercoated / nanolasers / godzilla glass / space crystals compared to the 70-200, but I seem to recall 'sharpest zoom ever made' 3rd party test verdicts on the 24-70 II when it was launched. People hated the 24-70 II's price, but at least that price was legitimately backed up with performance.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.

Bad a$$umption, considering how close in price the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS II are at launch and now.

Dammit, Neuro, you beat me to it.

I will say the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is perceived to be of greater value to customers -- it has maintained its high price better than the 24-70 f/2.8L II. Each has dropped about $400 in asking price, but the 70-200 has been out twice as long...

- A

 

[Famateur]

I love how Sony states their adaptered lenses are as fast as native lenses and then all of a sudden it's "All your lens are belong to us. You may no longer not buy our cameras for that reason."

Zero Wing for the win!

Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."

 

[Loswr]

Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."

Then Canon laughs... ;D

 

[Famateur]

Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."

Then Canon laughs... ;D

Agreed!

 

[ahsanford]

Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."

Then Canon laughs... ;D

Call me crazy, but if Sony can deliver on just a few small things:

• Triple the battery life
• Deliver 1:1 EVF magnification
• AF reliability as good as my 5D3
• AF speed with native glass as fast as my 5D3
• AF speed adaptored with foreign glass 80% at fast as native
• An EVF experience that is 95% as responsive as my OVF
• Offer more than one (expensive) price point for native lenses
• Show tracking AF performance on the level of, say, a 70D (my needs are limited compared to others)
• Offer 50% the ecosystem of accessories, flashes, triggers, etc. as Canon

...I would consider giving them my business someday. These are reasonable asks, I think, and I believe they will eventually get there.

- A

 

[Mitch.Conner]

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

I really really really really really hope this pans out.

I honestly cannot express just how much I have wanted this lens. On a scale of 1 to 10, my desire for this is currently at 3,592.

 

[Dylan777]

Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."

Then Canon laughs... ;D

Call me crazy, but if Sony can deliver on just a few small things:

• Triple the battery life
• Deliver 1:1 EVF magnification
• AF reliability as good as my 5D3
• AF speed with native glass as fast as my 5D3
• AF speed adaptored with foreign glass 80% at fast as native
• An EVF experience that is 95% as responsive as my OVF
• Offer more than one (expensive) price point for native lenses
• Show tracking AF performance on the level of, say, a 70D (my needs are limited compared to others)
• Offer 50% the ecosystem of accessories, flashes, triggers, etc. as Canon

...I would consider giving them my business someday. These are reasonable asks, I think, and I believe they will eventually get there.

- A

I don't have real scientific data on this, but I truly believe AF speed on my A7s + FE55mm is fast as my 1Dx.

 

[privatebydesign]

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

I really really really really really hope this pans out.

I honestly cannot express just how much I have wanted this lens. On a scale of 1 to 10, my desire for this is currently at 3,592.

That is good news, because that is the launch price in US$, £, and the €. ;D

 

[privatebydesign]

Also, if you forget to turn off IS on the Tamron when you are using it on a tripod, the results don't just sacrifice a little sharpness, they are quite blurry. The Tamron IS is very unforgiving in this respect. I've achieved excellent results even when I forget to turn the IS off for tripod shots on my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, but the Tammy makes you pay dearly for this gaffe, at least my copy of this lens does.

This depends on the generation of IS being used. Older Canon lenses with IS were also unforgiving and resulted in blurry photos. It is only newer Canon ones that "sense" that they are on a tripod and I'm not sure that Tamron have this yet. Regardless, if you're using live view at 10x when tripod mounted, IS being on or off is very quickly apparent.

As so often Dilbert, you are mistaken. Whilst the theory (ad word from Canon) is that older IS lenses should be turned off when tripod mounted, the truth is few of us use tripods where no movement of the camera is made, if you use IS with older lenses on most tripods you are fine, indeed it will make your tripod seem better than it is. It is easy to demonstrate too, just put an older lens with IS 'on' on a kitchen worktop and look through the viewfinder, the scene will occasionally 'jump', now do that on your tripod and for all but the sturdiest tripods the viewfinder view will not jump, there is enough movement to not confuse the IS.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It's already out. A7RII IBIS + 24-70 f/2.8 II.

(OK, just being silly, but not 100% silly though)

I love how Sony states their adaptered lenses are as fast as native lenses and then all of a sudden it's "All your lens are belong to us. You may no longer not buy our cameras for that reason."

Tip your cap, people. That's marketing in action.

When their AF tracks as quickly & accurately as my 5D3, I'll consider buying one of those things, but I think that might not happen until the 5D6 comes out.

- A

Yeah all true BUT, for a lot stuff where IS matters, crazy AF speed and all is sometimes less important or something that you might be able to make do with so it's still a somewhat interesting prospect I think.

You can always hold onto the 5D3 for all the macro with AF, sports, serious action, must be able to repeatedly hit some subject fast almst all of the time stuff and then for all the other times....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Also, if you forget to turn off IS on the Tamron when you are using it on a tripod, the results don't just sacrifice a little sharpness, they are quite blurry. The Tamron IS is very unforgiving in this respect. I've achieved excellent results even when I forget to turn the IS off for tripod shots on my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, but the Tammy makes you pay dearly for this gaffe, at least my copy of this lens does.

This depends on the generation of IS being used. Older Canon lenses with IS were also unforgiving and resulted in blurry photos. It is only newer Canon ones that "sense" that they are on a tripod and I'm not sure that Tamron have this yet. Regardless, if you're using live view at 10x when tripod mounted, IS being on or off is very quickly apparent.

As so often Dilbert, you are mistaken. Whilst the theory (ad word from Canon) is that older IS lenses should be turned off when tripod mounted, the truth is few of us use tripods where no movement of the camera is made, if you use IS with older lenses on most tripods you are fine, indeed it will make your tripod seem better than it is. It is easy to demonstrate too, just put an older lens with IS 'on' on a kitchen worktop and look through the viewfinder, the scene will occasionally 'jump', now do that on your tripod and for all but the sturdiest tripods the viewfinder view will not jump, there is enough movement to not confuse the IS.

An alternate truth, I once forgot to turn the IS off on my 70-200 f/4 IS, which wasn't even an old IS unit type, and when I took some tripod shots I couldn't believe how nasty they were all coming out and then I noticed and flipped off the IS and all the rest of the shots were perfection. And there was no big wind, vibration going on.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Yeah, and with Sigma supposedly developing a 24-70mm f/2.8 with OS, Canon had better up the ante. That being said, I'll gladly go for the Sigma. I already own the 18-35mm and the 50mm Art series lenses.

Not really..only in the amateur market. The pro market wouldn't even look at the Sigma. Sigma is well regarded as being over heavy, inconsistent Quality Control in manufacturing, Inconsistent AF (across their lens portfolio), more fragile mechanical compared to Canon and certainly more risk. The pro support network for Sigma is roughly 3 weeks for a repair with no option to rent or supply a loaner in the mean time. CPS offer a far better service and Canon L lenses offer a superior Pro product with far less business risk attached to it. Add to the resale advantage of Canon...from a business point of view...Canon is the clear winner. I certainly wouldn't rely on any Sigma for one of my professional engagements. I just couldn't trust them as a brand in that context.

If you are in the market for a 24-70 and you are considering Tamron, Tokina, Sigma etc...then you are not a pro or are not taking a professional business view point with your kit choices.

Oops, there went my career Painting with a very broad stroke today, are we? I'll be contacting all of the clients, companies, and magazines that have had the audacity to pay me for images I took with a Tamron 24-70...

 

[bholliman]

I don't think I would be in the market for one of these. I'm sure it will be a terrific lens, but since I don't shoot video, my 24-70/2.8 II is everything I'm looking for in a standard zoom. I'm not sure IS would add much to my photography. If I'm in real low light I go with my image stabilized 35/2 IS most of the time.

 

[JonAustin]

I don't think I would be in the market for one of these. I'm sure it will be a terrific lens, but since I don't shoot video, my 24-70/2.8 II is everything I'm looking for in a standard zoom. I'm not sure IS would add much to my photography. If I'm in real low light I go with my image stabilized 35/2 IS most of the time.

No G.A.S. in you!

 

[ahsanford]

Meanwhile, another high end zoom may have just surfaced out of nowhere:

http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-announced-soon/

Shaking my head at that one -- partly because they had the nerve to try this, and also at the absurdly limited FL range.

- A