Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS Still in Testing [CR2]

[Jopa]

That's actually a sad news - we won't see the new 24-70 IS in 2018 for sure :'(

 

[davidcl0nel]

Yes, because that's what everyone is screaming at Canon for: another UWA L zoom. :

Maybe even a 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS III which is even better or just lighter/shorter a tiny bit. Yes i know 200 f/2.8 means a lot lens, but maybe it is a little bit easier now. Or it is worse but a lot lighter, but with a very good correctible profile. I don't need 12 extra lenses to get the chromatic abberation to zero, if the color is absolutely predictable and just one click in software.

 

[ahsanford]

Even with subjects that move. At events, a speaker or an audience member will often pause and be motionless for a few fractions of a second. Very easy to shoot them at 1/15 or even 1/8 of a second with good IS and have the subject not blurred. Not so easy to do without IS.

You can totally get that shot without IS. Just raise your ISO from 1600 to 12800. Easy.

I make the argument all the time that for low light I'll take an f/2.8 IS lens over an f/1.4 one, so it's a far easier argument to make when it's f/2.8 vs. f/2.8 IS.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Now, if only it can also get the macro capabilities of the F/4L IS

Canon doesn't hybridize / dabble with the purpose of pro f/2.8 zooms. I'd be shocked to no end if the 24-70 f4L IS's 1:1.4 macro makes it into the next f/2.8L. Shocked.

- A

 

[slclick]

Now, if only it can also get the macro capabilities of the F/4L IS

Canon doesn't hybridize / dabble with the purpose of pro f/2.8 zooms. I'd be shocked to no end if the 24-70 f4L IS's 1:1.4 macro makes it into the next f/2.8L. Shocked.

- A

Isn't it 1:2?

 

[ahsanford]

Now, if only it can also get the macro capabilities of the F/4L IS

Canon doesn't hybridize / dabble with the purpose of pro f/2.8 zooms. I'd be shocked to no end if the 24-70 f4L IS's 1:1.4 macro makes it into the next f/2.8L. Shocked.

- A

Isn't it 1:2?

Negative. Max mag is 0.7x, or 1:1.4.

- A

 

[slclick]

Oh that's nice almost the real deal

 

[Famateur]

WANT IT!

Since moving to FF I've really missed my old trusty APS-C 17-55 F2.8 which was my previous walk around lens. I've got the 24-70 F2.8 II and while it takes fantastic shots I miss the IS at times (or it's better to say I miss shots without the IS!)

You might consider the 24-70 F4L IS. I haven't touched my 17-55 F2.8 IS in the two three years (time sure flies) since purchasing the 24-70 F4L IS. In fact, I'm gonna sell it to help fund either a new body or the 16-35 F4L IS.

 

[Talys]

WANT IT!

Since moving to FF I've really missed my old trusty APS-C 17-55 F2.8 which was my previous walk around lens. I've got the 24-70 F2.8 II and while it takes fantastic shots I miss the IS at times (or it's better to say I miss shots without the IS!)

You might consider the 24-70 F4L IS. I haven't touched my 17-55 F2.8 IS in the two three years (time sure flies) since purchasing the 24-70 F4L IS. In fact, I'm gonna sell it to help fund either a new body or the 16-35 F4L IS.

Same here!

I also own both the 24-70 f/4 and until recently, the EFS17-55 f/2.8. There's just no comparison.

The 17-55 was awesome... 10+ years ago. But the autofocus is relatively slow (it hunts a little), it's a little noisy, there's a lot of chromatic aberration (to the degree where it's not always/easily correctible), it's not close to the sharpness of the 24-70, and the IS on the 24-70 noticeably superior.

 

[Act444]

Taking this rumor at face value and assuming all is true, my best guess at the two different prototypes floating around is that one is internal zooming and the other is not...

If a 24-70 2.8 IS shows up, well there's the ultimate walk-around lens right there. Assuming better IQ (and reasonable weight), I'd give up both the non-IS 24-70 2.8 AND the f4 version for this. Hell, might even consider throwing in the 24-105 for good measure, but might still want the extra reach from time to time.

 

[Famateur]

WANT IT!

Since moving to FF I've really missed my old trusty APS-C 17-55 F2.8 which was my previous walk around lens. I've got the 24-70 F2.8 II and while it takes fantastic shots I miss the IS at times (or it's better to say I miss shots without the IS!)

You might consider the 24-70 F4L IS. I haven't touched my 17-55 F2.8 IS in the two three years (time sure flies) since purchasing the 24-70 F4L IS. In fact, I'm gonna sell it to help fund either a new body or the 16-35 F4L IS.

Same here!

I also own both the 24-70 f/4 and until recently, the EFS17-55 f/2.8. There's just no comparison.

The 17-55 was awesome... 10+ years ago. But the autofocus is relatively slow (it hunts a little), it's a little noisy, there's a lot of chromatic aberration (to the degree where it's not always/easily correctible), it's not close to the sharpness of the 24-70, and the IS on the 24-70 noticeably superior.

Indeed, my experience as well on all points. Will be listing my 17-55 on eBay soon...

 

[scottkinfw]

$3200.00 USD?

Anyone care to guess what this puppy is gonna cost?

 

[scottkinfw]

I love mine so much, even if I won the lotto, I don't think I would upgrade. OTOH, if this had huge improvements that were significant, I might consider. Emphasis on HUGE!

USD1,950.00 in US market.

Anyone care to guess what this puppy is gonna cost?

The non IS version was $2,300 new, I doubt a new IS version would be less than that upon release...

My 24-70 f2.8 II is excellent, I don't know if I could justify spending on a new lens yet.

 

[Berowne]

I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.

 

[docsmith]

I am most intrigued by the bit of the rumor that the new lens will have better IQ. Forgetting IS for a second, but Canon is working on a 24-70 f/2.8 lens with better IQ than the current 24-70 II, which is already impressive. So, the "prime-like" zoom might even get better. Excellent.

As for IS, something that can do more is always appealing over something that can do less. The first question is do we sacrifice anything (size, weight, IQ? Surely money)? The second question is how often would we use that extra feature. IS can be very useful, but I do find myself shooting off a tripod or at least 1/125 more an more.

So, I will probably be more interested in this lens primarily if it really does have better IQ than the current 24-70 II, and secondarily for IS.

That said, I am a happy user of the 24-70 II. It is my most used, do everything lens.

 

[docsmith]

I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.

I own both. I actually favor the IQ out of the 24-70 II over the 16-35 f/4 IS. Not by much, but I do favor it. So, you may have got a bad copy.

 

[SecureGSM]

It is very likely that the lens you have rented had an issue or was not AFMA tuned to your camera.
at 24mm, F4 24-70 is sharper in the centre and mid frame.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=949&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.

 

[Berowne]

I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.

I own both. I actually favor the IQ out of the 24-70 II over the 16-35 f/4 IS. Not by much, but I do favor it. So, you may have got a bad copy.

Maybe the rented lens was decentered a bit. Anyway, the 16-35/4 is a bargain.

 

[mjg79]

The current 24-70 2.8 L II is almost perfect so it is interesting to hear that Canon wants to improve the optics and not just add IS.

The only weak spot in the design is 60-70mm at f/2.8-4. And it's not really that bad. From 24-60mm it really is as sharp as a good prime, the AF is fast, the rendering pleasant and neutral.

When I got a 5DSR I was pleased that it still performed flawlessly 24-60 so I can only assume Canon is going to pay attention to the long end.

The price will be interesting. We all assume they are going to charge a fortune but they have priced the new 85L IS quite reasonably (for an L lens at any rate) and I suspect that is down to Sigma's very highly regarded presence at 85mm. The situation is even more apparent at 24-70 with IS - both Sigma and Tamron produce well regarded lenses and (for Tamron the second one with IS, now much improved) - and both are priced very aggressively. So we might get a pleasant surprise - can't hurt to be optimistic!

 

[Skywise]

WANT IT!

Since moving to FF I've really missed my old trusty APS-C 17-55 F2.8 which was my previous walk around lens. I've got the 24-70 F2.8 II and while it takes fantastic shots I miss the IS at times (or it's better to say I miss shots without the IS!)

You might consider the 24-70 F4L IS. I haven't touched my 17-55 F2.8 IS in the two three years (time sure flies) since purchasing the 24-70 F4L IS. In fact, I'm gonna sell it to help fund either a new body or the 16-35 F4L IS.

Same here!

I also own both the 24-70 f/4 and until recently, the EFS17-55 f/2.8. There's just no comparison.

The 17-55 was awesome... 10+ years ago. But the autofocus is relatively slow (it hunts a little), it's a little noisy, there's a lot of chromatic aberration (to the degree where it's not always/easily correctible), it's not close to the sharpness of the 24-70, and the IS on the 24-70 noticeably superior.

Oh absolutely. I'm just looking at it through the lens of nostalgia as that was really the first lens that made me realize "Wow... glass really DOES make the difference!" I sold my 17-55 about 4 years ago to help fund my upgrade to a 6D and the 16-35 f2.8. I went with the wide angle first as I had a trip planned to DisneyWorld and wanted to video the fireworks. Getting the 24-70 f2.8 a year later once I had recharged the bank accounts.

The 24-70 is absolutely superior and I really don't mind the lack of IS so much as I wish it was as light as the 17-55!

I've also picked up the 16-35 f4 IS last year. Still deciding if I like it better than the F2.8 for fireworks videoing/night work. But the 24-70 has become my standard walk around lens now.