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

[Canon Rumors Guy]

We’re told that the long rumored IS version of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is still in testing but has not yet been given an announcement date. There are apparently still two versions of the lens being developed, with only one coming to market.</p>
<p>Canon’s goal is to make the new IS version of the lens noticeably better optically than the current EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and just adding IS to the 6 year old optical formula. The second goal of the lens has been weight, adding image stabilization adds weight and bulk to a lens. Nikon’s non-VR and VR versions of their 24-70mm f/2.8 has a weight difference of about 170 grams, which you can feel when shooting all day, the VR version is also noticeably bigger in size.</p>


<p>We were told back in 2012 that Canon had worked on an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS & EF 24-70mm f/4L IS alongside the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II development, and as we know, chose to release the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS a few months after the current f/2.8 lens. Now keep in mind that L zooms take years to develop from start to finish and various prototypes will obviously exist.</p>
<p>Every other lens manufacturer seems to have an IS version of their 24-70mm f/2.8 version and Canon seems to pride itself on being the market leader in lens technology, so I think it’s only a matter of time until we see an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[unfocused]

Anyone care to guess what this puppy is gonna cost?

 

[SecureGSM]

USD1,950.00 in US market.

Anyone care to guess what this puppy is gonna cost?

 

[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!)

 

[ethanz]

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.

 

[Talys]

I am actually remarkably happy with my 24-70/f4 IS. The weight/size is awesome, and the performance is just great.

I originally intended on buying the 24-70/2.8 II, but when I tried the f/4 IS at the store, I fell in love with it right away, and it has since become one of my favorite lenses.

I do agree that Canon "needs" one in its portfolio, if only for completeness.

 

[IglooEater]

<p>Canon’s gold is to make the new IS version of the lens noticeably better optically than the current EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>[/html]

Have to say that’ll be quite a feat.

 

[peterzuehlke]

Canon's "goal" probably not "gold" second paragraph

 

[ScottyP]

CR Guy made a typo but I think he meant to say Canon's goal IS to make the lens optically better and NOT to simply add stabilization to the old formula, right

 

[dolina]

I hope it comes sooner than later. This would be so useful to a lot of photogs.

Here are the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses with and without IS that are more than $1000.

$2,396.95 - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens
$2,198.00 - Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens
$2,098.00 - Sony Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM II Lens
$1,796.95 - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Lens
$1,699.00 - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens
$1,299.00 - Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art Lens for all mounts
$1,199.00 - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens for all mounts
$1,099.00 - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD Lens for all mounts
$1,096.95 - Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8ED SDM WR Lens

The Nikon with VR in late August 2015 was offered at $2399.95.
The Sony in March 2016 was offered at $2200
The Canon without IS in Febuary 2012 was offered at $2,299.00.

My guess is that the 24-70/2.8 with IS will be offered above $2,400 and be lowered to actual street price 6 months after release.

Next up a 16-35 f/2.8 with IS!

 

[ahsanford]

CR Guy made a typo but I think he meant to say Canon's goal IS to make the lens optically better and NOT to simply add stabilization to the old formula, right

Think so. Makes sense -- you'd sell more lenses / command a higher asking price that way.

Consider: if it's the same f/2.8L II lens with IS, you get a certain number of pent-up interest folks buying on day one. But if it's also better than its predecessor, the best 24-70 zoom on the planet, etc. even folks who don't want IS will buy one.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Next up a 16-35 f/2.8 with IS!

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

Off the top of my head, besides the lens this thread is all about, I can think of 10 lenses we need more in Canon's portfolio than an UWA f/2.8 IS zoom:

1) A workhorse all-battlefield 50 prime with a flat plane of focus and some form of USM
2) Some way to shoot with first party AF longer than 400mm FF without using a teleconverter or spending $9k
3) A proper astro lens
4) Better EF-M lenses, particularly ones with USM focusing
5) Either refresh the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or as least offer 7D2/80D users a constant f/4 USM standard zoom
6) An update to the 400 f/5.6L to give it IS
7) 135 f/2L refresh, surely with IS
8.) 85 f/1.8 USM refresh, likely with IS
9) Wider FL 1:1 macro for FF
10) More pancakes (especially a wider one for FF)

- A

 

[Ditboy]

"so I think it’s only a matter of time"... the phrase that will eventually lead to Sony or Fuji taking over where Canon has been for the last 20 years. They kept saying that about Nikon making an autofocus camera that works, and while they said it, Canon took the market.

Read more: http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-is-still-in-testing-cr2/#ixzz4vyZveboA

 

[slclick]

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.

Same. No need at these focal lengths. It works.

 

[DaveGershon]

This would have to be an amazing lens. My copy of the 24-70mm f2.8 II is very good. It works well on my 1DxII and 1DIV bodies. IS would be nice. Maybe it is improved for higher resolution sensors.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

Same. No need at these focal lengths. It works.

I really cannot recall ever needing IS on my lens while on my FF camera. Shutter speed is usually set high enough to freeze subject motion, which IS cannot do, I just currently do not get many images that are blurred due to camera shake.

BUT --- High MP cameras are coming, 60MP, 100MP, who knows, and on crop cameras, we are already at 60 MP equivalent, so IS will be needed in the future in order to help resolve all those pixels.

 

[bsbeamer]

If Canon can improve vignetting at the wide end on a 24-70 F2.8 with IS, they can take my money in pre-order. Have held off on upgrading since I pretty much need IS at this point.

 

[ahsanford]

I really cannot recall ever needing IS on my lens while on my FF camera. Shutter speed is usually set high enough to freeze subject motion, which IS cannot do,

Sure, MSP, but with respect not all of us are shooting subjects that might move. IS is gold on wide and standard FLs for capturing moments when a tripod/flash cannot be brought to bear: street, interiors, handheld landscapes (perhaps when hiking, walking about, etc.), waterfall shots, macro, and so on. I shoot in low light handheld all the time, and I personally consider IS a nearly indispensable feature.

...and of course there's that whole video thing. I don't partake in that myself, but I'm told it has a following.

- A

 

[unfocused]

I really cannot recall ever needing IS on my lens while on my FF camera. Shutter speed is usually set high enough to freeze subject motion, which IS cannot do,

Sure, MSP, but with respect not all of us are shooting subjects that might move. IS is gold on wide and standard FLs for capturing moments when a tripod/flash cannot be brought to bear: street, interiors, handheld landscapes (perhaps when hiking, walking about, etc.), waterfall shots, macro, and so on. I shoot in low light handheld all the time, and I personally consider IS a nearly indispensable feature.

...and of course there's that whole video thing. I don't partake in that myself, but I'm told it has a following.

- A

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.

 

[jolyonralph]

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