That's actually a sad news - we won't see the new 24-70 IS in 2018 for sure :'(
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:Yes, because that's what everyone is screaming at Canon for: another UWA L zoom. :
unfocused said: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 said:Now, if only it can also get the macro capabilities of the F/4L IS
ahsanford said:jolyonralph said: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 said:Isn't it 1:2?ahsanford said:jolyonralph said: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
Skywise said: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!)
Famateur said:Skywise said: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 thetwothree 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 said:Famateur said:Skywise said: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 thetwothree 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.
ethanz said:SecureGSM said:USD1,950.00 in US market.
unfocused said: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 said: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 said: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 said:Berowne said: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.
Talys said:Famateur said:Skywise said: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 thetwothree 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.