The sales of the current version must have levelled off.
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:So, we're looking at probably close to $2,500 for this lens, weight well north of a kilo, and image quality no better than the 24-70 II (because, well, you can't really top that)
It's going to be hard to justify the extra expense upgrading from the current 24-70 to this one.
Yet I know I will have to do exactly that
ahsanford said:People would gleefully pony up their cash for such a lens, even if it was 4-6 ounces heavier than the non-IS version.
- A
CanonFanBoy said:I wouldn't care about weight. For some reason I like heavy lenses. I've not missed IS on my 24-70 f/2.8L II, but it would still be tempting if I didn't have s o many other lenses I want.
Thank you Canon, for all your great lenses!
jd7 said:CanonFanBoy said:I wouldn't care about weight. For some reason I like heavy lenses. I've not missed IS on my 24-70 f/2.8L II, but it would still be tempting if I didn't have s o many other lenses I want.
Thank you Canon, for all your great lenses!
Guess we will get some sort of indication about how much weight matters for this type of lens by the response to the Sigma 24-70 OS Art when it arrives (and assuming it is otherwise up to snuff). I have to say my interest in that lens did cool a bit when I discovered it weighs 1 kg. No doubt that reflects the fact I am interested in a 24-70 as a general purpose walk around lens though (rather than, say, for professional events or sports work) - and I will wait to see reviews and price before coming to any firm conclusions.
Will be interesting to see what size and weight the upcoming Tamron 24-70 VC G2 is too. As others have already noted, Tamron's current 24-70 VC comes in only very slightly heavier than Canon's 24-70 2.8L II. If Tamron came make the G2 no heavier than it's current one, and it's up to the standard of the 70-200 G2 (not that I've used one, but its getting excellent reviews), it should make for a very interesting option.
CanonFanBoy said:I have no idea as to the Sigma or Tamron weights vs the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, but the Canon has become my favorite walk around lens. Keep in mind though that my only primes are the 35 f/1.4 and the 135 f/2. The rest of what I have are heavy zooms... so I have no real lightweight choice in a zoom and probably couldn't live with just 35mm attached. I should try that out though.
Canon Rumors said:I believe Canon hasn't offered as a 24-70 f/2.8L IS because they believe it won't be as profitable as commercializing other new lenses or because Nikon's 24-70 2.8 IS offering hasn't flipped many Canon people over and isn't a major threat to market share.
- A
mb66energy said:I am very interested in such a lens. I dream of an affordable two-body-two-lens solution. While the f/4 70-200 IS USM is a great lens for the tele range I cannot decide between 16-35 and 24-70 (IS USM f/4 versions) - 16-35 is too wide for me, in the 24-70 range I would like a larger aperture for smaller DOF but also IS to free me from tripods under normal conditions.
Maybe I should use my old-fashioned 28-70 more often to see if I would like thes FL range ...
Ideally Canon would relase a f/4 20-60 f/4 IS USM + a f/1.4 50mm IS USM but this will never happen. This would lead to a two-body-THREE-lens solution but with much greater flexibility!
So ... still waiting for solutions for my needs ... and saving lots of money
slclick said:Patience. It will happen and it will blow all 3rd party early to the party glass out of the water. Yes, it will cost more, perhaps it will weigh more.