EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]

[JR]

I would easily pay $6000 for this lens with IS personally but would not even consider it without. I know twice as many people will buy it if it has IS.

!!! Well at that price, I am sure you can have Canon make you a custom one with IS just for you . Seriouly, you would pay $6000 for a 24-70 zoom? You should get the 1DX at that price!

 

[marekjoz]

The simple fact is that this lens will cost the exact same price, $2000 with OR without IS. The real issue is if Canon wants a slightly lower profit margin in exchange for higher sales volume. There is no doubt in my mind that including IS in this lens will pay off big time. Specifically I feel the inclusion of IS will probably cut Canon's profits by 20% on the lens, but will increase sales by over 100%. I would easily pay $6000 for this lens with IS personally but would not even consider it without. I know twice as many people will buy it if it has IS.

Let's assume that technology (some discovery) allows manufacturing 28-300 F2,8 IS having weight, size and production cost of 24-105 and IQ better than 70-200 f2,8 IS II.
Do you think that such a killer would:
a) cost a fortune but be allowed for sales?
b) be put deep in a wardrobe but specific technologies used in it would be spread among the current lens line to improve it?
c) be never announced until competition enforced it ?

BTW there is indeed sth funny in it, that the only lens counted as "standard zoom" without IS is 24-70...

 

[bigblue1ca]

Internal zoom would be nice, but that does not give you sharp images.

Can you or someone else elaborate on this? I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and it certainly takes sharp images with its internal zoom mechanism, what am I missing?

what photophreek means is that internal zoom has nothing whatsoever to do wtih sharp images on the 24-70. or your 70-200 for that matter, or any other lens.

Internal zoom is just... internal zoom. Not gonna be overly hard on the 24-70 to be honest, what with it extending as it zooms out anyway, when the hood is on its almost like an internal zoom, just without the internal. if you get where I'm going


Anyway, basically he's implying its the optics he's waiting to see - not this feature.

Thanks D. Sim, makes sense now. While I'd prefer internal zoom, I care 100% more about IQ as well.

 

[Wrathwilde]

<strong>Here we go again</strong> [...] the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS II.

Indeed I'll just point out I think CR Guy is being funny with this, as we've already discussed the apparent wrongness of the "IS II" specification when the current lens is not IS so the IS II moniker would be erroneous.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the II designation has anything to do with whether a lens had IS previously, but what generation of IS technology Canon is using for the lens. You wouldn't call the DIGIC 5 processor a DIGIC 1 just because it's going in an all new camera body, the same holds true for for the IS, it's Canon's 2nd generation IS system... even if it's the first appearance in this particular lens.

 

[JR]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the II designation has anything to do with whether a lens had IS previously, but what generation of IS technology Canon is using for the lens. You wouldn't call the DIGIC 5 processor a DIGIC 1 just because it's going in an all new camera body, the same holds true for for the IS, it's Canon's 2nd generation IS system... even if it's the first appearance in this particular lens.

Actually it does. If a lens becomes IS it is in itself a new lens and will not carry the mk II label. A recent example of this is the 100mm f2.8L Macro which became IS in the new version but did not receive the mk II label. If you want more example also refer to the evolution of the 70-200 f2.8L zoom. Before we got to the current version with the IS mkII label, an IS mkI version was out.

mkII represent a designation for a new lens in its current "configuration" which includes IS. So for the 24-70, if it does not have IS, it will be called 24-70 f2.8L II. If it does have IS it will be called 24-70mm f2.8L IS.

Hope this helps...Jacques

 

[Wrathwilde]

mkII represent a designation for a new lens in its current "configuration" which includes IS. So for the 24-70, if it does not have IS, it will be called 24-70 f2.8L II. If it does have IS it will be called 24-70mm f2.8L IS.
Hope this helps...Jacques

I see, I was under the impression that if the II was after the IS on Canon lenses referred to the IS generation instead of the a combined IS/Lens generation. Probably from an article I read on a IS II lens where they mentioned it was a second generation IS system and I (erroneously) equated that the II after the IS was a reference to the 2nd generation IS system.


Still confusing on Canons part from a end users perspective, in that if they were up to an IS IV lens and they then produced a lens that had never had IS before and marked it as just an IS, the average consumer will likely think it's an obsolete design - (IS) vs (IS IV), as canon doesn't exactly go out of their way to let you know the original release dates on their lenses.

(Hell, I've been Canon Only since 1985 and I had it wrong, chances are the average consumer will too.)

 

[JR]

I agree it can get confusing for sure. I believe Nikon has the same convention for their lens nomenclature as well. But you are right that especially with different generation of IS it is confusing. The way to think about it though is any lens getting IS now will get which ever latest IS system Canon has. So for example the IS in the 100mm f2.8L IS Macro is not the same as in the 24-105L IS lens because the Macro lens is newer and has the the new Hybride IS system...

Unfortunately unless one reads the details it is hard to figure out you are right!

 

[AJ]

I would easily pay $6000 for this lens with IS ...

Don't say that too loud ... Canon Marketing might be reading this ...