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

[D.Sim]

maybe i am old school, but i will not buy a lens that is not internal zoom. that is why i have waited to buy a Canpon lens in this range all these years. external zooms, to me, make the lens look cheap and amateur, not to mention all the weather and dust issues. i would gladly pay a reasonable amount more to have all the movement happen inside the barrel.

i own the 70-200 2.8 II and the 16-35 2.8 II. but the 24-70 2.8 always seemed rinky-dink to me, regardless of how good the image is.

of course, i am not saying make the lens less sharp to make it an internal zoom, i am just saying, keep the sharpness, but enclose the darn thing. olympus does it with their beautifully sharp 14-35 (28-70 equivalent on the 4/3 format), why can't you?

please, Canon, don't let me down on this...

Not sure why you'd compare the olympus 14-35 to the 28-70 just because its an equivalent focal length... there are plenty of other internal zooming lenses that work just fine.

Heres one thing I've just wondered though. Would internal zoom mean the lens will be longer (overall)? More akin to the 24-70 at 24mm, when its at its longest?

 

[candyman]

One design change that has apparently been seen is a fully internal zoom function, we’re not sure if that is with all the prototypes.

That's interesting.
Will Canon make this on both 24-70 and 24-105? And make thoses lenses true weather sealed? For sure a + if you have to compete with other branches.

 

[Radiating]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

It feels like Canon isn't willing to take the risk which isn't what they should be doing, especially with the release of the 1Dx

 

[kapanak]

How about a 20-120mm with IS, internal zoom and f/2.8, and same build quality as the 70-200 f/2.8 II ...

Personally, I own the 24-105, the 24-70 and the 70-200 II. If I were to be stuck somewhere with but one lens, I would take my 70-200.
However, if there was a lens that combined the 24-105 and the 24-70, with the sharpness of the 70-200, and with max aperture at f/2.8, I'd probably keep that on my 5DII most of the time instead. ... /dream

 

[DzPhotography]

Don't think the new 24-70 will come with IS. Also hope that the performance issues as reported in the original patent post will be resolved

 

[japhoto]

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

500$ or even 500€ price difference, sign me up for one, but sadly the increase would probably not be that small. I'd predict the new version hit 2000$ even without IS...

 

[iTasneem]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

since 24-70 v1 is sold for $1259 then i could pay for a vII IS $1800.

 

[bigblue1ca]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

If it had great IQ and similar IS performance, I'd put it on par in my mind with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which I paid $2400 (pre-tax) for last summer, before the price drops around Christmas.

 

[JR]

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

I personally would be ok with $2,000 if it had IS. For me I would be a little less price sensitive on this issue, however I am very weight sensitive. If the IS would be much heavier then I am not sure. The only reason (for my own personal use which may not apply to every one) I would pick an IS version would be for its potential video use, thus allowing me to shoot video without a tripod. Grated I only use video about 5-10% of the time here but it would be a good added bonus.

That said, I hope the #1 criteria for the design of the next 24-70 will be IQ. I am starting to find it challenging to only shoot with prime lens in that focal range and would love a zoom that can closely match my prime IQ like the 70-200 2.8 zoom does...

 

[dstppy]

I understand you’re all sick of reading about it.

No, we are merely sick of getting excited about it.

This really isn't a lens (replacement) that Canon can afford to drop the ball on, I think getting it right is really more important than getting it out.

 

[tyrael]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-cr2/\"></glusone></div><div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-cr2/\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-cr2/\"></a></div>
<strong>Here we go again

</strong>More information has trickled in about the “thorn in my side”, aka the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS II. A new version of the updated lens started to make its way to the folks lucky enough to test the lens out. There have been upwards of 5 different variations of the new lens. It’s still reported that there is no IS in any of the prototypes. One design change that has apparently been seen is a fully internal zoom function, we’re not sure if that is with all the prototypes.</p>
<p>I won’t even hazard a guess as to when it will be announced, though it was suggested it has been pushed back on various occasions.</p>
<p>I can see the collective eye rolls about this post already. I post about 2% of the stuff that comes in about this lens, I understand you’re all sick of reading about it.</p>
<p><a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296\"><em>The Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L at B&H for $1249</em></a></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

About two years ago I was faced with a decision of buying the canon 5d mark 2 or the Nikon d700, (I chose the canon 5d2 hens the post on this site). I went on to purchase the 50mm 1.4; 24-105mm; and 70-200mm IS mark 2; Speed light 430 ex2 and 580 ex2, and now I am starting to regret my choice, Why? Its not because of the faulty speed light (580 ex2 – has high speed sink issues) but Nikon seam to be innovating and renovating there products on a shorter cycle then canon? Leaving the micro four-thirds interchangeable lens camera debate out of it (as canon has Just Lost the ball on that topic), and focusing on the DSLR market. Canon has announced some good lens (the delays are understandable) namely the

Canon EF 500 f4 IS2;
EF 600 F4IS2;
EF 300 F2 IS2;
EF400 F2.8 IS 2

and for those “consumers” that don’t have £4000+ to spend, the lens choices available are the

Canon EF8-15
EF70-300mmF4-5.6 IS
EF70-200mmF2.8 IS2
Micro EF100mm F2.8
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
Every other lens is from 2008 and most are much older…

From Nikon in the same years of 2011, 2010, 2009 Nikon released a
85 AF-S f1.8,
AF-S 50mm F1.8;
AF-S 35mm F1.4;
AF-S 200mm F2;
AF-S 24-120mm f4;
AF-S 28-300mm F3.5-5.6;
AF-S 200-400mm F4;
AF-S 16-35mm f4;
AF-S 24mm F1.4;
AF-S 300mm F2.8;
Micro AF-S 85mm F3;
AF-S 70-200mm F2.8;

Nikon is also releasing there D800 and have matched Canon D1 announcement, I don’t know how the rest of you feel but I’m not happy that there is no feed back from canon regarding the 24-70 or the numerous other lens that Need to be updated… I’m itching to by the new 16-35mm lens, and I would maybe by a new D5 mark 3. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa canon up date your Shi…! :'(

 

[DzPhotography]

and have matched Canon D1

Dear God, matched?? ??? They had to quickly update their D3s just not to lose face because of the Olympics

 

[heyitslam]

From Nikon in the same years of 2011, 2010, 2009 Nikon released a

I am new to DSLR and was one of the few of my friends who picked the Canon camp over Nikon.
There are a large group of my friends who are in the Nikon camp, which is fine.

However, I am starting to feel the same way the more I research and the more I read and wait for Canon.
I am new, therefore, may be missing something, but I think I feel the same way this user is feeling.

Although I still think I have may the better decision going with Canon, but I can't help but feel as if Canon is starting to fall behind Nikon in production cycle and so on. Those of you have been long time experts in this field please please tell me different.

Thanks

 

[DzPhotography]

Apparently the launch of the new 24-70II must be imminent as I heard from a local supplier that it's out of stock and won't be getting new stock either. Wouldn't say why however :

 

[mathino]

I was thinking the same way as you a copule of months ago. I have 450D and 2 lenses so swtiching to Nikon won't be so difficult. I started to think about D700 as a possible body for me. But...

When I've seen 1D-X specs and those high ISO samples I started to change my mind. Well, sure, I'm not in the market for 1D-X but this makes at least a clue for what could be new to lower models. I was also happy to see that this new 1D is not in the crazy MPx race and it will be focused more on IQ. Sure, it's not ideal for landscape/studio work/commercial shooting - it's camera for pros that want to capture THE moment (let's say a sports shooter or bird/wildlife shooter).

The line-up is clear:

If you want fast AF and reasonable IQ and good price go for 7D. It's a great camera. I had it for couple of days to test it. Lots of new and good features. IF there will be a Mark II it will be even greater - no doubt. For outdoor sports it's great. For indoor stuff you need a good fast prime to get good pics at usable ISO (by usable I mean less then 2000 at this camera).

If you want high resolution go for 5D Mk II. I've tested it on one Canon event and it's also a great camera. ISO performance is fine for me. For studio work and portraits it's great. For sports not. It's also good for gigs/concerts and DJ stuff. Center point od AF is great.

As for lenses:

Sure, there is a space for improvements. But check all lenses that were announced/released in last 3 years (new 100 macro, 70-200 IS II, telephotos, zoom fisheye), they all are great. For me I can think of updates for these lenses:

EF 50 f/1.4 USM
EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM
EF 28 f/1.8 USM (better wide open results)
EF 35 f/1.8 USM (I can see a market for this as a replacement for 2.0)

...and I think that new lenses and bodies (at least 5D-like/FF camera) will be perfect for purposes they are made for. There is not a perfect camera or a perfect lens. It's all about how you can you their (and your) potential to produce beautiful images . That's the way how I feel about Canon now.

 

[Smith]

Hopefully they launch the 24-70 with the 5DIII. I doubt it could be a kit lens with the 5DIII as the package would be expensive. I would expect the new 24-70 to be $2500 or higher given the trend of Canon and Nikon's huge price increases for any new revision. Camera equipment price increases over the past decade have far exceeded inflation, wage growth, and even college tuition.

 

[mathino]

Hopefully they launch the 24-70 with the 5DIII. I doubt it could be a kit lens with the 5DIII as the package would be expensive. I would expect the new 24-70 to be $2500 or higher given the trend of Canon and Nikon's huge price increases for any new revision. Camera equipment price increases over the past decade have far exceeded inflation, wage growth, and even college tuition.

Makes sense to me to launch them together and ofc (hopefully) a 35 f/1.4 L (this is the lens I'm really interested in) . I think that new 24-70 will surely be above 2k. And, sadly, new 35 around 1800 or something like that.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

<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.

I'm surprised that the prototypes said to be floating around are not IS-equipped, but you wonder if this could be done intentionally to focus attention on just the optics and prevent the rumor mill from getting out of control. Just the fact of an IS update of the lens would send many people into overdrive demanding the new lens!

 

[AlicoatePhotography]

I just bought the old one. It is great, I can't imagine it being much better. Oh, I'm sure it could be sharper in the corners where I don't really care about it. The CA could be less, or something else that no one looking at the pictures actually cares about. It seems like an internal zoom would be a lot larger all the time. I would think this would take up more space in the bag. The whole Nikon vs. Canon debate seems kind of silly. Both companies have great products and more new improvements than I can afford. I can't imagine losing money just to switch systems for a couple of lenses which I can't afford. Nikon has the 14-24, that is about the only thing that doesn't have a comparable lens with Canon. But Nikon doesn't have a tilt shift like the 17 or 24. Also some of the f4 telephotos aren't available with Nikon. I like Canon for the 85mm 1.2, 50mm 1.2 and 24mm Tilt Shift. It is a good time to be a photographer. I am going to like Canon even more when I see the 5D MKIII.

 

[Radiating]

I hate hearing the continued reports of this lens not having IS.

Simply put this lens will be a must-have killer-app lens with it and just an incremental upgrade without.

How much would you be willing to pay for that?

If the 24-70 II were to be $1500 and the 24-70 II with IS were to be $2000, would you be ok with that?
Would everyone else?

Actually I did some extremely extensive research on the cost of the IS mechanism based on lens repair parts pricing and on Canon's historical pricing for IS vs non IS lenses corrected for exchange rate and inflation. Canon's pricing strategy with almost no deviation has over the past 20 years picked a price for a lens based on it's market segment in yen adjusted for inflation, they know what they can charge in each segment, and their margin on a lens has little connection with the price until 5 years down the line and major price cuts. Because IS is not a terribly expensive part it is not relevant to the price Canon will charge, which they have already decided based on the market segment and their past sales.

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.