EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

[Justin]

I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.

Wait for the real lens and not just pass judgment based on a patent and rumor? Madness! That is like relying on a jury to sentence a criminal when you just totally know that based on 30 seconds of TV news that the person is guilty.

I will bet any new Canon lens, especially one so complex will have bunches of new patents, many of which don't make it in to the final production model, so I think i'll wait and see.

These patents are not new. Multiple patents can be put together to make a final product. A product and a patent don't have to be identical. The 24-70 could be a month away from announcement or 3 years. We don't know. And it could just as easily have IS as not. My money is on IS.

 

[Hypersonic]

Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.

Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor? Wow, new rumor hehe

 

[HughHowey]

Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.

Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor? Wow, new rumor hehe

If that's the case, it still begs the question: Why the update? One would have IS with the current version of the lens.

And I can't see Canon going in-camera with the IS. I wish they would, but it would hurt their lens market.

 

[EYEONE]

Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.

Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor? Wow, new rumor hehe

If that's the case, it still begs the question: Why the update? One would have IS with the current version of the lens.

And I can't see Canon going in-camera with the IS. I wish they would, but it would hurt their lens market.

They won't go in body IS and I'm glad. I like seeing the IS effect through the view finder. Much better for composition.

I don't think that 24-70mm is a range the demands IS. Is it better to have it? Of course. Is it weird that they aren't including it? Kinda. But does this bother me? Nah, not really. Give me a super sharp 24-70mm II with a bit better looking bokeh and I'm good.

And before anyone says it, I know IS is better for video. Or, required more like it. But is the 24-70 really a lens you'd want to use for video? Aren't light weight primes the more desired lens?

 

[bvukich]

They won't go in body IS and I'm glad. I like seeing the IS effect through the view finder. Much better for composition.

Seconded.

Given all the problems that Sony has with sensor overheating, and having the sensor move in general sounds like an engineering nightmare to me, It's not something I would desire to see Canon or Nikon pursue.

 

[kennykodak]

well i'm feeling stupid. i sold mine late last year anticipating the new release with IS. okay i can live without IS and would have upgraded anyway but... lack luster performance on a replacement?

 

[Kuscali]

I decided to sell my old cropped sensor camera and wait for 5D mark III and this lenses. However, my friend told me to buy 70-200 2.8 is mark II instead. So , 24-70 mark 2 or 70-200 would be best pairing with a FF camera?????? I'm looking to do a lot of portraits and some family events.

The 24-70 will be better for those group shots at family events, the 75mm end will do good for portraits. The 70-200mm you will find might be too long for family group shots.

 

[Lawliet]

Give me a super sharp 24-70mm II with a bit better looking bokeh and I'm good.

And reduced field curvature - good border sharpness is a nice thing, but I'd like to have it where it makes sense.

 

[JakiChan]

Well, I guess I'll be able to offload my 24-70 for a decent price. I mean if I only take a $200 hit on it I guess I'm ok. But I wish the new lens would get announced and reviewed so we can see what we're dealing with.

I *knew* I should have held off...I *knew* it...but I did it anyway. :-[ :'(

 

[motorhead]

Jaki,

I've been very pleased with my "mark 1" version, so don't be too downhearted. The fact that theres a mark 2 version coming (bear in mind with Japans current situation it could be 12 months away) does not mean that the previous version is now useless.

 

[Kuscali]

Hell even the predecessor to the 24-70mm the 28-70mm is great lens, some say even better than the 24-70mm.

 

[DJL329]

Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY. *sigh*

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

 

[HughHowey]

Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY. *sigh*

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

True, but the timing, with rumors of a new body, the DIGIC V news, the expected 5D3 or 1Dx ... this is looking like a kit lens that'll be out this year.

 

[ksinton]

With the added resolution of Canons new sensors Canon is being forced to seriously upgrade all there lenses so that a new level of detail can be resolved.

I agree wit the earlier post that Canon is trading off barrel distortion for additional clarity. It's a good trade off since the barrel distortion can be corrected and besides sometimes barrel distortion looks good

Expect this lens to be as sharp as many primes! That's why Canon is betting on this lens being a big seller even without IS.

Although I would still love to see this lens with IS. Please Canon can we have an IS version. 8)

Kim Sinton
http://hawaiiphotographerwedding.com/

 

[Justin]

Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY. *sigh*

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

True, but the timing, with rumors of a new body, the DIGIC V news, the expected 5D3 or 1Dx ... this is looking like a kit lens that'll be out this year.

I doubt very seriously the 24-70 will make it to America as a kit lens. Too pricey.

 

[DJL329]

Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY. *sigh*

This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is imminent. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.

True, but the timing, with rumors of a new body, the DIGIC V news, the expected 5D3 or 1Dx ... this is looking like a kit lens that'll be out this year.

I doubt very seriously the 24-70 will make it to America as a kit lens. Too pricey.

On top of that, the lenses they announced last year still haven't made it to the market. They were way behind schedule even before the earthquake/tsunami hit. Who knows what that has done to Canon's time lines.

 

[macfly]

Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.

There is some sense to that, though no one from Canon has reached out to any of the other photographers I know, including the ones they sponsor, to ask our opinion about anything they do. However it seems the 24-105 is a more useful range for a video lens so your idea makes total sense, and would diferentitate the two lenses purpose.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on IS on theis lens as shorter lenses doesn't really benefit from IS like long lenses do, and if you have the extra usable apature and a faster chip that should really offset the need for it.

 

[Sherwin]

Anybody knows the specs for the 24-70L I? What is/are the difference(s) between the two versions? Thanks.

 

[ksinton]

Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.

There is some sense to that, though no one from Canon has reached out to any of the other photographers I know, including the ones they sponsor, to ask our opinion about anything they do. However it seems the 24-105 is a more useful range for a video lens so your idea makes total sense, and would diferentitate the two lenses purpose.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on IS on theis lens as shorter lenses doesn't really benefit from IS like long lenses do, and if you have the extra usable apature and a faster chip that should really offset the need for it.

As a wedding photographer I think think that IS in the 28-70 would be extremely useful. My experience at weddings is that I just can't get enough low light capability (as i really prefer to shoot without a flash). The last wedding I shot was shot mostly at 5000 ISO F3.2. With a 50mm f1.4 lens. I was still only getting 1/50th of second.

I really would have liked a zoom like the new 28-70 with optics almost comparable to the 50mm f1.4 and ideally with IS. Without IS at 50mm some of my shots where slightly soft, which is a shame as far as I am concerned.

AND... that was not even a very poorly lit wedding.. like I said at weddings you just can't get enough low light capability.

Kim Sinton
http://hawaiiphotographerwedding.com/

 

[kennykodak]

Anybody knows the specs for the 24-70L I? What is/are the difference(s) between the two versions? Thanks.

excellent question