EF 35 f/1.4L II & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on January 3, 2012? [CR2]

[Viggo]

"What could they possibly upgrade"

LOOOL

Go out with a 24 1,4 mk I and II and the 70-200 2,8 IS mk I and II and you don't need to wonder about things like that. Jeez....

Or these, TS 24 I and II, 14 I and II. Why would Canon release an identical lens and slap a mkII on it?!

 

[motorhead]

What with a 200-400 AND a mark2 version of the 28-70, 2012 is likely to be a very expensive year for me. Thats on top of the 5D2 I've only just bought!

I'm another who would have preferred it to come with IS I must admit.

 

[wockawocka]

The 35L doesn't have much scope for improvement?

I can't see the benefit of IS in a 24-70 as it'll only add weight to a commonly used lens that doesn't require it.
I think for shooting people I never usually go slower than 1/60 otherwise folks blur.

With that in mind should I need to go slower I use a prime.

Edit, if anything a fast prime with IS would be really interesting for low light photography without a tripod.

 

[RayS2121]

I can totally understand Canon’s take on no IS for the 24-70 II, though this is a rumor at this point.

Why?

The primary reason could well be because such a lens, with IS in the general zoom range has the potential to cut into a number of their revenue lines …

The current 24-70L f/2.8 targets a specific consumer rung, who are willing to pay a good amount but not the bank. They are willing to choose a contracted focal range but a faster f/2.8 lens provided the pricing is not way too high. We are not talking about the well-heeled pros with all the L-primes in this range and beyond. The “differential” contender with longer focal range would be 24-105L, a peg down in the marketing line (I am not inviting a flame war here on merits of these two lenses, just where they fall in the Canon product line and pricing) which continues to be a good seller for Canon.

If pricing on 24-70 version II is low enough to tread this fine line, with the faster f/2.8,and IS, it could cut severely into the 24-105L f/4 line even with the longer focal range enticement. Hell, it may even cut into the sales of some of the much older non-L primes which are still on sale from Canon. No one wants to cut their own legs shorter.

Marketing and where to put a high-quality fast IS zoom in the price/consumer range may be the deciding factor here. They may do a 70-200 f/4 trick on us and release an IS and non-IS version, but that’s probably too hopeful.

Cynical, but a smart Canon &@#@@!!!

 

[dbase]

newbie question

what is the difference between an IS and non IS image? can anyone show me an example?
if your shutter speed is fast enough, does IS even matter?

 

[DJL329]

Darn! I just bought a 35 1.4L. I wonder if I should return it since I was planning to get the new one when it came out even if it was more expensive... ???

That depends. Do you need it now? You can't take a picture with a lens that might get announced next month and take 3-6 additional months (or more) to arrive.

Normally do we know how long it takes between lens announcement and availability? Are we suggesting these new lenses might not be available before June 2012? Does anyone has historical data that could hint at how long between announcement and "in store"?

It's usually around 3 months, but like the investment commercials say: 'past performance is no guarantee of future results.' Hopefully, the 3 most recent "L" lenses are not a bellwether for the next crop, as they have been on an odyssey...

Last August, Canon announced the 8-15mm f/4L fisheye lens, along with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II and 400 f/2.8L IS II telephoto lenses, all with anticipated releases in January 2011. Come November 2010, the release dates got pushed back to March 2011 due to problems with their new manufacturing plant. Then insert 2 natural and 1 nuclear disasters and the 8-15mm lens wasn't available until July. The 300mm is available, though inventories aren't great, while the 400mm is still listed as "New Item, Available for pre-order" at B&H.

 

[Ryusui]

what is the difference between an IS and non IS image? can anyone show me an example?
if your shutter speed is fast enough, does IS even matter?

Sure. If it's fast enough.
But if you're in a situation where you're forced to use a shutter speed that's just barely fast enough, the IS can help you nail what would have been an otherwise blurry shot from camera shake. In a case like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM , you're earning up to four stops. Massive difference. Especially at that length.

 

[Flake]

Just a few short days ago I started a thread after meeting a couple of Canon reps, they were emphatic that the 24 - 70mm f/2.8L would not have IS if it's launched in the next few days then it would be highly likely that they'd been briefed about it.

The reasons for no IS were several, but primarily image quality, although cost size & weight, and the fact that Nikon didn't include IS in their 24 - 70mm revamp, plus the 24 - 105mm f/4 IS L. According to them too many issues with distortion purple fringing and sharpness in a lens which is intended to be the best zoom for IQ available.

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

 

[axismundi]

I can't believe this. It was just last week that I decided to sell my 24-105 f4 and yesterday I bought the 24-70 f2.8.
After reading this rumor here today I wonder if I should return it.
Maybe the II edition will be only slightly more expensive...
Also I'm afraid that the price of the I edition will drop dramatically once the II edition is released.

 

[smirkypants]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

 

[briansquibb]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

A 24-105 on a 1DX should manage most low light situations

 

[ferdi]

I guess the current 24-70L will be discontinued with the release of a Mark II.
But will that also happen if the newer one has IS? Maybe not because of the huge price difference.

A good 2nd hand 24-70L goes for about USD 900-1000.
A new 24-70L is still USD 1300 (current B&H price).
If the 24-70L II will cost about USD 1800-2000...
then a 24-70L IS version will be just over USD 3000 I think (70-200L IS costs about 75% more than non-IS).

Ouch, I might need to sell my EF-S 17-55 just to afford the L+IS version. But I won't be using that lens anymore anyway after upgrading. If the new one is without IS then I will still think about it, but it better be worth it.

Also, since the 24-105L is just one year younger, do you guys think we can expect a Mark II of that one in Q1 2013?

 

[Mark1]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

I read on a recent thread here that the reason the 24-70 doesnt have IS is because it's technically very difficult to achieve without dramatically increasing the overall size and weight of the lens. That's why Nikon haven't done it on their 24-70 either.

Presumabley the 17-55 2.8 IS has smaller glass due to it's reduced image circle and therefore is easier to put IS on it and keep the size of the lens reasonable.

Personally I see the 24-70 as more of a studio zoom and the 24-105 IS as an outdoor low-lighter. Don't need IS in the studio. It's horses for courses I suppose.

 

[japhoto]

I have the 24-70L to go with my 7D and yes, I'd very much like to have IS on it and 2.8 aperture.

The lens is capable of wonderfully sharp images, I'm not denying that, but unfortunately only in very good light (if handheld).

I am pixel-peeping here, since even though some say that 18Mp APS-C photos should be viewed at 1:2 to get an idea of the "sharpness", I always use 1:1. This is because I know that I can get (quite easily) sharp images with my 70-200L II when handheld, but not with the 24-70L. So it's either very good light or a tripod with this lens, which I don't like when this could be a good lens for photo-walks.

So if an image isn't sharp at 1:1 I usually bin it and that makes "keepers" few and far between with this lens. I'd also like to use IS instead of bumping the ISO since most of my subjects aren't moving.

There's also quite a bit of CA, distortion and the AF is inconsistent, so yeah, on top of the IS, I see a lot of improvements that could happen with the Mk II.

 

[Zuuyi]

I will be getting a 24-70 mk2 when it comes out, I was going to get the Tamron 28-75 but I will just pony up and get the Canon since it will be the standard for a decade.

 

[Flake]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time! Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens. In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm

 

[bigblue1ca]

I was gung ho to buy the 24-70 in October until I read the rumours about the Mk II being release soonish. I'm not in a big rush, so I can wait, but none the less it would be nice to have the 2.8 with the IS. I like to hand hold in marginal conditions a lot it seems and I've been very impressed with the results of my 70-200 2.8 IS.

 

[briansquibb]

If you need a lens with IS buy the 24 - 105mm !

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

There's one stop in it in terms of aperture, and three in terms of IS so therefore the 24 - 105mm is the better choice for hand holding in low light - I know I've had both of them at the same time! Sometimes you really do need f/8 and then there's no advantage to an f/2.8 lens. In terms of useablility the 24 - 105mm will return commercially acceptable images as slow as 1/6 sec, try that with the 24-70mm

A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations

I wish people would get out of complaining about lack of IS and think how they can manage without.

 

[92101media]

It's not f2.8! Jeez. What's wrong with wanting an 2.8 IS Zoom for the 5D2 that's equivalent to the 17-55 for the crop? Seriously, this is not a trivial matter. Some of us want to hand hold in lowish light.

A 1DX with a 24-105 will take care of all low light situations

I wish people would get out of complaining about lack of IS and think how they can manage without.

Maybe so, but the cost of the 1DX body alone is likely to be out of the price range of all but the most dedicated enthusiasts (or those with large amounts of disposable income) and likely, dare I say it, out of the price range of most casual event photographers too.

On the other hand, while certainly useful, especially in edge cases in conditions right at the limit and/or at longer focal lengths, IS is a relatively recent technology (introduced approx. 15 years or so ago), and photographers managed before then, so it's worthwhile considering all the possible options available e.g. larger aperture (prime if necessary), adding light (reflectors or flash, if allowed), slower shutter speed (if possible without blurring; multiple shots if situation allows to get one sharp shot out of a couple; using a monopod or tripod if practical), bumping to higher ISO if not too noisy, relocating subject if practical etc.

 

[AJ]

A key reason for f/2.8 is being able to shoot selective focus and blur background. Can't do that with IS or high iso.

As for the current 24-70, it seems that there's plenty of room for improvement. Have a look at the photozone review. Klaus hates the field curvature thing.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff