Patent: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

[edwyun]

That being said, people complaining about a little extra weight really need to grow a pair and hit the gym a little. I work out regularly, and I've never had an issue handholding my 300mm 2.8 lens for a whole day whether it's my kids' sports or at the racetrack. I have a 400mm 2.8 now, and I also do okay with that for several hours. If it's a really long day, like an all day shoot, then it gets a little tiring, but nothing where I stop shooting. To hear whining about "heavy" lenses, like this supposed lens, which would be about 2 pounds, is hilarious. It's not an issue if you take care of your body and exercise a bit. Do you realize how pathetic and weak you sound? My wife takes care of our kids everyday. Our infant can't even walk yet, and he weighs more than a Canon 800mm f/5.6. She never complains. I'm sure any mother would laugh at you people who complain how a new lens will be too heavy for all day use.

So true. Modern bodies and lenses are much lighter than the older stuff. When I carry both film and digital systems, the DSLRs seem light by comparison.

 

[mackguyver]

FWIW: I have essentially zero interest in a lens without IS, even though I use a tripod and monopod quite a bit.

That's not how I feel for shorter focal lengths but given the 24 IS, 28 IS, and 35 IS plus Nikon's 16-35 stabilized wide angle lens, you're clearly not alone. Is your interest in IS at these focal lengths for video or some other type of shooting? I understand the benefits on paper, but would like to know how people are taking advantage of IS when they shoot.

 

[David_in_Seattle]

FWIW: I have essentially zero interest in a lens without IS, even though I use a tripod and monopod quite a bit.

That's not how I feel for shorter focal lengths but given the 24 IS, 28 IS, and 35 IS plus Nikon's 16-35 stabilized wide angle lens, you're clearly not alone. Is your interest in IS at these focal lengths for video or some other type of shooting? I understand the benefits on paper, but would like to know how people are taking advantage of IS when they shoot.

For the types of video projects I do (mostly run and gun travel stuff) it becomes essential to have IS because running around with a Steadicam mounted with a vest is just too impractical. It's the reason I keep my 60D with 17-55 f2.8 IS around (light weight and small form factor)...while my 1DX and 5Dmk3 are clearly superior cameras in both photo and video.

For photos I'd much rather have a faster lens than one with IS. Hand held I'm able to get a 50% hit rate at 1/8 of a second without IS. With a 1.4 lens at ISO 12800 that's almost like taking a properly exposed photo in darkness.

 

[mackguyver]

David, thanks for the reply and I'm sure IS is unbeatable for video. I've always been a fan of fast lenses for those reasons, too, and with the high ISO bodies, many people seem to think they aren't needed anymore, but as you point out, being able to shoot in nearly total darkness is amazing.

 

[David_in_Seattle]

David, thanks for the reply and I'm sure IS is unbeatable for video. I've always been a fan of fast lenses for those reasons, too, and with the high ISO bodies, many people seem to think they aren't needed anymore, but as you point out, being able to shoot in nearly total darkness is amazing.

An added benefit with faster primes is the shallower depth of field...my 50 1.2 creates a bokeh that no other lens in it's focal range can match (minus the discontinued 50 1.0 and Leica 50 .95). It really helps to distinguish your work from others.

 

[ScottyP]

i'm sick and tired of reading how IS would make a lens so much heavier and biggerand compromise image quality ... bla bla bla ... just a bunch of completely unfounded urban myths.

e.g. look at EF 70-200/4 L without IS 76x172mm, 705g and EF 70-200/4 L IS with IS 76x172mm, 760 g ... so a paltry 55 grams more .. for a lens with pretty big glass elements to be stabilized. And image quality is better on 70-200/4 with IS too. Price difference is excessive though, and purely marketing driven.

EF 24-70/2.8 L II should have been IS from the start ... especially at the price differential over the previous version.

+10
They shot to just about the limit on pricing with the non-IS ver.2 at a whopping $2,300.00. That is the same price as the 70-200 2.8 IS ver.2. (Which of course DOES have IS.). They left no realistic pricing room above it at the top for an IS version. If they do release an IS version, so as to match the multiple flavors in which the 70-200's are offered, they can't price the thing any higher than that. They will have to dramatically lower the hefty price of the non-IS to make room for it. I assume that would pi$$ off some of the folks who paid full price.

 

[procentje20]

There is another thing to remember in the whole weight discussion. The 24-70/2.8 lost about 140 grams when version two came out. So as it was said earlier that the is module on a 70-200/4 weighs 55 grams. It might still be lighter then the version one i'm still hauling around.

And yes, it will probably be 3000 us dollars. But for a do it all lens that replaces a whole set of stabilised primes its still a bargain. As long as its as sharp as the new L lenses have become lately.

My photo business is a bit too slow for me to afford it. But if business picks up, and budget allows it I might just buy it for the speculated price.

 

[candyman]

I am curious, would a 24-70 f/2.8 IS beat the IQ of the non-IS version? Would they be able to do it? Why paying a higher price just to have IS? There is already the tamron with IS and otherwise if you do not need IS there is the non-IS. So how succesful will the IS version be? It has to come with better IQ than the non-IS version and for a reasonable price - I mean top 2000 euro (which is 1000 euro more than the Tamron) And yes, that must drop the price of the non-IS to not more than 1500 euro

 

[schmidtfilme]

I would get one in particular for video. It would replace my 24-105...

 

[moreorless]

One thing to consider I spose is that the high res body is still rumoured to be on the horizon.

If we do ever see a 50ish MP FF camera then that's likely going to mean theres a market for some very high performance lenses, even the current 24-70mm might I'd guess fall short of the needs of some.

So perhaps the current 24-70mm 2.8 looking to target users who want the lower weight and perhaps a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS looking to target those who want performance for studio/landscape shooting even if it means a larger lens. If your shooting primes for stopped down sharpness rather than ultra large apertures then even a 24-70mm that weighs well over 1kg saves you a significant amount of weight.

 

[AvTvM]

The 24-70/2.8 II is perfectly capable to serve a 50mp sensor. Is would not degrade iq at all and it would add only a few grams of weight, if anything. Witness the tamron 24-70/2.8 VC ... 20 grams more than the canon. 1000 euro less, and also capable to serve a 50mp sensor ... If canon ever manages to build one.

Canon just believes they can come up with the IS version for some outrageous price some time in the future. They might be right ... Or wrong. We shall see.

 

[researcher]

Just a thought: looking at the original patent diagram in the link, it says that the patent is for a 24-70 f2.8 IS, but not necessarily and L series unit.

My guess, based on recent lens releases, is that Canon would more likely issue this as a 24-70mm f2.8 IS STM lens to complement their other recent STM offerings aimed at video users and the more entry-level market.

The 24-70mm f2.8L v2 just came out relatively recently, and they just released the 24-105mm IS STM (non-L) in 2014. An STM version of this format would fit their strategy.

I can't imagine they would be so soon to replace that recent version 2 L lens with an IS version and expect their higher-end users to flock to it... or maybe not?