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

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16367"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16367">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Another patent showing a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS. We have seem them in the past and have been told that prototypes have existed for such a lens. The issue has always been size and weight and it being usable over long periods of time for event photographers.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2014-52413,2014-52445</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Publication date 2014.3.20</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.9.5</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Example 1</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.75</li>
<li>Focal length f = 24.7-35.21-68mm</li>
<li>Fno. 2.9</li>
<li>Half angle ω = 41.21-31.57-17.65 °</li>
<li>Image height 21.64mm</li>
<li>223.94-207.87-180.56mm overall length of the lens</li>
<li>BF 38.31mm</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-04-17" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Dylan777]

I'm in if iq is good as ii or better, otherwise, I have no need for IS. Since I don't shoot slow shutter much in this range.

 

[mackguyver]

It would have to be better IQ for me to bite. I can't see the need for IS in this range, at least for my shooting.

 

[Jim Saunders]

I'm in if iq is good as ii

Same, but I can imagine what it would cost... :-\

Jim

 

[Sanaraken]

I will upgrade if the IQ is the same or better. I've always want IS on the 24-70. I really like the IS on the 70-200II

 

[Skywise]

I just purchased my 24-70 II and would upgrade as well. I like to shoot low light shots and indoors and have been recently playing with longer shutter speeds for flowing water effects. IS would come in very handy for that without me having to carry a tripod around.

 

[Lee Jay]

The issue has always been size and weight and it being usable over long periods of time for event photographers.

?????

I use a 70-200/2.8, as do many event photographers. As long as it's on par with or smaller than that, why would this be an issue?

I hope the Sigma 24-70/2.0 OS is real. I'd be more interested in that lens.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

The issue has always been size and weight and it being usable over long periods of time for event photographers.

?????

I use a 70-200/2.8, as do many event photographers. As long as it's on par with or smaller than that, why would this be an issue?

I hope the Sigma 24-70/2.0 OS is real. I'd be more interested in that lens.

+1

The only time I see weight as a relevant consideration is if 1. You're traveling, or 2. You're shooting for personal reasons.

A Sigma 24-70 f2 OS would be amazing. With the way things are going lately it's not a stretch to image nothing but 3rd party lenses in my camera bag. That thought makes my wallet very happy.

 

[AvTvM]

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.

 

[tianxiaozhang]

At their current pricing scheme this should be around $3000......

 

[LOALTD]

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.

This, this, 1000 times, THIS!

Size/weight is really not an excuse. They just want to milk money out of as many variations as possible.

I'd love a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS for run-and-gun video!

 

[SoullessPolack]

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.

Not a really well thought out post, is it, buddy?

You're comparing a much older lens, the 70-200 f4, to a much newer lens, the 70-200 f4 IS. In the time difference between each's respective introduction to the market, Canon has improved both their optical designs as well as materials used. So while, yes, the available lenses that you listed are close together, your argument is invalid. Had Canon made a new and current version of the non-IS 70-200 f4 at the same time as they introduced the IS version of the f4, the weight of the non-IS would be less due to those advancements I just stated. So yes, IS does add bulk and weight to a lens, it's just that we don't notice much, because at the same time there are also improvements in weight reduction.

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.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

+ 10gazillion.

 

[Lee Jay]

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?

Do you realize how dumb you sound, saying the above after two posts pointing out that weight isn't an issue?

 

[expatinasia]

The issue has always been size and weight and it being usable over long periods of time for event photographers.

?????

I use a 70-200/2.8, as do many event photographers. As long as it's on par with or smaller than that, why would this be an issue?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Orangutan]

That being said, people complaining about a little extra weight really need to grow a pair and hit the gym a little....

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.

#1 How do your middle-aged parents feel about carrying your infant around for hours? My guess is there are more middle-aged people buying big lenses than young folks, like you.

#2 People carrying infants don't tromp through marshes, or trudge up hills all day, as do photographers. You also don't hold your infant at arms length and very steady for focusing. I concede that diaper changes do sometimes result in brief, arms-length holding, but that's a two-hand operation, and no Infant Stabilization (IS) required.

#3 Your choice of username doesn't speak well of you.

 

[ZiggyDeath]

If the pricing is okay, and the weight isn't much more than the II, I'd probably try and hock my 24-70 F4L.
But it'll probably come in at like 2500, my guess given that the II seems to keep hitting sub 2000 recently. Which isn't too much of a stretch because it seems like the 24-105, 24-70F4L and 24-70 II have been coming down in price recently, until the recent forced MAP that is.

I'll bite if I can get a copy of 2k, and if I'm still employed when it happens...

 

[l_d_allan]

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

My speculation is that the price will start off as excessive, like the 35mm f2 IS. Over time, that lens came down in price dramatically.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I just want Canon to come out with their IS version so the Tamron price comes down.

 

[JonAustin]

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

Same here.

My speculation is that the price will start off as excessive, like the 35mm f2 IS. Over time, that lens came down in price dramatically.

And just like every other recent Canon lens. It appears that Canon has perfected the practice of maximum sales revenue through incremental product improvements, premium pricing at launch, and gradual price reductions.

Maybe now all those "experts" who claim that Canon would never produce a 24-70/2.8L IS because it would be "too big," "too heavy," "too expensive" or "unnecessary" will finally shut up. That they see no need for it or can't personally afford it might be closer to the truth. Too many folks evaluate product demand in the global marketplace from the narrow viewpoint of their own personal wants and needs.

</end rant/>