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

[iaind]

Canon are just protecting their R&D costs.

Big question is how cost effective it was. It may never see production like so many other patents

 

[Dylan]

I don't understand why some people whine about this lens not having IS. I can shoot my 135 2.0, handheld at 1/80 without a problem. The focal range of this lens is a no brainer to me.

 

[Caps18]

I would like to see them merge the 24-70 and the 70-200 IS to create a 35-150mm IS f/2.8 (with internal zoom). (maybe 35-135mm)

I really would like one lens that I could take with me on a walking tour of a city on vacation. It's not so much the weight as it is the swapping and having to put lots of lenses into pockets that bothers me right now.

I might still take the 16-35mm or 17mm TS-e around as well, but the 35-150mm range would be nice to be able to zoom and crop quickly.

 

[wickidwombat]

The V II 24-70 might be a tad over priced (Nikon's is $1800 and doesn't have VR either). But the Tamron lens isn't an option because its a Tamron lens.

Wow Canon must love you.

For a company, there's nothing better than brand loyalty that gets in the way of smart purchasing.

maybe he had a dodgy tamron previously, I did and so this is my main reason for not buying one, lack of confidence in the build quality and performance. same reason i wont buy old crinkle paint sigmas. however every new generation sigma with the new finish i have tried has been amazing

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't understand why some people whine about this lens not having IS. I can shoot my 135 2.0, handheld at 1/80 without a problem. The focal range of this lens is a no brainer to me.

I've shot my 24-105 at 1 second hand-held, and routinely do so from 1/4 at 24mm to 1/10th at 105mm. Which would you prefer, ISO 12,800 and 1/80th or ISO 1,600 and 1/10th?

I was recently at the National Air and Space Museum (both locations) where tripods aren't allowed and more DOF is desirable (i.e. I didn't want to use my 35/1.4L or 85/1.8). IS was exceptionally valuable at getting good shots with high image quality.

That's why.

 

[Dylan]

12800 : I get what you're saying and without a doubt it can be useful for a select few situations. I typically don't run that slow of a shutter to avoid subect movement, not mine. I once went to Pioneer Square in Portland OR and was told by a security officer that I couldn't use my tripod because it was considered erecting a structure.

 

[Lee Jay]

12800 : I get what you're saying and without a doubt it can be useful for a select few situations. I typically don't run that slow of a shutter to avoid subect movement, not mine. I once went to Pioneer Square in Portland OR and was told by a security officer that I couldn't use my tripod because it was considered erecting a structure.

When I was at the two museums, my most-used shutter speed was 1/6th, and I rarely went above 1/20th. Without IS, that wouldn't have been possible. My worst situation was 0.6 seconds at ISO 3200 and f/4 pushed two stops. That's a dark environment! I still got a solid, sharp shot. I wouldn't have minded having f/2.8 on that one because DOF wasn't a problem.

Generally, I find f/2.8 lenses are too slow when I have moving subjects in poor light. That's when I use the primes. Just the other day I was again shooting at ISO 3200 and f/1.8 at a wedding. So I consider an f/2.8 lens to be a lens primarily for stationary subjects where the IS is really helpful, or as a slow zoom where I'm going to add flash or I have good light anyway.

But oh well, I'll just keep my 24-105.

 

[Wideopen]

I better start saving. Hopefully it wont costs as much as a 70-200 2.8L II

 

[Videoshooter]

I'm with others here and agree this lens is not something Canon are planning to release. (Not saying they won't have a 24-70 2.8 IS anytime, just that I think this one was probably a design that they tested and then decided against in it's current form.)

Personally, I would probably pay an extra $500 for an IS version over the 24-70 II - because $500 is only a fraction of what the total cost would be anyway. However I would never buy the 24-70 II at it's current price.

I'm looking to upgrade one of my 60D's to a used 5dmkII and I think I'll get an original 24-70 as my main lens for a few reasons - I shoot mostly video so version II's extra sharpness isn't needed for me - even for stills, the 24-70 will be sharp enough for my uses. The used price on the original will hopefully fall as people dump theirs to upgrade (if the new version ever arrives!) so the savings would be even greater compared to the version II. I also am kind of dissapointed that the new one does away with the reverse zoom mechanism - when combined with a lens hood, this feature was the next-best-thing to an internal zoom. In wet weather (which we've had a lot of here lately) the hood keeps the inner barrel dry, which prevents potential disasters!

 

[JEAraman]

I also am kind of dissapointed that the new one does away with the reverse zoom mechanism - when combined with a lens hood, this feature was the next-best-thing to an internal zoom. In wet weather (which we've had a lot of here lately) the hood keeps the inner barrel dry, which prevents potential disasters!

++++++ Exactly my thoughts!