Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

[GMCPhotographics]

I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.

Me neither, same thing with the 100L - but was Canon seriously thinking about releasing a metal body, or are they set on releasing plastic lenses from now on?

These plastic shells are very strong and will last as long as you will,Nikon has also started to use this technique ..

>sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer...and don't take the trouble to find out the facts before posting blurb and mis-information all over the place.
Canon are now using Aluminium and magnesium alloys in their lens casings. The 100mm IS Macro L is another example. This alloy doesn't feel cool to the touch as the cheaper and heavier casings, but are often percieved to be made from plastic. Where as in reality it's a higher grade product. The 24-70IIL is a fair bit lighter than the older mkI...but has a larger objective lens....so the glass is actually heavier in the mkII than the mkI.

 

[Loswr]

Canon are now using Aluminium and magnesium alloys in their lens casings. The 100mm IS Macro L is another example. This alloy doesn't feel cool to the touch as the cheaper and heavier casings, but are often percieved to be made from plastic.

So, Chuck Westfall (Canon USA's technical mouthpiece) was lying when he stated ragarding the 100L, "The official reply from Tokyo is as follows: The focus ring, lens mount and name plate are made from aluminum, and other parts are basically made with engineering plastic."

Or maybe you got a different asnwer when you asked Canon? Or maybe you disassembled a lens and performed a materials analysis on the barrel? Or maybe not...... :

 

[RVB]

I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.

Me neither, same thing with the 100L - but was Canon seriously thinking about releasing a metal body, or are they set on releasing plastic lenses from now on?

These plastic shells are very strong and will last as long as you will,Nikon has also started to use this technique ..

>sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer...and don't take the trouble to find out the facts before posting blurb and mis-information all over the place.
Canon are now using Aluminium and magnesium alloys in their lens casings. The 100mm IS Macro L is another example. This alloy doesn't feel cool to the touch as the cheaper and heavier casings, but are often percieved to be made from plastic. Where as in reality it's a higher grade product. The 24-70IIL is a fair bit lighter than the older mkI...but has a larger objective lens....so the glass is actually heavier in the mkII than the mkI.

">sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer.."

Exactly who are you referring to as a joker?? It seems that your the one talking Crap, taken from photo zone.de http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d "The build quality is excellent but then we've expected no less from a professional grade "L class" lens. The lens body is made of very high quality plastics and a metal mount. The broad rubberized focus ring works very smooth. Similar to the non-L macro lens it features a "true" inner focusing system so the lens does not extend when focusing towards closer focus distances. The Canon EF extension tubes are supported whereas the EF tele converters cannot be used."

and referring to the 24-70mk11 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff "The build quality of this lens is exceptional thanks to a tightly assembled combination of metal and - mostly - high quality plastic parts. "

 

[Etienne]

I wish they'd split it into two lenses:

24-35 f/2L IS and
50-85 f/2L IS

 

[birtembuk]

Another heated debate about: "IS or not IS, that is the question"

Looking more closely at the stated specs, I notice the image height is 21.64mm and the size is about say 160mm to 200mm. What sort of glass is that ? Cinema ? Anybody a clue here ?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

*yawn*

More evidence that Canon has ceased to be a leader when it comes to lenses.

If Canon were smart they would bring out this lens at the 24-70/2.8II price and drop the price of the non-IS v2 lens by $600 or so.

Then everyone that bought the non-IS version would sell their current lens and buy the new one.

Great way to get everyone to buy two lenses :->

Then again, they may not need to drop the non-IS v2 lens price by that much...

Sorry but I can't take this comment seriously,I use Leica,Nikon and Hasselblad as well as Canon so no fanboy here.. but Canon has a fantastic collection of glass. the MPE-65mm is completely unique,the best 24-70 and 70-200's on the market,amazing super teles the best TS lenses... the 8-15mm fisheye zoom is another unique lens... and we can be sure that more great glass is on the way... As for the 24-70is,well I don't need the i.s but wedding snappers and event guys will like it..

yeah, you can complain that marketing plays too many games with silly little body features being left out for silly little reasons, or that they have fallen behind in sensors and don't want to spend money as they others do to update their sensor fabs, or that they didn't do what they could to really take advantage of their mini-video revolution and instead went a more traditional route, but lenses man, lenses are where they are still producing

who else has an MPE65? a 17 T&S? a 24mm T&S as nice? a lens to match the 24-70 II? a 70-300L? etc.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.

Me neither, same thing with the 100L - but was Canon seriously thinking about releasing a metal body, or are they set on releasing plastic lenses from now on?

These plastic shells are very strong and will last as long as you will,Nikon has also started to use this technique ..

>sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer...and don't take the trouble to find out the facts before posting blurb and mis-information all over the place.
Canon are now using Aluminium and magnesium alloys in their lens casings. The 100mm IS Macro L is another example. This alloy doesn't feel cool to the touch as the cheaper and heavier casings, but are often percieved to be made from plastic. Where as in reality it's a higher grade product. The 24-70IIL is a fair bit lighter than the older mkI...but has a larger objective lens....so the glass is actually heavier in the mkII than the mkI.

">sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer.."

Exactly who are you referring to as a joker?? It seems that your the one talking Crap, taken from photo zone.de http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d "The build quality is excellent but then we've expected no less from a professional grade "L class" lens. The lens body is made of very high quality plastics and a metal mount. The broad rubberized focus ring works very smooth. Similar to the non-L macro lens it features a "true" inner focusing system so the lens does not extend when focusing towards closer focus distances. The Canon EF extension tubes are supported whereas the EF tele converters cannot be used."

and referring to the 24-70mk11 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff "The build quality of this lens is exceptional thanks to a tightly assembled combination of metal and - mostly - high quality plastic parts. "

what is so great about a metal casing? BTW the 24-70 L original was one of the lenses most likely to go out of tune after time. it weighs more too. heats up more. And if you drop metal it sometimes bends in nasty ways, certain plastic designs might just crack a front plastic outer bit which might be replaced for a few bucks on your own (of course not all plastic lenses allow for that sort of easy fix)

 

[RVB]

I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.

Me neither, same thing with the 100L - but was Canon seriously thinking about releasing a metal body, or are they set on releasing plastic lenses from now on?

These plastic shells are very strong and will last as long as you will,Nikon has also started to use this technique ..

>sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer...and don't take the trouble to find out the facts before posting blurb and mis-information all over the place.
Canon are now using Aluminium and magnesium alloys in their lens casings. The 100mm IS Macro L is another example. This alloy doesn't feel cool to the touch as the cheaper and heavier casings, but are often percieved to be made from plastic. Where as in reality it's a higher grade product. The 24-70IIL is a fair bit lighter than the older mkI...but has a larger objective lens....so the glass is actually heavier in the mkII than the mkI.

">sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer.."

Exactly who are you referring to as a joker?? It seems that your the one talking Crap, taken from photo zone.de http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d "The build quality is excellent but then we've expected no less from a professional grade "L class" lens. The lens body is made of very high quality plastics and a metal mount. The broad rubberized focus ring works very smooth. Similar to the non-L macro lens it features a "true" inner focusing system so the lens does not extend when focusing towards closer focus distances. The Canon EF extension tubes are supported whereas the EF tele converters cannot be used."

and referring to the 24-70mk11 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff "The build quality of this lens is exceptional thanks to a tightly assembled combination of metal and - mostly - high quality plastic parts. "

what is so great about a metal casing? BTW the 24-70 L original was one of the lenses most likely to go out of tune after time. it weighs more too. heats up more. And if you drop metal it sometimes bends in nasty ways, certain plastic designs might just crack a front plastic outer bit which might be replaced for a few bucks on your own (of course not all plastic lenses allow for that sort of easy fix)

Good point's,Polycarbonate has many positive's,another is weight.. If you don't carry it you won't shoot it,and the main reason I shoot the polycarbonate/magnesium Nikon 85mm 1.4G over the 85mm 1.2L when I'm on the road is the weight,it's 660gram's vs 1025 for the L,(the L is slightly faster which accounts for some of the extra weight but not all)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

At the end of the day, if you like the lens for it's abilities and features and can afford one, then go buy one. It's as simple as that. For me, my mkI copy has been the backbone of my photography for the last 7 years. It's not as sharp as my primes but it's certainly a strong performer and it does so much so well. The newer mkII has a lot of additional benefits over the mkI but a few areas are weaker. The Max Magnification figure has dropped dramatically, which indicated focal lenght breathing at 70mm at MFD. For most user's this isn't a problem. But for wedding photographers like me who don't want to take a massive bag to each wedding, ring shots now need a dedicated macro lens. Will the rumoured IS version correct this? Who knows. I'm one of the few photographers who seems to like the reverse zoom and large hood of the mkI and was dissapointed to see this has been normalised...a pity, the old one was fantastically quirky and very functional. Last year I was on the Northumbria beech photographing a Bamburgh Castle with the sea / coast creating a nice leading line. The sea was craching in quite violently....my colleges who were also on the shoot were using a 16-35IIL and were constantly wiping sea spray from their objective lenses....my 24-70I's and it's deep hood had no such issues.

Becuase this lens was different in it's function, it attracted a lot of unwarrented critism from people who hardly used one, there is a ton of web "opinions" which are based on re-gurgitation from the various web reviews and a quick fondle in a shop, but these opinions are not based on real world application, where these quirks are seen to be a really well thought out rationale with great benefit. This pressure (meme) has caused some obvious design changes which appeases the internet masses as a positive....but not the photographers who valued such a useful but quirky design.

 

[Efka76]

It was said that Canon did not issue 24-70 f/2.8 IS version as it would be bulky and IQ would be worse (or lens diameter size would have to be wider than 82 mm). Current Tamron 24-70 version has IS and IQ is slightly worse than Canon's 24-70 MkII version. Also, Tamron price is significantly lower. What I currently see in the market that Sigma and Tamron significantly improved quality and we see INNOVATIONS in these companies. On opposite side, Canon makes only slight updates and puts significant price cap on their products. What is my biggest fear that Canon might adapt Apple strategy, to release "new" product which is substantialy the same as old one and expect that loyal fans will buy their products. I would understand if Canon realeases 24-70 1.8 IS version and charges much more money than competitors.

Canon was sleeping when mirrorless cameras were evolving, current P&S market is sqeezing, very strong competition in DSLR lenses is increasing. If the same trends follow in few years we will see that Canon produces DSLR cameras only (lenses will be bought from Tamron and Sigma). We really need innovative products for reasonable price from Canon!

 

[RVB]

*yawn*

More evidence that Canon has ceased to be a leader when it comes to lenses.

If Canon were smart they would bring out this lens at the 24-70/2.8II price and drop the price of the non-IS v2 lens by $600 or so.

Then everyone that bought the non-IS version would sell their current lens and buy the new one.

Great way to get everyone to buy two lenses :->

Then again, they may not need to drop the non-IS v2 lens price by that much...

Sorry but I can't take this comment seriously,I use Leica,Nikon and Hasselblad as well as Canon so no fanboy here.. but Canon has a fantastic collection of glass. the MPE-65mm is completely unique,the best 24-70 and 70-200's on the market,amazing super teles the best TS lenses... the 8-15mm fisheye zoom is another unique lens... and we can be sure that more great glass is on the way... As for the 24-70is,well I don't need the i.s but wedding snappers and event guys will like it..

What part can't you take seriously?

Canon deciding to develop an IS version of the 24-70/2.8 after Tamron release theirs (to much acclaim)? Especially as there were many that wanted this combination due to its weight?

Or that by releasing the lens in this order, Canon will get many people to double-dip whereas if they had brought out the IS version first, people would have gone straight to that and never bought the non-IS version?

"What part can't you take seriously?"This part "More evidence that Canon has ceased to be a leader when it comes to lenses" ,Canon has an excellent portfolio of lenses unmatched by any other manufacturer,Saying that they cease to be a leader because they didn't add I.S to a lens is a bit harsh,not everyone is convinced that this focal length even needs i.s,admittedly I wouldn't mind if they did add it but not at the expense of I.Q,and the Tamron doesn't match the canon's I.Q

 

[Marsu42]

It was said that Canon did not issue 24-70 f/2.8 IS version as it would be bulky and IQ would be worse (or lens diameter size would have to be wider than 82 mm). Current Tamron 24-70 version has IS and IQ is slightly worse than Canon's 24-70 MkII version.

Problem is, as far as I understand it: In this top-range L class, improving the iq *slightly* requires a very *large* (i.e. expensive) effort, may it be to increase sharpness or corner performance. Obviously Canon found no reasonable tradeoff between (filter) size, weight and price for a IS version, and having an excellent IS system they certainly thought very hard about this decision.

Of course, with Canon, part of this equation will have been to be able to make a good profit, while 3rd party manufacturers or Nikon want to gain market share and/or recognition as a serious alternative in the first place.

 

[tron]

One Lens to rule them all, One Lens to find them, One Lens to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!

In the land of Canon where the profits lie ... ;D

 

[RLPhoto]

Too late. I already have the Tamron and its meets all my needs.

 

[J.R.]

I wish they'd split it into two lenses:

24-35 f/2L IS and
50-85 f/2L IS

For $ 2,500 each ... I think I'll pass

 

[EchoLocation]

They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected,

not all

many wanted and expected something with prime-like performance on a FF at 24mm and amazing f/2.8 center across the range in a reasonably small (smaller and lighter than before) package. And we got that.

I would have been fine with v2 had the price not seemingly doubled at release(I understand sales, vs release prices and MSRP, but that is what essentially happened in the short term(1 year at least.) With the price hike from v1 to v2 they should have made it IS, put the opening price at $2499, and if they had wanted to released the current v2 at $2249, or less.
I just don't like the idea of another new lens release with an insane price, especially when the concept of having IS in the this lens had been talked about for a while.
I'm all for paying top dollar for something if it gives me exactly what I want, but otherwise, i'd rather just hold out for the best, considering the price of v2 wasn't low either.
It's like the new iPhone here in China(where I live). They made the 5c for $730 bucks, and the 5s for $860. If i'm going to drop 700 dollars on a new phone, I don't want to wish I had the metal body, or better processor, etc(or IS), i'd rather just pay $100 dollars more and have the best. Likewise, if i'm going to pay $2300 for a lens, I'd like to be fairly sure there isn't an upgraded version coming the next year.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

At the end of the day, if you like the lens for it's abilities and features and can afford one, then go buy one. It's as simple as that. For me, my mkI copy has been the backbone of my photography for the last 7 years. It's not as sharp as my primes but it's certainly a strong performer and it does so much so well. The newer mkII has a lot of additional benefits over the mkI but a few areas are weaker. The Max Magnification figure has dropped dramatically, which indicated focal lenght breathing at 70mm at MFD. For most user's this isn't a problem. But for wedding photographers like me who don't want to take a massive bag to each wedding, ring shots now need a dedicated macro lens. Will the rumoured IS version correct this? Who knows. I'm one of the few photographers who seems to like the reverse zoom and large hood of the mkI and was dissapointed to see this has been normalised...a pity, the old one was fantastically quirky and very functional. Last year I was on the Northumbria beech photographing a Bamburgh Castle with the sea / coast creating a nice leading line. The sea was craching in quite violently....my colleges who were also on the shoot were using a 16-35IIL and were constantly wiping sea spray from their objective lenses....my 24-70I's and it's deep hood had no such issues.

Becuase this lens was different in it's function, it attracted a lot of unwarrented critism from people who hardly used one, there is a ton of web "opinions" which are based on re-gurgitation from the various web reviews and a quick fondle in a shop, but these opinions are not based on real world application, where these quirks are seen to be a really well thought out rationale with great benefit. This pressure (meme) has caused some obvious design changes which appeases the internet masses as a positive....but not the photographers who valued such a useful but quirky design.

The original 24-70 could only have that unusual hood arrangement because it was unusual in that it got wider FOV as it extended. It is quite possible that they could not stick to such a reversed design and radically improve image quality.

The new 24-70 II also has a nice feature that is not always mentioned: ultra-precision measurements of AF braking slippage, so when paired with a body that can make use of the extra precision it has better focusing precision than a regular lens.

For landscape shooters, focusing on every last ounce of quality on the wider side was a very nice move. And it manages to do very well at f/2.8 in the center across the range, good for isolation shots where the main subject is often not near the edges.

 

[Marsu42]

The original 24-70 could only have that unusual hood arrangement because it was unusual in that it got wider FOV as it extended. It is quite possible that they could not stick to such a reversed design and radically improve image quality.

... which is a pity because with all zoom lenses that cover a larger range the lens hood is too short at the long focal end and there's more flare than necessary - I esp. notice this with my 70-300L, I'm just trying to devise a self-made lens hood zoom.

 

[Loswr]

... which is a pity because with all zoom lenses that cover a larger range the lens hood is too short at the long focal end and there's more flare than necessary - I esp. notice this with my 70-300L, I'm just trying to devise a self-made lens hood zoom.

You could follow Canon's advice for the TS-E 17mm f/4L...

 

[mackguyver]

6 pages of posts about this? I'm surprised anyone is interested in IS - I mean Canon told us (with the Mark II) that we don't need it, so who are we to question Canon?