Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

[winglet]

Plus for people spending $7k on a camera body and $10k for a tele lens another $3k probably doesn't matter that much - and as it has been argued in many Tamron vs. Canon threads, IS @70mm does make sense for various shooting conditions even for stills.

Canon already makes a "pretty good" IS lens at that focal range, it's called the 70-200 f2.8 IS! ;D

Personally, I would put IS on the 24-70 firmly in the "nice to have" camp, not the "need to have". I have zero complaints about the IQ about the 24-70mm f2.8 II, any limitations are only due to my own shortcomings as a shooter. The lens is not cheap but it's producing some incredible images for me.

The one guy who says he switched to Nikon for their 24-70....uh....ok...? (*scratches head*)

 

[mrsfotografie]

Personally I'm no longer very excited about 24-70 zooms, but for many a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be a great work-horse. Kudos to Tamron and Sigma for upping the ante! 8)

 

[pwp]

what's wrong with 18-55 IS? :

Absolutely nothing, except for three important letters. EF-S
It's a gem if you're driving an APS-C Canon.

-pw

 

[duydaniel]

Sigma is rumoring a 24-70 f2
why bother testing a 2.8 IS then?
The current 24-70 II is already 2k
I suppose the IS will be even more expensive like 2.5k+

 

[willis]

Uuuuuu, sounds very very nice indeed :

 

[bholliman]

...people may be waiting for a VERY long time for the IS version of this lens.

Personally, I couldn't be happier with my EF24-70 f2.8 II.

+1 I'm extremely happy with my EF 24-70 2.8 II. Would I like for it to have IS? Sure, but I'm taking lots of great pictures without IS now.

If the IS lens would be as large as Radiating suggested, I'm not sure I would want one.

 

[J.R.]

...people may be waiting for a VERY long time for the IS version of this lens.

Personally, I couldn't be happier with my EF24-70 f2.8 II.

+1 I'm extremely happy with my EF 24-70 2.8 II. Would I like for it to have IS? Sure, but I'm taking lots of great pictures without IS now.

If the IS lens would be as large as Radiating suggested, I'm not sure I would want one.

+1 ... my thoughts exactly.

I don't know how much better the 24-70 II can get, IQ wise. I see no point in splurging north of $ 3,000 for a replacement with IS.

 

[expatinasia]

... for many a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be a great work-horse. Kudos to Tamron and Sigma for upping the ante! 8)

I agree.

I would be very, very tempted to buy this lens if and when it does come out.

 

[M.ST]

The first prototypes (fully metal) are from 2012, but the actual IS version is a complete rebuild and delivers superb image quility. Build qulity is like the version II with no IS.

After using the NON-IS-Version for a long time I am now a IS fan.

The IS-version is (like the version II with no IS) not a parfocal lens and delivers the ugly 18 rays from small light sources with an aperture of 16, 22 and so on.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon already makes a "pretty good" IS lens at that focal range, it's called the 70-200 f2.8 IS! ;D

What about 69mm :-o ? ... No, of course if depends in which direction you want the flexibility, and for wider shots which often are required in events and photojournalism the 24-70 is the way to go, you can crop, but you cannot reconstruct data that isn't there because your lens was too long.

After using the NON-IS-Version for a long time I am now a IS fan.

Sssshhh, don't tell, even more people might buy the Tamron at half the Canon's price :-o ... in Germany, the Tamron's price has gone UP recently.

 

[J.R.]

The IS-version is (like the version II with no IS) not a parfocal lens and delivers the ugly 18 rays from small light sources with an aperture of 16, 22 and so on.

Maybe I'm missing something but which is this IS-Version that you are talking about?

 

[WoodyWindy]

I like that they actually cover up to a 24-80 f/2.8 IS in the patent series.

 

[tiger82]

I personally begged Canon to release the prototype.

If they won't do your bidding, what hope do we mere mortals have?

 

[Dylan777]

If this rumor is true, the price tag will be huge - $2700plus

 

[EchoLocation]

The one guy who says he switched to Nikon for their 24-70....uh....ok...? (*scratches head*)

I didn't switch to Nikon for their 24-70 specifically, if I had to name one thing it would be the AF of the D700 vs the AF of the 5DII(I did this over a year ago when the 5DIII was still $3500 and new 5DII's were around $2K.
I had an old 5DC with a 24-105, but I missed focus on half my shots and just constantly was disappointed when conditions were not perfect. I also like the pop up flash on the D700, it saves me from having to lug around a separate flash 90% of the time.
I traded my 5DC and lens for the 24-70 2.8 Nikon pretty much, then paid 1400 more for a used but basically mint D700. I think I made a huge upgrade from the 5DC and 24-105 without having to pay 5000 dollars. I hardly ever hear anyone say anything bad about the Nikon 24-70, and I've personally never used a better lens. The Canon might be sharper, but at this point, I wouldn't trade my Nikon 24-70 for anything less than a FF mirrorless system that is much smaller and lighter.
I travel a lot and am sick of DSLR's. I'm now looking to only use my EOS-M and hopefully something a little(or lot) better but with a similar size in the future.

 

[Coolhandchuck]

Oh no... I'm sure that it will cost $2800 plus...

 

[Eldar]

To me, the requirement some seem have for IS on the 24-70 is somewhat difficult to understand and I wonder if it is based on real world experience or just theoretical thinking. When I first bought it, it replaced my 24-105 f4 IS as my standard walk-around lens, and I thought I would miss both the 70-105 range and IS. The truth is I don´t. I have a very low threshold for buying the latest and greatest, but I don´t see how IS on this lens would tempt me. Improved IQ would, but that will be quite difficult. Improved magnification, like the 24-70 f4 IS, would. But I am still able to hold my camera sufficiently still to get my shots also in low lights with this lens and I have other alternatives for macro. When IS would help, I always get something moving in the image anyway (experience from the 24-105), so it is ruined both with and without IS.

So, I have the 24-70 2.8L II, I am extremely happy with it and I am pretty confident that I will hang on to it after a potential release of an IS version.

 

[Lee Jay]

To me, the requirement some seem have for IS on the 24-70 is somewhat difficult to understand and I wonder if it is based on real world experience or just theoretical thinking. When I first bought it, it replaced my 24-105 f4 IS as my standard walk-around lens, and I thought I would miss both the 70-105 range and IS. The truth is I don´t. I have a very low threshold for buying the latest and greatest, but I don´t see how IS on this lens would tempt me.

About 2/3 of my shots with my 24-105 are taken below the 1/f rule, and I have taken shots as slow as 2-seconds handheld with that lens. I normally consider 1/10th to be my limit at 105mm and 1/2 second at 24mm. Which would you rather have, 1/2 second, ISO 800 or 1/30th ISO 12800 with the same motion blur?

 

[jrbdmb]

i'm much more excited about the Sigma F2.
I'm extremely tired of companies offering very small incremental changes over longggg periods of time. I'm not holding my breath for Canon to release what I want, I'm just moving on.
They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected, especially for the price. Had they made one, I probably would've bought a 5DIII and that lens(Instead of switching to Nikon who's 24-70 is amazing.)
At this point in time, I'm much more excited about 2.8 zooms and cheap bodies for the EOS M and a FF mirrorless.
I would not pay 2500 dollars for another DSLR lens as I'm very tired of the weight, and I'm not a pro. I'll probably just hold out and hope Sony can make a 24-50mm 2.8 in a size smaller than current 24-70 2.8's for the upcoming full frame mirrorless they're announcing.

Of course you realize if Sigma really does come out with a FF 24-70 f2.0 it is going to be a monster to carry around, right? I expect it will be at least as big as the 70-200 2.8 II.

 

[EchoLocation]

i'm much more excited about the Sigma F2.
I'm extremely tired of companies offering very small incremental changes over longggg periods of time. I'm not holding my breath for Canon to release what I want, I'm just moving on.
They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected, especially for the price. Had they made one, I probably would've bought a 5DIII and that lens(Instead of switching to Nikon who's 24-70 is amazing.)
At this point in time, I'm much more excited about 2.8 zooms and cheap bodies for the EOS M and a FF mirrorless.
I would not pay 2500 dollars for another DSLR lens as I'm very tired of the weight, and I'm not a pro. I'll probably just hold out and hope Sony can make a 24-50mm 2.8 in a size smaller than current 24-70 2.8's for the upcoming full frame mirrorless they're announcing.

Of course you realize if Sigma really does come out with a FF 24-70 f2.0 it is going to be a monster to carry around, right? I expect it will be at least as big as the 70-200 2.8 II.

I didn't say i'd buy the Sigma, I just said i'm much more excited about it than the next 3000 dollar Canon lens.
If Sigma does make a 24-70 F2, I seriously doubt it will be as big as the 70-200 2.8, that is just too big and not practical. I do not think that would be very succesful at all. I don't think that the rules of lens optics and size are entirely set in stone yet.