Size/weight 11-24 vs 24-70 f2.8L IS?

[Mitch.Conner]

I was just reading that Nikon might be coming out with a 24-70 f2.8 VR. It might be a PF lens, which would make it lighter than usual (PF is Nikon's version of DO).

It got me remembering that the supposed reason Canon has yet to release a 24-70 f/2.8L IS is due to it being large and heavy. Then I thought, "Isn't the new 11-24 f/4 large and heavy?" So far I don't see people really complaining.

Do you all speculate that a 24-70 f/2.8L IS would be larger or smaller than AND weigh more or less than the 11-24? Or would it be about the same?

Obviously, this would be mostly pure speculation. Perhaps the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC could be used for comparison though.

 

[mackguyver]

I think they see the 11-24 as more of a specialty lens (like the 180 macro or T/S lenses) where users aren't as likely to complain. The 24-70 is much more of a general purpose / primary lens, where size and weight are bigger concerns.

As for your question, I would guess that a IS version would be a bit heavier and slightly larger (think 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/4 IS or 17-40 vs. 16-35 IS) but nowhere near as big or heavy as the beast that is the 11-24.

 

[bgateb]

here's my comparison next to an 16-35, 24-70 II and a 35L:

 

[Ruined]

I was just reading that Nikon might be coming out with a 24-70 f2.8 VR. It might be a PF lens, which would make it lighter than usual (PF is Nikon's version of DO).

It got me remembering that the supposed reason Canon has yet to release a 24-70 f/2.8L IS is due to it being large and heavy. Then I thought, "Isn't the new 11-24 f/4 large and heavy?" So far I don't see people really complaining.

Do you all speculate that a 24-70 f/2.8L IS would be larger or smaller than AND weigh more or less than the 11-24? Or would it be about the same?

Obviously, this would be mostly pure speculation. Perhaps the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC could be used for comparison though.

I'll be honest after some experience with it, I wouldn't buy an IS version of the 24-70 II if it were bigger/heavier. It is pretty much perfect as-is. And I was an advocate of incorporating IS at some point into it, too.

Also, one of the big reasons I bought the 16-35mm f/4L IS over the 11-24mm f/4L for landscape was due to the too-large/too-heavy size of the 11-24. I waited until the 11-24 came out before I bought either and once I saw the size/weight I knew it was too cumbersome for my landscape stuff.

The only lens I have I'd say that I would say there is not much option but to deal with the extra size/weight is the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS. Due to the focal length both f/2.8 and IS are much appreciated if not often needed.