Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]

[mrsfotografie]

If Canon has room for four 24-70s in the lineup, then why not four 50s (I'm not counting the 2.5 macro)? Can we get a quality 50L 1.4 that is sharp wide open and stopped down, WS, with a ring USM please?

It still amazes me that a major camera manufacture does not offer a 50mm lens worth buying. I'm not talking about the (front/back focus) 50L which is more of a specialty lens. I'm not interested in the plastic 1.8 or weak USM 1.4 with choppy bokeh.

Ok, I'm done ranting.

It's a little off topic (and talked to death too on several occasions, like beating a dead horse) but you're right. I don't like any of the current Canon offerings so I covered the 50 mm 'prime' focal length with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (which does require some tlc to get pinsharp results) and the Canon 1.8 Mk I that has ancient but reasonably good build however... pentagonal bokeh. Compromises, compromises! But at least I got 35 mm covered now to utter satisfaction with the new Sigma

As for 'normal' zooms - I care less for these nowadays and in reasonable light I have the 25-105 to 'do it all' if needed. Else there's the primes of course

It's great if Canon breathes life into variable aperture normal zooms for full frame though. And it would show that FF technology is trickling down further in future. When was the last time they released such a lens???

 

[Haydn1971]

Still, if variable aperture, a longer zoom range would also be desirable like a replacement to the 28-135.

I'd really like to see a 24-135mm f4 IS L - make I'd a tad smaller than my 24-70 2.8 II and bingo - daytime walkabout lens - a 15-85mm EF-S for full frame ;-)

 

[Ruined]

These comments surprise me, if only because the Tamron 24-70 VC offers exactly what you say people are looking for at a price that already seriously undercuts the Canon non IS version. I don't personally think that a new version is worth more than the original price point of the 24-70LII unless it offers something more than just IS, particularly if that comes at the cost of higher weight and slightly compromised optics.

Perhaps, although you could argue that the Tamron 24-70 VC had/has a QC/manufacturing issue significantly greater than anything in the 24-70 II:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

Also I have read of some getting error codes with the Tamron. But, never a good thing when lens elements fall off.

Finally, the Tamron is lower IQ than the 24-70 II in the corners - whether Canon can improve on that is another question. The AF is also slower.

But the Tamron is an option.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

These comments surprise me, if only because the Tamron 24-70 VC offers exactly what you say people are looking for at a price that already seriously undercuts the Canon non IS version. I don't personally think that a new version is worth more than the original price point of the 24-70LII unless it offers something more than just IS, particularly if that comes at the cost of higher weight and slightly compromised optics.

Perhaps, although you could argue that the Tamron 24-70 VC had/has a QC/manufacturing issue significantly greater than anything in the 24-70 II:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

Also I have read of some getting error codes with the Tamron. But, never a good thing when lens elements fall off.

Finally, the Tamron is lower IQ than the 24-70 II in the corners - whether Canon can improve on that is another question. The AF is also slower.

But the Tamron is an option.

Regarding the report from Roger - if you read his updates, you would have seen that this issue was only in the very first batch and has subsequently been fixed. Furthermore, if you have noticed this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15231.0;topicseen you will know that Canon has had its own manufacturing issues with its newest 24-70. I wouldn't say that either issue invalidates the overall lens and its quality.

Regarding your points on the other limitations on the Tamron: you aren't wrong about those, but my point was that I was reading that people would be willing to pay more for an IS version even if it wasn't as good optically as the 24-70II. A slightly inferior lens optically with image stabilization already exists - the Tamron (and it doesn't cost more).

P.S. I have shot tens of thousands of shots in just about every kind of weather condition with my Tamron 24-70 VC, including at least one shot that has been used in promotions by Canon (now there's a bit of irony!) and it has served me flawlessly. I did encounter the battery drain issue with the VC that has been widely reported, but had my lens back to me after sending it to Tamron within a week and a half, so I have no complaints about what I've gotten out of my copy.

 

[ugly.|.face]

Great, I just went ahead and bought myself the 24-70 II...no IS for me... :'(

 

[AdamF]

So how much do you people guess a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L IS would cost ?

 

[Triggyman]

So how much do you people guess a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L IS would cost ?

Like CR said, a LOT. Big and heavy. I would say in the neighborhood of $2600-$3000 US.

I can imagine some people who'd been demanding this kind of lens for a long time won't be able to afford it when it comes

 

[K13X5C]

Looks like a reasonable proposition, given the history of having four 70-200 'L lenses'. Besides that, the natural progression of full frame to more affordable levels means the need for uprated consumer level full frame-zooms is a real one.

I have to agree. I've often wondered why Canon didn't take the 24-70 range down the same marketing path of the 70-200s. When was the last time anyone has discussed a third party alternative in the 70-200 range ? Is there even a third party alternative in the 70-200 range ? Canon absolutely owns this segment and it's because they have offered a full range of price points and features that no other manufacturer can touch, and has done so for a long time. The only lens that is considered a legitimate contender is the Canon 70-300 L.

That Canon may be taking the same approach with their 24-70/105 offerings is no surprise to me. It's a tack that is long overdue and even though additional Canon products in this wide-to-normal zoom range will be entering a crowded market Canon is big enough to wade in at this late date and take back some market share. That should eventually lead to a battle over price points and that is a battle that Canon can win. It's also a battle that would benefit buyers.

I'm all for it.

As for the IS or no IS debate, you can be sure that Canon knows that there is a significant number of people with the means to purchase an EF 24-70 f2.8 L IS. They will line up to buy it with no complaints. That is all that matters. Will IS add too much weight ? Canon will work on that issue before releasing it. They aren't fools.

Competition is good. We all benefit from the competition. Eventually.

 

[candc]

I wouldn't be the least surprised by a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM. It might have lower IQ than the IS-less' lens, as I think some people would be willing to compromise on price & IQ to get IS for the hand-hold-ability.

As for another 24-70mm, I'm not so sure. If it's f/4 IS-less, how would it compete with the cheap 24-105mm f/4 IS USM? What else could it be?

Regarding non-L, I don't think so. Instead I think we will see the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 II IS USM. Remember, the 7D2 will likely be coming out so updating the 17-55 would probably be a better bet than a non-L 24-70.

In terms of L, the 24-70 IS would be welcome for videographers, even if it is a bit lower IQ than the 24-70 II. The market is simply too large to ignore.

These comments surprise me, if only because the Tamron 24-70 VC offers exactly what you say people are looking for at a price that already seriously undercuts the Canon non IS version. I don't personally think that a new version is worth more than the original price point of the 24-70LII unless it offers something more than just IS, particularly if that comes at the cost of higher weight and slightly compromised optics.

Here's a tip for canon, instead of wasting millions on developing their own 24-70 is just buy tamrons for $1000, put a red ring on them and sell them for $3000

 

[duydaniel]

"It wouldn’t be a replacement to the current lens, just a very expensive bigger brother"-- Anybody want to take a guess on the price tag :

http://youtu.be/qMxX-QOV9tI

 

[ewg963]

How ridiculous

+1

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I wouldn't be the least surprised by a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM. It might have lower IQ than the IS-less' lens, as I think some people would be willing to compromise on price & IQ to get IS for the hand-hold-ability.

As for another 24-70mm, I'm not so sure. If it's f/4 IS-less, how would it compete with the cheap 24-105mm f/4 IS USM? What else could it be?

These comments surprise me, if only because the Tamron 24-70 VC offers exactly what you say people are looking for at a price that already seriously undercuts the Canon non IS version. I don't personally think that a new version is worth more than the original price point of the 24-70LII unless it offers something more than just IS, particularly if that comes at the cost of higher weight and slightly compromised optics.

Exactly - Tamron is taking sales away from Canon, so I expect Canon to release a lens to compete with it.

 

[dufflover]

Kudos for Tamron for forcing Canon's hand (ok so I don't have proof of that, but makes sense to me) to possibly produce a final product 24-70 IS, although it would not be a lens I personally would buy due to primarily being crop telephoto user, and the price. Anything that looks like Canon is taking other brands more seriously even though it will always have the die hard L-only snobs. On that note I predict $2700-3000 debut price, if it's as sharp as the current model.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Just my 2 cents, but I think that Canon really needs to stop charging such ridiculous initials MSRP's for their new lens.

$2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
$1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
$849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)

I've heard the arguments that early adopters pay the premium. Fine, but when a clear trend emerges that new products start well above market value and reach their true value in a year or less some light bulbs start going off, and that core, important audience starts closing their wallets and waiting. I just think it is a bad business practice. Yes, market forces often drive the value of new goods down over time, but, in the case of the EOS and the 24-70 f/4 you are talking about near 50%.

I'm a value conscious shopper. I personally am not inclined to buy any new Canon product within 6 months of release because I fear that my investment is going to be wasted. Premium lenses are often exceptional at holding their value, but try telling that to someone who is trying to sell a year old 24-70 variant when new prices have dropped by $600+.

The Tamron 24-70 entered the market at a $1299 price point. Current price is about $1049 for the Canon version, although the Nikon is still at about $1299 for some reason. That is what I consider more like typical market forces. One of the advantages in the past to buying a Canon over a third party was the conventional wisdom that the Canon would have a higher resale value. But what if that advantage is removed? I bought my Tamron for $1149 by negotiating and shopping around. I can sell it for at least $900, possibly more. But at worst I have lost $250. If I had paid $2499 for the 24-70MKII and was looking at a market of, say, $1800, to sell it, I think I would be pretty ticked.

In conclusion: if Canon does release a new 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, I think it pricing it over $2500 is a mistake.

 

[optikus]

Hello from Germany,

it is fact - third party sources bring more and more lenses in a quality and with specifications, that canon has to answer. And what we saw last time in the "L" lineup is an answer. I expect, perhaps together with the rumored 1Dx-successor perhaps with high megapixel sensor that there will come more in top level area for the clientel using those equipments, perhaps with a wider spreaded typology of "L"-segment lenses and a separate lineup more for consumer purposes also in full format area. I think there will be some thinking of the future of APS-C system, we see the problems and volumes of small sensor systems in the last months and the intensive discussion on lower price 35mm-bodies - 2014 can bring some surprises.

If there will be a top level 24-80 IS then it will find it's market. No bodxy expects a 200-400 to be a mass product, but canon needs products in its lineup to demonstrate it's "No. 1"-status, and what might to this better as a prime/zoom-series competing e.g. with Zeiss Distagon 1,4/55 and the other announced products of that series? Price allone is not the objective, I think.

Jörg

 

[Marsu42]

I've heard the arguments that early adopters pay the premium. Fine, but when a clear trend emerges that new products start well above market value and reach their true value in a year or less some light bulbs start going off, and that core, important audience starts closing their wallets and waiting.

Early adopters aren't naive - everybody buying smartphones, computers, cameras knows that they loose value very fast, but some people want to have it right now for whatever reason. The lenses are simply adapting to the rest of the product world.

The non-L primes were overpriced and Canon seems to have admitted this if the rumors are correct, but why should Canon throw away money for L lenses? The only consequence of people getting more cautious is that the lens "early adopters premium" will be lifted faster, but many will never buy 3rd party lenses and very few will switch to Nikon so it's still win-win for Canon.

 

[optikus]

Hi,

I think it is important to have two things in mind:

For a professional the akquisition of equipment is a commercial calculation: what is the effect I have on my productivity and the quality of my results = the chance for having good prices for my images when akquiring what equipment - and how long does it last to compensate the invest by the inproved income. If the effect to be expected e.g. for low light shooting is good then the pricing for a special lens as the 2,8 IS will be one is secondary. And that's one side of beeing No. 1 to have such equipment in the program.

For consumer or prosumer the individual estimation in what can a new lens or body bring for the individual feeling os more important in combination what happens at home when communicating the intention to buy such expensive parts. There is a wide variety of possible tolerances and that's why you have the different product lines for private buyers.

If - as we see with the STM-Lenses and other good products in the EF-S / EF-M lineup you have secondary effects as a small equipment for the pro or video shooting in the semi professional segment then this may be inmportant to - but I think that's not the motor driving the development this moment. The increasing risk for canon that the buyer expects third party products to be as good or better than the own ones are more critical. And the pricing canon has in the prosumer and consumer area is relative high, to high as I think. The advantages to buy canon compared to sigma/tamron and how ever the brands are is not so significant that the user pays the higher canon price.

And the had serious quality problems in the past - that is in the media and therefore present in the public.

Jörg

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Just my 2 cents, but I think that Canon really needs to stop charging such ridiculous initials MSRP's for their new lens.

$2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
$1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
$849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)

I've heard the arguments that early adopters pay the premium. Fine, but when a clear trend emerges that new products start well above market value and reach their true value in a year or less some light bulbs start going off, and that core, important audience starts closing their wallets and waiting. I just think it is a bad business practice. Yes, market forces often drive the value of new goods down over time, but, in the case of the EOS and the 24-70 f/4 you are talking about near 50%.

I'm a value conscious shopper. I personally am not inclined to buy any new Canon product within 6 months of release because I fear that my investment is going to be wasted. Premium lenses are often exceptional at holding their value, but try telling that to someone who is trying to sell a year old 24-70 variant when new prices have dropped by $600+.

The Tamron 24-70 entered the market at a $1299 price point. Current price is about $1049 for the Canon version, although the Nikon is still at about $1299 for some reason. That is what I consider more like typical market forces. One of the advantages in the past to buying a Canon over a third party was the conventional wisdom that the Canon would have a higher resale value. But what if that advantage is removed? I bought my Tamron for $1149 by negotiating and shopping around. I can sell it for at least $900, possibly more. But at worst I have lost $250. If I had paid $2499 for the 24-70MKII and was looking at a market of, say, $1800, to sell it, I think I would be pretty ticked.

In conclusion: if Canon does release a new 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, I think it pricing it over $2500 is a mistake.

You came to the wrong conclusion.

Your conclusion should have been this: I care more for how much I can sell my lens for than the photographs I create with it.

Wow, that is a pretty huge generalization with absolutely no merit to discussion at hand. You've never sold a lens to invest in something else that fits a need or to upgrade to a newer/better product? You don't care about your gear holding value? If the answer to both of those questions is no, then we certainly are different.

I categorically reject your final assessment. I believe my work speaks for itself.

 

[duydaniel]

$2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
$1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
$849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)

It shows their overpriced policy backfired and supply was over demand making the lens drop in value

 

[Random Orbits]

$2499 for 24-70II to well under $2000 in just over a year.
$1699 for 24-70 f/4 to under a $1000 street price (as cheap as $899) in less than a year.
$849 for 35mm f/2 IS to $549 in about a year.
Etc... (and don't even get started on the EOS M)

It shows their overpriced policy backfired and supply was over demand making the lens drop in value

Probably not. More like a variation of first degree price discrimination. Canon has a price that it willing to sell at for a profit. Anything they get above that is gravy. Early adopters are willing to pay more, and Canon is turning that willingness into additional profit.