24-70 F2.8L IS?

[allenko]

Canon just released a EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS, eqivalent to 27-88mm on FF. Is there any chance they will come up with a 24-70 F2.8L IS for the FF? It will reduce the controversy between "either 24-70L or 24-105L". Is there any demand for this lens?

[Mint_Sauce]

I would have bought it! I think there is demand as at the moment people are deliberating between the IS of the 24-105 and the F2.8 of the 24-70 so a 24-70 2.8 IS would be nice. However a 24-105 F2.8 with IS would be king! :D

[Billginthekeys]

either one of those lenses would be gigantic.
the 24-70 is huge already
and the 24-105 is meant to be a walk around.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

24-70L is huge enough without IS. It would likely be the size of a 70-200 if it had IS.

[matsuib]

I might buy it. I think the pricing on this lens could be pretty expensive ($1600-1700), in which case I probably couldn't afford it right now, even selling my 24-70.

Also, while the IS would certainly be useful, I'm worried that this mythical lens might weight 8 ounces more and be even longer than a 24-70 (compare the 70-200 2.8 and IS version with respect to size and weight). The EF-S 17-55 is pretty big itself (I think bigger than a 24-105), so imagine what it's full frame equivalent will be size wise. (And a 24-105 f2.8 IS would probably be a monster.)

Now if it's the same size and weight as a 24-70, then I'd be more inclined so long as there is no sacrifice in image quality (and hopefully some improvement -- given how sharp the 17-55 is).

[prep]

Huge?? Sirley you jest... They are piddlers next to the old 28-80L.

Look to Photokina. 24-70 2.8L IS and a 1Ds IIn to hang it on..

Also expect the prices for the Ds, DIIn and the 5D to come down a slab. Nikon d200 is about to be toasted I think. And the D2's.

[darktiger]

17-105L f/2.8 IS would be awesome :)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Yup...that one would be about the size of the 300 2.8, darktiger...lol.

[OdiN1701]

No no no people.

We need a 10-300mm f/1.2L IS DO with the IQ of an 85mm f/1.2L, and the size/weight of that 70-300 DO :P

[matsuib]

No no no people.

We need a 10-300mm f/1.2L IS DO with the IQ of an 85mm f/1.2L, and the size/weight of that 70-300 DO :P

And it should cost the price of a 50 1.8 mk II also!

[OdiN1701]

And it should cost the price of a 50 1.8 mk II also!

Hear hear!

And we should all be given EOS 1Ds MkIII's for free!

[basroil]

Also, while the IS would certainly be useful, I'm worried that this mythical lens might weight 8 ounces more and be even longer than a 24-70 (compare the 70-200 2.8 and IS version with respect to size and weight).

IS only adds about half an inch to the lens in length and width, so it's not that bad... 70-200IS is a great walkaround lens, dunno why people say otherwise :rolleyes:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Huge?? Sirley you jest... They are piddlers next to the old 28-80L.

Do you mean the 28-70mm f/2.8L ?
It was a tiny bit smaller than the 24-70mm actually. Not much though.

Look to Photokina. 24-70 2.8L IS and a 1Ds IIn to hang it on..

[Ronald S. Jr.]

No, CDS. The 28-80 f/2.8-4L. It was very big.


I'm starting to wondering about a 24-70L replacement/competitor. Everyone seems to be selling off their 24-70L's over on FM. I could easily point out a dozen for sale. Never seen that happen. Same with the 1DsMkII right now. At least 4 or 5 of them going right now.

[MrChad]

24-70L is huge enough without IS. It would likely be the size of a 70-200 if it had IS.

I agree, I find the lens way too heavy now.

And imagine the price!!! It would likely push $2000.

[coreypolis]

No, CDS. The 28-80 f/2.8-4L. It was very big.


I'm starting to wondering about a 24-70L replacement/competitor. Everyone seems to be selling off their 24-70L's over on FM. I could easily point out a dozen for sale. Never seen that happen. Same with the 1DsMkII right now. At least 4 or 5 of them going right now.

they always are though, some go to the 24-105 now, others found they didn't need the focal length, more often its people that realized they didn't need the L benefits of 1200 lens when a 300 lens would give them adequate results.

the 1dsIII seem like it will happen, but theres no presedent or need for a 24-70 replacement

[Salleke]

they always are though, some go to the 24-105 now, others found they didn't need the focal length, more often its people that realized they didn't need the L benefits of 1200 lens when a 300 lens would give them adequate results.

the 1dsIII seem like it will happen, but theres no presedent or need for a 24-70 replacement

I shure would like the 24-105 in 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 with IS.
At every prive and dimensions...