24-70 f/2.8 IS?

[Punisher77]

Does anyone think this lens is going to come out in March at PMA07? Does anyone think it would be useful?

[phrogg]

Does anyone think this lens is going to come out in March at PMA07? Does anyone think it would be useful?

We can only hope. I think it would be a great lens for 1.6 crop cameras
like the XT's, 20D and 30D.

[xBtUser]

I hope it will. :)

[NickSimcheck]

I hope it won't.

I'll have to sell my brick just to buy a brick with IS, just because.

[Tom W]

Pending that this would be real (not convinced), and that it presents an image quality as good as, or better than the present 24-70, I'll keep my present brick.

[Treat me like a tourist]

I would buy it, hopefully they would improve the production line quality, i have been put off by the number of people who complain about this lens needing calibration.
IS would be awesome, this is a great focal length for low light street carnivals, IS would help with semi- long shutter speeds.
I would also like to see internal focusing and zoom, however i think this is expecting too much.
you know what it probably wont get launched and i will end up buying the current one anyway!

[MrChad]

I would buy it, hopefully they would improve the production line quality, i have been put off by the number of people who complain about this lens needing calibration.
IS would be awesome, this is a great focal length for low light street carnivals, IS would help with semi- long shutter speeds.
I would also like to see internal focusing and zoom, however i think this is expecting too much.
you know what it probably wont get launched and i will end up buying the current one anyway!

What's stopping you from buying the 17-55mm/2.8 IS that the ideal solution for the 20D, and clearly cheaper then any new 24-70L IS as that model will likely retail for well over $1600 new anyhow.

[Collin85]

I bloody hope so. It's the only reason which is holding me off a 24-70/24-105 right now.

Would be really nice if they made a 28-90 f/2.8 IS. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

[Treat me like a tourist]

The 17-55 as nice as it is, is to darn expensive, and there is little point replicating a focal range that my 17-40 covers, i have my primes for low light work.
Also i am venturing into FF once i hear what canon has in line for this years product release programme.

[Collin85]

The 17-55 as nice as it is, is to darn expensive, and there is little point replicating a focal range that my 17-40 covers, i have my primes for low light work.
Also i am venturing into FF once i hear what canon has in line for this years product release programme.

I originally replaced my kit lens with the 17-40L, simply because I felt I couldn't justify the price of a 17-55. Unfortunately it just didn't work out as a walkaround. I wish it had a slightly longer range at times, was just a little faster at times and had IS for some of my low-light work. Although the 580EX helped in many situations, I still felt somewhat unsatisfied with the lens. Still a great landscape lens though. I ended up getting the 17-55, and it's quite possibly the best purchase I've made. Tack sharp at f/2.8 and so much more versatile than the 17-40L, I now feel it was worth every penny. Just my opinion.

[MrChad]

The 17-55 as nice as it is, is to darn expensive, and there is little point replicating a focal range that my 17-40 covers, i have my primes for low light work.
Also i am venturing into FF once i hear what canon has in line for this years product release programme.


Why buy the 17-40L when it replicates the kit lens?

The 17-55mm is mostly likely targeted to be the ultimate 1.6x APS-C general lens, most likely ideally suited toward the Rebel line, but acceptable for all Canon APS-C bodies; which is likely the reason it is not "L".

I'd hardly call f/2.8 and Image-stablized redundant to many, especially given the extra reach over the 40mm. Again this is likely most important toward those choosing to stick with the APS-C format which despite Canon's marketing is likely acceptable for a great majority of DSLR users.

[mmahoney]

Does anyone think this lens is going to come out in March at PMA07? Yes
Does anyone think it would be useful? Yes again, but at that focal length pretty marginal.
Mike

[Treat me like a tourist]

Why buy the 17-40L when it replicates the kit lens?

The 17-55mm is mostly likely targeted to be the ultimate 1.6x APS-C general lens, most likely ideally suited toward the Rebel line, but acceptable for all Canon APS-C bodies; which is likely the reason it is not "L".

I'd hardly call f/2.8 and Image-stablized redundant to many, especially given the extra reach over the 40mm. Again this is likely most important toward those choosing to stick with the APS-C format which despite Canon's marketing is likely acceptable for a great majority of DSLR users.

Sorry did you just say why replicate the kit lens with the 17-40?? are you kidding me!
The 17-40 is a vast upgrade on the kit lens, i mean have you seen what this lens can do its awesome- and like i said i am buying for the future, i am tired of the small viewfinder- i want 35mm frame sensor. The 17-40 will stay with me, and then my 20 will become a dedicated macro camera.
I know what you were trying to say however. The comparison of repeating the 18-55 with the 17-40 & the repeating of the 17-55 and 17-40 cannot be made- one is similar the other well, you just cant go there :)

Anyway March are we thinking?? hmm! that is good news i think canon really needs to push out lens IS to compete with Sonys pretty much universal full time any lens IS- The 24-70 is the perfect lens, i can see so much use for such a beast!!

[Blue S2]

I wish they would make it zoom in traditional manner. Smaller at 24mm and extended at 70. If they did that, ide sell my 24-105L and buy that instantly!

[Tom W]

I wish they would make it zoom in traditional manner. Smaller at 24mm and extended at 70. If they did that, ide sell my 24-105L and buy that instantly!

That would defeat the purpose of the variable hood depth. You'd be stuck with a hood that was wide enough to accomodate the 24 mm end of the zoom range, and thus would get less shielding at longer focal lengths.

[Blue S2]

Yeah i know...but i spend 80% of my time below 50mm, I would always have it extended!

Then its a heavy, LONG, HUGE, walk around! Lets not attract any attention!

HAHA, oh well. I would love 2.8 as a walkaround. Then again, I got the 35L for my low light walkaround and I absolutely love it.

[joegolf68]

Why buy the 17-40L when it replicates the kit lens?

???

[bsmith6280]

Getting back to the post, does anyone have a solid "rumor" that this might happen?

[MrChad]

???

This was sarcasm to the comment that the 17-55mm EFS is redundant in contrast to the 17-40L. IMO that woud be like saying the 24-105mmL is redundant to the 24-70L.

And yes I know very well what you can do with a 17-40L. :lol:

There is no ryhm or reason to Canon's lens debut's...predicting this lens to have or won't have IS is likely near impossible - has Canon ever debuted a lens rumored in hear when we predicted it, I don't think I say ANY of the last 5 lenses coming...

I clearly wouldn't let the rebates slip by waiting for the IS model in March that may for all purposes never appear.

The downside to the IS model would be if they ever dropped the non-IS. As IS might actually double the MSRP of this lens. And look at how many lens groups had to added to the 70-200/2.8 for IS, can you imagine how complicated a 24-70L IS would be. The lens might actually have to be a 28-70L again just to support the IS system.

You no what lens I'd love to see from Canon, a ~$300 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 USM like the Nikkor 18-70mm DX. I think we have plenty of $1000+ L lenses now, how about some quality glass we could all better afford and fit in our bags without getting a hearnia. No IS, no flourite asperical elements, no weather seals. Just a solid performing, light weight, ring type USM lens for general use.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2149

If Canon would like to suck another $700 out of my pocket this wouldn't be bad either.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2159

And here is a novel comcept include the hood and lens case...

[joegolf68]

This was sarcasm to the comment that the 17-55mm EFS is redundant in contrast to the 17-40L. IMO that woud be like saying the 24-105mmL is redundant to the 24-70L.

And yes I know very well what you can do with a 17-40L. :lol:

There is no ryhm or reason to Canon's lens debut's...predicting this lens to have or won't have IS is likely near impossible - has Canon ever debuted a lens rumored in hear when we predicted it, I don't think I say ANY of the last 5 lenses coming...

I clearly wouldn't let the rebates slip by waiting for the IS model in March that may for all purposes never appear.

The downside to the IS model would be if they ever dropped the non-IS. As IS might actually double the MSRP of this lens. And look at how many lens groups had to added to the 70-200/2.8 for IS, can you imagine how complicated a 24-70L IS would be. The lens might actually have to be a 28-70L again just to support the IS system.

You no what lens I'd love to see from Canon, a ~$300 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 USM like the Nikkor 18-70mm DX. I think we have plenty of $1000+ L lenses now, how about some quality glass we could all better afford and fit in our bags without getting a hearnia. No IS, no flourite asperical elements, no weather seals. Just a solid performing, light weight, ring type USM lens for general use.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2149

If Canon would like to suck another $700 out of my pocket this wouldn't be bad either.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2159

And here is a novel comcept include the hood and lens case...


That's cool, I just didn't get it so thanks for explaining.

Joe

[MrChad]

Getting back to the post, does anyone have a solid "rumor" that this might happen?

We have lots of solid rumors, what we need are some iffy-facts. :p

[JaGWiRE]

I am hoping it comes out too, it'd make a perfect match for my soon to be 70-200 2.8 IS. I do however, wish it was internal zooming (will that ever happen). I think the 24-70 2.8L is very new itself though, and replacing it with an IS version after 5 years might be too soon for Canon (but let's hope not.)

[MrChad]

I am hoping it comes out too, it'd make a perfect match for my soon to be 70-200 2.8 IS. I do however, wish it was internal zooming (will that ever happen). I think the 24-70 2.8L is very new itself though, and replacing it with an IS version after 5 years might be too soon for Canon (but let's hope not.)

The 16-35mm just got replaced with a new 16-35mm, however it doesn't have IS. I would bet a new 24-70L may debut but look for an 82mm front filter as well with new elements for better corner sharpness resolution for FF digital, the IS however, may be a stretch -- with the 24-105mm IS being so close for a good price.

For the cost of IS on the 24-70L, you may be better off simply owning a 24-105 in addition to the current 24-70L.

As is it looks like we will have no new 24-70L until fall if ever.

[JaGWiRE]

The 16-35mm just got replaced with a new 16-35mm, however it doesn't have IS. I would bet a new 24-70L may debut but look for an 82mm front filter as well with new elements for better corner sharpness resolution for FF digital, the IS however, may be a stretch -- with the 24-105mm IS being so close for a good price.

For the cost of IS on the 24-70L, you may be better off simply owning a 24-105 in addition to the current 24-70L.

As is it looks like we will have no new 24-70L until fall if ever.

Well, 82mm is a stretch for me too, I want to share filters for 77mm. I would simply get the 16-35L MK I over MK II for that reason (and price), filters aren't cheap, and although you can use step down rings, I would rather my 3 most expensive lenses (eventually probably 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 is) to be the same size, so 77mm.
What I think would take advantage of IS, canon clearly does not, like the 16-35 even would benefit from IS IMO, I am sure all the landscape photographers and real estate photographers who see a shot and don't have a tripod with them or can't use a tripod would LOVE to be able to shoot at 1/4sec and get the shot.

[MrChad]

Well, 82mm is a stretch for me too, I want to share filters for 77mm. I would simply get the 16-35L MK I over MK II for that reason (and price), filters aren't cheap, and although you can use step down rings, I would rather my 3 most expensive lenses (eventually probably 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 is) to be the same size, so 77mm.
What I think would take advantage of IS, canon clearly does not, like the 16-35 even would benefit from IS IMO, I am sure all the landscape photographers and real estate photographers who see a shot and don't have a tripod with them or can't use a tripod would LOVE to be able to shoot at 1/4sec and get the shot.

If you want a 16-35mmL I think I'd jump soon.

I wouldn't likely use a CPL much on a 16-35mm lens, so for me the cost of filters would mainly be a single 82mm UV filter. I'd likely use Lee style filters for the rest of the filter's and that too would be a single 82mm holder.

I guess when I see a $1400MSRP lens, what's a new filter.

For now I use a 17-40/24-70/70-200 combo; and I'll likely use them long after Canon no longers makes my current version of glass -- FF digital or APS.

[JaGWiRE]

If you want a 16-35mmL I think I'd jump soon.

I wouldn't likely use a CPL much on a 16-35mm lens, so for me the cost of filters would mainly be a single 82mm UV filter. I'd likely use Lee style filters for the rest of the filter's and that too would be a single 82mm holder.

I guess when I see a $1400MSRP lens, what's a new filter.

For now I use a 17-40/24-70/70-200 combo; and I'll likely use them long after Canon no longers makes my current version of glass -- FF digital or APS.

I'll buy a used MK I in the future perhaps. I'll use a CP, ND, psssibly grad ND, and UV probably, so I think getting 77mm is worth it for me as it's a few hundred dollars in filters.

[august23]

Making an IS version might also hinder sales of the 17-55 IS, which would then make two lenses in the same class with similar focal lengths. Sadly, I don't see the 24-70 getting an update, or IS, though I'd love to be dead wrong.

[JaGWiRE]

Making an IS version might also hinder sales of the 17-55 IS, which would then make two lenses in the same class with similar focal lengths. Sadly, I don't see the 24-70 getting an update, or IS, though I'd love to be dead wrong.
Yeah, I think your right about that though.

[Collin85]

Making an IS version might also hinder sales of the 17-55 IS, which would then make two lenses in the same class with similar focal lengths. Sadly, I don't see the 24-70 getting an update, or IS, though I'd love to be dead wrong.

Making a 24-70 IS would be cannibalistic in some way, no doubt. But the 17-55 might actually get the easier end of the stick. The sales detriment should come mainly on the 24-105 and 24-70 non-IS. Those 3 lenses are on the same class, not the 17-55 and 24-70.

[Indecent Exposure]

I wouldn't worry too much about a 24-70L IS cannibalizing 17-55 IS because a. it would be priced outside comparable range and b. I don't think a company cares too much when the cannibalizer is the HIGHER priced item.

And if Canon announced a 24-70L IS, I would preorder yesterday - I have no interest in an EF-S lens, despite my ownership of an APS-C body.

[august23]

I'm with Dekka about the announcement. It's bound to happen someday. When it does, I'll be the first on the list of pre-orders, along with a nice new 40D. :p

[BradT0517]

I dont think it will but I wish it would.

[Mark Goldstein]

Possible news of a Canon EF 24-70mm IS USM lens is buried within a revised press release for the new EOS camera kits.

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/canon_24_70mm_lens_with_image_stabilisation/

Here's the full list of prices for the EOS kits:

http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/new_canon_eos_prices/