24-70 L "IS"

[strobe monkey]

Any news so far?

Its on the Dutch Canon Price list bundled with 5d MKII (http://www.canon.nl/Images/Canon%20CCI%20advies%20prijslijst%20mei%202009_tcm 16-621024.pdf) page 2.

Google this number: 2764B036AA (http://digitale-cameras.centralpoint.nl/canon/2764b036aa/eos-5d-mark-ii-ef-24-70-is/?promo=19502)

[elysium]

Looks like just a typo to me. If you then scroll down the list, 24-70L USM is there. Would be a nice kit lens. Sadly my wallet would hate me more!

[Familiaphoto]

Would be a great lens and I would buy one but I bet it is a typo and they meant to put in a 24-105 IS.

[Vertigo1]

The fact that they've omitted the "L" and "USM" monikers from the name suggests the "IS" could well be a mistake to me.

[Naturalist]

I hope its a vicious rumor. I can barely afford 24-70L now, let alone with a redesign and $500 IS added to it.

[Rodinal]

This whole f*ing thing that resurfaces every now and then is plain dumb.

Some people believe that adding IS to the 24-70 would keep its legendary quality. Not at all. If you wanna build a 24-70/2.8 IS you gotta redesign the whole lens from scratch. Chances are that none of the glass elements will be kept as such. So what are the chances of re-making the legend when you completely redesign a lens with the same range ?? Pretty thin if you ask me. Engineers know that. Maybe they tried. If they did, they found it doesn't come anywhere near the 24-70...

They did it twice with the 70-200. IQ was on par with both non-IS versions. But that had a marketing rationale behind it: that was the range were obviously more than half of the customers were going to jump on IS versions. Ask yourselves: The 24-70 is $1200. How many people will be ready to spend probably $1600-$1700 for having IS in a range where you don't need it that much? Canon already answered to that... and I presume their answer didn't motivate them to put an engineering team on it.

[JasonRussell]

Ask yourselves: The 24-70 is $1200. How many people will be ready to spend probably $1600-$1700 for having IS in a range where you don't need it that much? Canon already answered to that... and I presume their answer didn't motivate them to put an engineering team on it.
Im sure there would be alot of people who would buy it. Seems like since this subject comes up about once a week that there is atleast some sort of demand for it.

I for one wouldnt buy it because I agree, I dont see a need for IS in a wide focal length. I really dont see why there is a 24-105 with IS. I am buying the 24-70 over the 24-105 because I dont see the need for the IS and would rather have a faster focusing lens than IS for what I shoot.

[weezerfan84]

Exactly. The 24-70 is prime range where you can just get much faster glass. The 70-200 range has primes as well, but they come at a much more expensive price. The cheapest prime in that range is the 200 f2.8, and it cost more than what the 70-200 f/4 cost with non IS. I guarantee no one on this forum will pay $1600 for the 24-70 with IS, when you can get so much more range from the 70-200 2.8 IS.

[Familiaphoto]

I am an advocate of IS on wide focal lengths. I used to own a 17-55 IS and found the IS very beneficial as I needed it when I didn't expect I needed it. To each their own, no everything must have IS.

[Familiaphoto]

I guarantee no one on this forum will pay $1600 for the 24-70 with IS, when you can get so much more range from the 70-200 2.8 IS.

Be careful there...if someone makes it someone will buy it.

[justaf IREMAN]

I'd buy one. Even if canon just stuck a 2 stop IS, it would be plenty and probably not as costly.

[Pasukun]

I would with open arms welcome 24-70L IS, no matter what others think. :)

[Gibbo]

I hope it's not a typo and canon will one day release one. They wouldn't have a shortage of willing people wanting to have one in their bag.

[weezerfan84]

You guys would seriously pay that much extra money just for IS? That is just looney to me, because the only lenses I've owned with IS were the 18-55 and 28-135. Both lenses had much worse issues than just IS. If the 17-55 ef-s lens came without IS, I would be all over it. I just don't want to pay the extra price to have a lens that has IS. If I literally have that much trouble hand holding something, I will buy a flash.

[justaf IREMAN]

You guys would seriously pay that much extra money just for IS? That is just looney to me, because the only lenses I've owned with IS were the 18-55 and 28-135. Both lenses had much worse issues than just IS. If the 17-55 ef-s lens came without IS, I would be all over it. I just don't want to pay the extra price to have a lens that has IS. If I literally have that much trouble hand holding something, I will buy a flash.

What's so looney about it?

Doesn't the 17-55 come with IS? If it does then a non-IS would be cheaper, so you would pay extra for a lens with IS.

[weezerfan84]

I wish they made the 17-55 without IS. It would be considerably cheaper, or they could actually give it an L build, instead of its EF-S build.

[kandyredcoi]

i dont have the steadiest hands but an IS on a 24-70L would be quite pointless IMHO

[weezerfan84]

i dont have the steadiest hands but an IS on a 24-70L would be quite pointless IMHO

Yes, why add $400-500 to a lens in a range that just doesn't need it? To me you would be absolutely crazy to pay $1600 for the 24-70 with IS. I owned it and it just didn't need IS at all.

[nuffi]

Thing about this lens being on so many ppl's wish list.... It is only on there because they think it would be somehting they need. They'll buy it with IS for $500 more than the classic and not even worry about the lower quality of lens. Just because it has IS, so taht *must* make it better, right...?

[cyruz]

the only reason i went with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70 is the IS. if both didnt have or both had it, then it would be the 24-70 hands down. but id need another lens for wider stuff on a 40D, id still gladly buy a second lens in that case.

[Pasukun]

i dont have the steadiest hands but an IS on a 24-70L would be quite pointless IMHO

To you perhaps. But I could always use some IS. :)

Look at it this way.
If 24-70L IS comes out, you can benefit the low prices on 24-70L non-IS. :)

[alt4852]

I guarantee no one on this forum will pay $1600 for the 24-70 with IS, when you can get so much more range from the 70-200 2.8 IS.

considering the nikon and sony versions of the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens are priced around $1600-1800, i'll call your guarantee that canon users won't pay to have it rebuilt and have the addition of image stabilization. it's a vital focal length range and $1600 is pocket change for the versatility and usefulness of a solid, fast, and IS-equipped standard zoom lens. i'm not saying that it's cheap per se, but it's something that will pay for itself in a handful of shoots for any professional that needs it's capabilities.

If I literally have that much trouble hand holding something, I will buy a flash.

shoot an event. steading yourself for slower shutter speeds is a luxury that you don't always have, and flash often alters the mood of many pictures that i aim to take. your argument that flash replaces the need for image stabilization is a bit narrow-minded. if that were the case, who cares about high ISO performance? just use a flash!

Yes, why add $400-500 to a lens in a range that just doesn't need it? To me you would be absolutely crazy to pay $1600 for the 24-70 with IS. I owned it and it just didn't need IS at all.

your experience with the lens doesn't mirror everyone else's. as others have said, live and let live.. and take advantage of deflated 24-70L prices if they release an IS version since you will never want the updated version.

[damnnit]

Going from a Tamron 17-50 to the 17-55 IS I saw a big difference in low light. The 17-55 can do what my 24-70 cant. If they released the 24-70IS I would probably get it, or the 85L.

[weezerfan84]

considering the nikon and sony versions of the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens are priced around $1600-1800, i'll call your guarantee that canon users won't pay to have it rebuilt and have the addition of image stabilization. it's a vital focal length range and $1600 is pocket change for the versatility and usefulness of a solid, fast, and IS-equipped standard zoom lens. i'm not saying that it's cheap per se, but it's something that will pay for itself in a handful of shoots for any professional that needs it's capabilities.



shoot an event. steading yourself for slower shutter speeds is a luxury that you don't always have, and flash often alters the mood of many pictures that i aim to take. your argument that flash replaces the need for image stabilization is a bit narrow-minded. if that were the case, who cares about high ISO performance? just use a flash!



your experience with the lens doesn't mirror everyone else's. as others have said, live and let live.. and take advantage of deflated 24-70L prices if they release an IS version since you will never want the updated version.

I definitely understand, but I doubt Canon is going to redesign the 24-70 just to put IS in it. They would have thought of that when designing the 24-70L to replace the 28-70L.

[kandyredcoi]

To you perhaps. But I could always use some IS. :)

Look at it this way.
If 24-70L IS comes out, you can benefit the low prices on 24-70L non-IS. :)

lol funny guy :D

and if anyone wanted an IS lens in the medium zoom range one could always just pick up a 24-105L IS....right???

[strobe monkey]

lol funny guy :D

and if anyone wanted an IS lens in the medium zoom range one could always just pick up a 24-105L IS....right???

Not always true as the constant f2.8 on the 24-70 is something to consider.

[kandyredcoi]

^i thought IS was good for about 1-2stops?

[JasonRussell]

^i thought IS was good for about 1-2stops?

It is but from researching the 2 lenses in mention, 24-70 vs. 24-105, it looks like the 70 does better in low light when it comes to AF since lenses focus wide open anyway. So if you do alot of shooting in low light and use AF you will also benefit from the 2.8

Everyone always asks for a 24-70 2.8IS why not a 24-105 2.8IS? I would think the extra reach would make that lens much more useful than the 24-70 with IS.

[kandyredcoi]

^gothcha

and yes a 24-105L 2.8 IS would be the best in a perfect LENS world :D

[JasonRussell]

Yep. I would pay $1600 for a 24-105 2.8is haha