New 24 - 70 II with IS ( ? ) (rumor)

[Alfresco]

New product seems to be rolling out from Canon

Does anyone know if this lens will ever be made? There's rumours and requests every so often.......(thinking of buying the existing one or should I wait a while?????)

Thanks!

[Megapixle]

There's a forum for rumors (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=84) where there are lengthy discussions on the question you're asking.

[timnosenzo]

This lens has been rumored for as long as I have been reading photography forums. It's definitely not worth waiting for.

[nphsbuckeye]

This lens has been rumored for as long as I have been reading photography forums. It's definitely not worth waiting for.
That and I doubt it would be cheaper than the Nikon.

[Traumuh]

NO!

[liupublic]

Buy a sony body w/ sensor IS and Zeiss' 24-70. ;)

[Rodinal]

There's rumours and requests every so often

In my opinion all those come from clueless people.

[IVIax]

It's been released? Finally!

[STi-R]

very misleading title, you should change it.

[Rodinal]

FYI, there is no such thing as a 24-70 IS.
Therefore, Canon can't possibly be planning a 24-70 IS mk II :)
Chose one or the other for your pipedreaming

[IVIax]

What about now?

[alt4852]

In my opinion all those come from clueless people.

i don't see how improving sharpness and adding something useful like image stabilization was a clueless idea. it's probably as clueless as the idea of a 100mm macro lens with image stabilization. if i cared enough, i'm sure thumbing through the search function would garner scores of people who vehemently claimed that macro lenses would never need image stabilization since you should be mounted on a tripod anyways, and it's ridiculous for the 135L to get image stabilization because anything under 200mm doesn't need it. i guess with the introduction of the 100L, we've finally proven who was actually clueless.

i won't say that a 24-70L IS is in the pipeline, but i don't see anything wrong with speculating how useful it would be and to figure out how much interest there was to get a feel for whether canon would even have a market for it.

[poah]

more chance of me photographing the queen


New product seems to be rolling out from Canon

Does anyone know if this lens will ever be made? There's rumours and requests every so often.......(thinking of buying the existing one or should I wait a while?????)

Thanks!

[IVIax]

Is it available now?

[Rodinal]

i don't see how improving sharpness and adding something useful like image stabilization was a clueless idea.

Really?
How many people complain of 24-70's sharpness?

[alt4852]

Really?
How many people complain of 24-70's sharpness?

no, the question is whether people would mind if it were improved.

prior to the release of the 24L II, who complained about the 24L's sharpness? nobody. but everyone agreed that the updated version is better. having used a 17-55 2.8 IS, i noticed it was noticeably sharper. not enough to make a huge difference, but i wouldn't complain if canon decided to upgrade the 24-70's optics while they're adding new coatings, and possibly installing a 4-stop IS component to it.

does the 24-70 need a refresh? no, not really. would i welcome one if it was moderately priced? you betcha.

[Traumuh]

It will NEVER happen if the 24-105 IS is still in production, end of story! The 100L is actually very useful and I'm reconsidering jumping camps due to its release.

[alt4852]

It will NEVER happen if the 24-105 IS is still in production, end of story!

huh?

[Rodinal]

It will NEVER happen if the 24-105 IS is still in production, end of story!

I agree.
Most people who own the 24-70 never need IS. The 24-105 is a great prosumer product. Canon doesn't need that kind of overlap. Plus, I really doubt they can reproduce the 24-70's quality if they drop in three or four more glass elements. Of course it can be done, but it is worth to spend the R&D money when you consider that the 24-70 still sells very well ?

One last thought: the IS adds 1 lb to the 70-200/2.8L.
I imagine on the 24-70 it'd be roughly the same.
the 24-70 is f*ing heavy (mostly because it's a 2.8 lens). Who wants 1lb more added to it?

[alt4852]

I agree.
Most people who own the 24-70 never need IS. The 24-105 is a great prosumer product. Canon doesn't need that kind of overlap. Plus, I really doubt they can reproduce the 24-70's quality if they drop in three or four more glass elements. Of course it can be done, but it is worth to spend the R&D money when you consider that the 24-70 still sells very well ?

One last thought: the IS adds 1 lb to the 70-200/2.8L.
I imagine on the 24-70 it'd be roughly the same.
the 24-70 is f*ing heavy (mostly because it's a 2.8 lens). Who wants 1lb more added to it?

canon doesn't need that kind of overlap.. just like how they have four 70-200's. those don't overlap right? the first one out the gate was the f/2.8. then they released a second one in the f/2.8 IS. then they overlapped it with the f/4, and now we have the f/4 IS. all of them are running concurrently and don't replace each other.

i don't really buy the more elements means worse image quality either since the 70-200 f/4 IS is significantly sharper than the f/2.8 and it has two extra elements built into it. i think just high quality glass and coatings that are engineered better which cause the greatest increase in image quality. there are eleven years of development separating the two lenses that i just mentioned. the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/2.8 IS both sold very well and continue to, yet they still introduce more models to compliment their lineup. i don't see how standard zooms could potentially any different.

i suppose my point is that the burden of proof lies on the two of you, since you're the ones claiming an absolute when you say that it'll never happen. i'm just suggesting that it's possible, not that it will. just because canon already has a f/4 IS standard zoom doesn't mean that a f/2.8 IS standard zoom is out of the question. it'd just be priced a bit higher (~$2700 perhaps?) and it'd add a fresh new model into the lineup without murdering 24-105L sales. like the 70-200's, if people don't need f/2.8, they won't pay for it, and people who don't want IS won't have to pay for that. judging from the slew of random polls that pop up concerning a hypothetical 24-70 f/2.8 IS, i think it's a bit silly to claim that there's no market for it and nobody would buy it if canon decided to release one.

[J_TULLAR]

well seeing as how the lens was introduced in 2002 I dont see it coming very soon....

[alt4852]

well seeing as how the lens was introduced in 2002 I dont see it coming very soon....

yea, i don't either, but i do see it as a possibility later on down the line when canon decides it needs a refresh. i just don't understand why some people make it sound like the 24-70 is perfect as it is and could not benefit from any improvements or features like image stabilization.

[Rodinal]

canon doesn't need that kind of overlap.. just like how they have four 70-200's. those don't overlap right? the first one out the gate was the f/2.8. then they released a second one in the f/2.8 IS. then they overlapped it with the f/4, and now we have the f/4 IS. all of them are running concurrently and don't replace each other.

You don't seem to realize that IS becomes oftentimes a necessity in telephoto whereas 24-70 isn't a telephoto. 70-200/2.8L is the oldest. Its users asked for IS. No actual 24-70 owner who knows what he's doing ever craved for IS. You seem to see lenses all in a big pile. You don't seem to distinguish the impact of IS on a std zoom vs. the impact of IS on a tele. Try some more.

[Dmab]

You don't seem to realize that IS becomes oftentimes a necessity in telephoto whereas 24-70 isn't a telephoto. 70-200/2.8L is the oldest. Its users asked for IS. No actual 24-70 owner who knows what he's doing ever craved for IS. You seem to see lenses all in a big pile. You don't seem to distinguish the impact of IS on a std zoom vs. the impact of IS on a tele. Try some more.

17-55 has IS...so what do you think Canon's rationale was for that?

[zaathrus]

What would be nice is if someone that knows about lens construction could state whether IS could be added easily to the 24-70. I think wickerprints mentioned something previously about this lens being an odd one due to the overlap between WA & telephoto?

TBH, given the weight of the 24-70 2.8L as it stands, IS wouldn't necessarily be well received, unless the base lens itself was lightened.

[Mark_Cohran]

I've removed a number of Off Topic posts from this thread. While POTN encourages robust and positive discussion, personal attacks and off-topic remarks about other posters are not acceptable. Keep it on topic and keep it respectful and polite.

[J_TULLAR]

Thanks Mark.

But back on topic... would anyone pay an extra 500 bucks for IS and a heavier lens??? I think if they do revise it, it will be like nikon and have extra coatings and probably lighter elements inside.

[jobe1492]

I'd rather see a longer zoom range than IS.

[xMClass]

I've said this plenty of times before and I'll say it again. It does NOT NEED IS. At that focal length IS won't be of much help. You only need IS @ 100mm or more for it to make a huge difference. AND if Canon is going to make this lens it's going to cost what? $700 more? I don't think so.

[alt4852]

What would be nice is if someone that knows about lens construction could state whether IS could be added easily to the 24-70. I think wickerprints mentioned something previously about this lens being an odd one due to the overlap between WA & telephoto?

TBH, given the weight of the 24-70 2.8L as it stands, IS wouldn't necessarily be well received, unless the base lens itself was lightened.

well, the 24-105L is already a blend of wide angle and telephoto and they had no problems implementing it in that lens chassis.

I've said this plenty of times before and I'll say it again. It does NOT NEED IS. At that focal length IS won't be of much help. You only need IS @ 100mm or more for it to make a huge difference. AND if Canon is going to make this lens it's going to cost what? $700 more? I don't think so.

nobody says it NEEDS image stabilization, it's just a matter of whether people could USE it and whether or not they'd PAY for it. no lens needs image stabilization, but there's a reason why people send their 17-55's in for servicing when the IS unit fails. if it were a useless extra function (keep in mind that this lens maxes out at an effective 88mm.. far short of 100mm), nobody would bother with fixing it since they could just turn off the useless feature and use the lens as a 17-55 f/2.8 alone. people who have it, use it. therefore, it's an attractive component that i don't think is out of the question to implement.

i don't know why some people keep on crying out against IS in a lens because they feel as though it's not needed. image stabilization regardless of focal length is not NEEDED, but it makes our lives easier and people will pay for things if it's useful.

[Jannie]

Nikon will come out with a 24-70 2.8 IS and then Canon will and we will buy it. The 24-70L 2.8 and 70-200L 2.8 IS are probably the two most used workhorses for pros and others that Canon sells. Updating is selling to an market that already exists, I imagine at this point it's all about timing, I could bet an IS 24-70 or alternative has been on the drawing boards for quite a while. In addition, new manufacturing will allow for lower production costs hopefully for Canon and that alone can be reason enough to update a lens.

I think many of us are kind of suprised that Canon has come out with a new 100Macro IS "L" series when the other one is such a huge success and I for one am not going to hesitate and get on the bandwagon and buy one without even blinking at the $1049 cost.

If the Hybrid IS technology is a big success, it'll probably be an excuse to update a lot of the most popular lenses.

If they can keep the weight down and up the speed, like a half stop, it'll sell even better or not, considering that probably in five years ISO won't be an issue to discuss anymore as all cameras will be able to shoot in the dark without any noise at all until maybe ISO 50,000, so in a way IS is more important than speed except in cases where bokeh is a needed option to make a lens more delicious to the buyer.