IS there a Canon EF 24-70L f/2.8 WITH Image Stabilisation being released soon ?

[naford]

Hi all,

Just seen somewhere on this forum, that a member had heard a rumour, just a rumour, that there may be an Image Stabilising version of this lens released in 2010.

If it's true, then I may wait till next year and buy it, but if not next year, may have to go for the NON IS version.

Just thought someone out there may have Canon connections and know whether this rumour is true or not ?

As always, cheers for taking the time to reply.

[FlyingPhotog]

When you know, we'll all know. ;)

Even if an IS version were released tomorrow, the current non IS version is still an outsanding photographic tool and would continue to be such.

You can turn blue holding your breath or you can get the lens that best suits your needs right now.

FWIW, Canon glass is enjoying very good re-sale value so even if Canon did suprise everyone with an IS version in the near future, recently purchased non IS versions would resell for a fair percentage of their original value.

[naford]

Take on board your valid point and agree that resale value of Canon glass is good, but it would be a little bitter sweet to invest now and then find early 2010 that IS appeared on the scene !

[FlyingPhotog]

Take on board your valid point and agree that resale value of Canon glass is good, but it would be a little bitter sweet to invest now and then find early 2010 that IS appeared on the scene !

And between now and whatever that magical date may be, how many shots will you miss?

FWIW, I bought my 40D about a month before the 50D was released. Yup, read the rumors and everything but I couldn't have cared less because I had an immediate need for a crop body to replace the 20D I'd sold.

If you honestly don't need a 24-70, then by all means, wait. But I don't really think anyone will have solid info on an IS version. Been here a while now and I've yet to see any WAG turn into truth.

[naford]

Got ya, think it is time to get on the internet, find the best price and jump ! You can, as they say, wait forever on this sort of thing, like waiting for any new technology I guess.

Cheers again for your help.

[jra]

For what it's worth...the IS rumor for the 24-70 has been going around for a number of years now. That's not to say they won't eventually release an IS version but it may not be anytime soon....then again it may.

[Lacks_focus]

Wonder what an IS version of the 24-70 would cost, how much bigger and heaver would it be? I bought my 24-70 a few years ago from a member here for $900. It is in as excellent condition now as when I bought it. I'll bet I could get more than I paid for it faster than I could stuff it in a box if I was ever crazy enough to sell it. Buy the current version now if you think you need an L lens at that FL. I’m really trying to remember a time I would have EVER needed IS while using that FL. Can't really think of one personally. Your requirements may be different, but different enough to pay what's likely to be a pretty hefty $$$ increase? The cost to weight to value thing may be what’s keeping Canon from putting one out there. As has already been said, the 24-70 IS rumor has been bouncing around for a long time.

[mikeymike]

biggest mistake i have ever made, sold my 24-70 2.8 ........

[dipps]

i am almost CERTAIN an IS version will come out in early 2010, because i went and bought the non-IS version in late 2009.

[naford]

Lol,

Yes, I am almost CERTAIN too that the moment I click BUY on a website to get the Non version, that it's twice as likely then that 2010 will see a new lens, possibly even in December 09 !!!

[Collin85]

Lol,

Yes, I am almost CERTAIN too that the moment I click BUY on a website to get the Non version, that it's twice as likely then that 2010 will see a new lens, possibly even in December 09 !!!

And if you don't click Buy, it won't come out. So 'take one for the team', buy one, so this damn thing will finally come out! ;):lol:

[Agged]

Hit the gym! That thing will be heavy. :D

[JPayne]

Is the IS really 'that' big a deal on that focal length to justify the extra cost the IS version would be, if they released one?

Personally I'd save the IS technology for the longer lengths such as the 70-200 but then that's just me and it does depend on what your hoping to be shooting.

[snyderman]

If so, maybe mine can be 'retrofitted' with the IS feature! The lens would certainly see more action on the camera is it were IS today.

dave

[Collin85]

Is the IS really 'that' big a deal on that focal length to justify the extra cost the IS version would be, if they released one?

For me, that's a massive 'yes'. The 17-55 is the most useful, versatile lens I've ever owned, partly due to the IS. The stabilisation allows for obviously slower shutter speeds, as well as helping to aid the keeper rate at shutter speeds faster what is necessary.

I never got the 'useful at this FL?' argument. Point is, 3-4 stops of IS is 3-4 stops, regardless of FL.

[tcc]

i am almost CERTAIN an IS version will come out in early 2010, because i went and bought the non-IS version in late 2009.
lol...I just bought mine yesterday :D :(

[JPayne]

For me, that's a massive 'yes'. The 17-55 is the most useful, versatile lens I've ever owned, partly due to the IS. The stabilisation allows for obviously slower shutter speeds, as well as helping to aid the keeper rate at shutter speeds faster what is necessary.

I never got the 'useful at this FL?' argument. Point is, 3-4 stops of IS is 3-4 stops, regardless of FL.

Agreed, and it's not really something I've thought much about. Camera shake at higher focal lengths is obviously going to be greater, hence the need for better stablilsation, but then I don't really use my shorter focal lengths for that purpose any more. Subjects are usually well lit and shot around F9 so IS doesn't bother me.

I get your point, and it is valid, I just wondered what the OP would be using the lens for and if it mattered to him/her so much.

[Pearlallica]

IS would be nice. Not sure how effective it would be be at such wide focal lengths. With a 21 megapixel camera I'm sure the difference would be apparent when pixel peeping. But for 4x6 - 8-12 prints I don't think the price jump for IS would be necessary given wider gap for cheating sharpness. But I've gotta say, when I shoot weddings and I'm snapping away like mad, I do a lot of breath holding to steady the cam. That can get pretty physically taxing rather quickly. My telephoto with IS relieves me of this burden... so yeah, maybe I would consider the upgrade if it ever were to become available.

I can't help but think an IS version of the brick would unbalance canon's product line and tamper with sales of the 24-105L. but maybe not.. since there are so many versions of the 70-200L

[naford]

Hi all, I am the OP, my real reason for choosing that lens is that I currently have 17-85 EF-S lens and invariably, even with the IS on this, when I am taking shots in houses, people at parties sort of thing, I don't get pin sharp pictures, I was hoping that better glass and the 2.8 (rather than 3.5 on 17-85) would help this issue. I am relatively new to photography so could be way of the mark with my logic though !

[JPayne]

Hi all, I am the OP, my real reason for choosing that lens is that I currently have 17-85 EF-S lens and invariably, even with the IS on this, when I am taking shots in houses, people at parties sort of thing, I don't get pin sharp pictures, I was hoping that better glass and the 2.8 (rather than 3.5 on 17-85) would help this issue. I am relatively new to photography so could be way of the mark with my logic though !#

Have you thought about investing in a flash instead? you could use this indoors either direct, diffused or bounced. F2.8 would allow you to shoot better in lower light but you will get a shallow depth of field. If this is something you are comfortable with then great but if not it can lead to alot of wasted shots that seem somewhat out of focus. Also, F2.8 still isn't 'that' wide so it could be money wasted.

A flash on the other hand would give you sufficient light for you to shoot at a smaller aperture and get sharp images with everything in focus. It would also be a great learning tool.

Just another option though.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I have to put this toon here before it becomes out of date:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_-WVdbQVNaK0/SvpHk7ulaqI/AAAAAAAABYs/i2lrcSque4w/s912/Stealthy%20Mythical.jpg

[lancebroad]

Personally, I dont think IS would be of that much benefit really to the people who are the hardcore buyers of the lens.

Do you actually realise the IS is just for your hand shake, doesnt compensate for movement of the subject? I ask myself that alot when I see people asking for IS on a lens with a FL like this. I prefer to use a monopod and shoot that way. *shrug*

[krepta]

Personally, I dont think IS would be of that much benefit really to the people who are the hardcore buyers of the lens.

Do you actually realise the IS is just for your hand shake, doesnt compensate for movement of the subject? I ask myself that alot when I see people asking for IS on a lens with a FL like this. I prefer to use a monopod and shoot that way. *shrug*What you say is true, but an additional benefit of having IS is the stabilized image in the viewfinder. Personally, I find that this helps a lot with image composition. Even if I have enough light such that I don't really need IS and can use fast shutter speeds to stop motion, I like seeing the stabilized image in the viewfinder while I compose the shot. I guess some people might not care for this, but I am sure there are plenty who do. :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

While on the wide end of this lens IS isn't really necessary. On the long end there are times it will help.

Monopods are not the only fruit to answer the call of mixed metaphors. :shock:

[Fidelity]

Wonder what an IS version of the 24-70 would cost, how much bigger and heaver would it be?

Judging by the addition of IS to the 70-200 f/4, I'd say a new 24-70 f/2.8 IS would weigh 1.8 oz. (0.11 lbs.) more, and cost 89% ($1100) more. Total price ~ $2300. But, seeing there is a psychological barrier at $2k, I wouldn't be surprised if they squeeze it under $2k.

[Stealthy Ninja]

Judging by the addition of IS to the 70-200 f/4, I'd say a new 24-70 f/2.8 IS would weigh 1.8 oz. (0.11 lbs.) more, and cost 89% ($1100) more. Total price ~ $2300. But, seeing there is a psychological barrier at $2k, I wouldn't be surprised if they squeeze it under $2k.

Wow... I'd still buy it, it would just take a month or two more. :lol:

[amfoto1]

Who cares.

Even if they do come out with a 24-70/2.8 IS, I'll stick with the non-IS version. I can hand hold it just fine. I think it would be a waste 'o' money putting IS on a lens like this. (And I think it's a waste on a 17-55, too... Which seems to send a whole lot of them back in for repair, in fact.)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Who cares.

Even if they do come out with a 24-70/2.8 IS, I'll stick with the non-IS version. I can hand hold it just fine. I think it would be a waste 'o' money putting IS on a lens like this. (And I think it's a waste on a 17-55, too... Which seems to send a whole lot of them back in for repair, in fact.)

I care. Then again, I don't own the current one. :p

I checked out your photos too, it seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) you mainly do outdoor stuff (in sunlight) or use a flash. That's not exactly the situation that requires IS. :)

That's a reported problem on the 17-55 (failing IS). You don't get many L lenses with IS having IS failing (AFAIK). So that argument isn't too valid here.

When I had the 17-55, the IS did help with certain shots (indoors, non moving subjects or times I needed/wanted a lower shutter speed), just like the IS does help with macro on the 100 2.8L IS macro (despite what some say about it being "useless" for macro, I know there is a difference).

Sure you can hand hold the 24-70 most of the time, I agree. But there are definitely times IS helps in that range (especially the long end).

[DStanic]

Who cares.

Even if they do come out with a 24-70/2.8 IS, I'll stick with the non-IS version. I can hand hold it just fine. I think it would be a waste 'o' money putting IS on a lens like this. (And I think it's a waste on a 17-55, too... Which seems to send a whole lot of them back in for repair, in fact.)


I think that's the reason the majority of people buy the lens. Otherwise they could go for the cheaper Tamron or spend a little more and get the 24-70.

[Lowner]

Steathly Ninja,

War Pony? More like Barbies pet. Lets see one of Gengis Khans, attitude and all!

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^^ LOL some people jsut don't appreciate irony.
:p

The ironing is delicious (as Bart says).

[theslip]

the rumor says next week

[DStanic]

Well the 70-200 f/2.8 IS version II is suppose to be $2499 ( list price Canon USA) I'm sure this would be up there as well...

[Kris_2020]

I have no problems with waiting for the 24-70 IS. I had the 24-70 and it did very poorly at night shots so I got the 24-105 IS and have been very happy with it for 4 years. Once the 24-70 IS is out I will be saying good bye to the 24-105 IS

[Stealthy Ninja]

You know, I am not sure if I will keep my 24-105 after I get a 24-70 IS (if it comes out) I guess it depends how much I miss the 70-105 gap. I will have a 70-200 by then (mounted on a 1.3 crop)...

[timbop]

You know, I am not sure if I will keep my 24-105 after I get a 24-70 IS (if it comes out) I guess it depends how much I miss the 70-105 gap. I will have a 70-200 by then (mounted on a 1.3 crop)...

When mounted on a 21MP 5dm2, I don't think those 35mm will make much of a difference. Crop and you'll still have plenty of pixels - at least that's my plan

[KayakPhotos]

If IS wasn't useful in this focal length, there wouldn't be so many people complaining about having to sell the 17-55 when they move up to FF. Not that IS is absolutely necessary, but it sets that lens apart from the rest in this focal length.

[1move]

I sure hope it comes out I have been waiting a long time

[Stealthy Ninja]

When mounted on a 21MP 5dm2, I don't think those 35mm will make much of a difference. Crop and you'll still have plenty of pixels - at least that's my plan

Yeh, that's what I was thinking. Still I am using sRaw1 more often than not. Still, step or two forward I suppose... though decreasing the distance will affect the perspective, I think 70mm is OK for portraits etc. Plus the 2.8 will give a shallower DOF over the 24-105.

[1move]

Called my "source" and it is confirmed :D

[Stealthy Ninja]

Called my sauce and it's condiments.

[RWatkins]

Canon 2/23 announcement: New ImagePROGRAF Printers. :neutral:

Just stick the knife in a little more Canon. While you're at it, pull it out, put salt on the blade, and stick it back in.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/new-imageprograf-printers/#more-3730

[Stealthy Ninja]

Wow. IF that's really it...

[datadump]

UAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ok i guess i'll go buy someone's 2470L in the forsale forum

[Stealthy Ninja]

Wait dude. It's not the 23rd in Canada yet. :p

[Tom W]

It is now!

No announcement. Guess I'll suffer with my present equipment for a while longer. :)

[amoergosum]

Canon 2/23 announcement: New ImagePROGRAF Printers. :neutral:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/new-imageprograf-printers/#more-3730


...:(

[1move]

WTF Canon? WTF source? This sucks!

[krepta]

Woohoo! New ImagePROGRAF printers!!...

I'm bummed. :(

[thatkatmat]

Don't worry, Canon will announce another announcement, then everyone can speculate how much the new IS version will cost and if it will fit in their bags......I want one....but, my non-IS is doing the job very well.

[iFloyd]

I agree with everyone on here--you will miss out on so many opportunities because of the 'what if...' factor. Even if the IS version is released soon, you'd want to wait a couple of months for a few reviews, or at least that's what I would do.

[krepta]

I agree with everyone on here--you will miss out on so many opportunities because of the 'what if...' factor. Even if the IS version is released soon, you'd want to wait a couple of months for a few reviews, or at least that's what I would do.I agree, this is true for many people who want and sort of need the lens as soon as possible but are anxious about a new version. In my case, though, I do not need the 24-70 at all. Since I'm not on FF yet, my 17-55 (and the rest of my lineup) is perfect for my current needs. The 24-70, current or newer version, is just a lens I want to own someday when the need justifies the purchase (or if I win the lottery). So I'd be excited to see a new version II, with or without IS, because it could potentially be the lens I will purchase in the future. But I'm definitely not missing on any opportunies in the present with the tools I already have! :)

[Stealthy Ninja]

^^ Agreed. It's not a lens I particularly need (the current one) but if a new one comes out I'll probably get it.

[Tom W]

Interesting - the 24-70 is parked on my 5D2 most of the time, and I get a good deal of use out of it. I've been thinking about adding a 24-105 to the collection due to the extended range. At events, sometimes 70 just isn't long enough.

[1move]

I had the 28-70, and sold that so I can upgrade now I am without my most used lens. Epic FAIL!!! Hahaha I can still wait a month or so, or get a tripod instead for now. We will see, arent they making another announcement in March?

[Herdinohio]

When it will come out? I cannot wait!!!!

[thatkatmat]

When it will come out? I cannot wait!!!!

I think it will be out next Septober

[Herdinohio]

I think it will be out next Septober
...............Sigh.

[fi20100]

LOL... yeah, the 24-70L IS will come out in September together with the Canon EOS 3D! :) I love how everybody know for certain that something will happen... and some even sell their current gear for predictions and rumors.

[Stealthy Ninja]

LOL... yeah, the 24-70L IS will come out in September together with the Canon EOS 3D! :) I love how everybody know for certain that something will happen... and some even sell their current gear for predictions and rumors.

I sold a kidney because I heard a new liver is coming out.

Can't wait.

;)

[MMX]

Yesterday I spoke to a shopkeeper in Dublin. He said that there was some info about new products a week ago, but no 24-70 L IS was mentioned.

[amoergosum]

From Canon Rumors (CR2 source):

"EF-24-70 f/2.8L IS (CR2)
This info comes from a known source who’s been right a couple of times.
The new 24-70 is “done” and is in the hands of the marketing department for release. There is still no timetable."

[timbop]

From Canon Rumors (CR2 source):

"EF-24-70 f/2.8L IS (CR2)
This info comes from a known source who’s been right a couple of times.
The new 24-70 is “done” and is in the hands of the marketing department for release. There is still no timetable."

And that "confirmed rumor" isn't worth the electrons its printed on. If you look at their history, he has a decent average with "cr3", but cr1 and 2 are just wild speculation in general. Every once in a while they're right, but not very often

[snowboarder]

Agree. Even if the lens is ready, it will be released together with 1Ds IV,
which might happen anytime between now and the end of next year...

[alt4852]

And that "confirmed rumor" isn't worth the electrons its printed on. If you look at their history, he has a decent average with "cr3", but cr1 and 2 are just wild speculation in general. Every once in a while they're right, but not very often

CR2 rumor from 02.18.10:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/whats-coming-next-week-cr2/

;)

[timbop]

CR2 rumor from 02.18.10:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/whats-coming-next-week-cr2/

;)

yes, and look back in the history and you'll see the 1d4 was on imminent release at least 4 times starting in august '09