24-70mm II

[SchnellerGT]

I am ready to by a 24-70L. If nothing is announced by mid September, I will be happy buying the version currently for sale.

[Tommydigi]

Originally Posted by Jannie

Since the 24-70L is one of my two most favorite lenses, sign me up when it gets an upgrade, if I like the changes, but I'm not expecting anytime real soon, even if they announce that it's coming out next month, it usually ends up being 6 months to a year before it's available enough for me to get one.

If it comes out with IS, which I kind of doubt it will, that's nice but I can't say it's at all necessary, if it doesn't offer somehow a better image then I probably wouldn't do that upgrade. But expectedly they will have to make it even sharper at wide open, how they can improve the rest of the image quality though I don't know because that lens puts out some really beautiful images.

I agree, I feel sorry for those who have waited all these years, I don't know what more you can expect in a zoom. The only thing that would make me really want an upgrade is if they made it lighter.

I still feel the 24-105 is in bigger need of an upgrade. The new 70-300 L delivers much better images and if they can get the 24-105 to that quality I would probably switch.

[gotaudi]

Im going to keep my original 24-70mm I cant imagine canon releasing something that is far superior to the original. mine is incredibly sharp wide open, I don't need/want IS for such a short focal length the only thing I could see if they made the thing out of titanium or something (lighter + stronger) but that will not happen haha

[idkjai]

Originally Posted by gotaudi

Im going to keep my original 24-70mm I cant imagine canon releasing something that is far superior to the original. mine is incredibly sharp wide open, I don't need/want IS for such a short focal length the only thing I could see if they made the thing out of titanium or something (lighter + stronger) but that will not happen haha

+1, I wonder by how much the next version could possibly be.

[Dustman]

Even if it is announced this month, it won't ship to consumers till at least the Holiday time, but probably won't be widley available till after new years at the earliest.

People are still waiting for those new telephotos that were Announced months ago

[timnosenzo]

Originally Posted by idkjai

+1, I wonder by how much the next version could possibly be.

For what it's worth, people said the same thing about the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS when it came out. People wondered how much better it could be, why Canon would bother updating an already amazing lens, speculating that Canon just updated it so they could charge more, etc. Come to find out, the new one is much better. It's an incredible lens, and probably the sharpest zoom out there.

So, if the new 24-70L is as good as the new 70-200, I will definitely be buying it!

[wombatHorror]

Originally Posted by Tommydigi

You all realize he has made this prediction for about 4 years now. I guess one day he is bound to be right

true and others have claimed it for more than that, but this time it will arrive within the next 6 months

[pyrojim]

Originally Posted by timnosenzo

Nikon just announced this lens a year ago. Canon has been nice enough to make an excellent 35mm f/1.4 since 1998!





Another lens that Nikon just announced a year ago, while Canon has had one for 6 years.




Is the hint that Canon should remain years ahead of Nikon?

Considering how fast any company can roll out a new product... It would be a simple change to update their 24-105 to a 24-120...


I am incorrect. The other two lenses listed(albeit one quite ridiculous) have been in full swing for years.



In the camera manufacture and automobile business can you get away with over a years lag time in developing new products... or just updating the ones you already have.

Could you imagine what would happen if apple released an notebook and it was bested by something else with in a year(wait, their product refresh cycles are short)


POINT IS: to let any product stagnate, even if many claim it is with out equal, is not good business. IT IS plain (you know what) laziness.



If they really wanted to get an update out to market. Canon would have it done.


Could you imagine if sigma started weather sealing their primes? update the 30mm from DC to DG... wouldnt be hard, there are plenty of formulas to use. Heck, they could try and make a 24-105 F2.8. THAT I would be happy with being only 105mm at the tele end(the next person saying weight is an issue is getting spammed, dont even say it-weight is not the point, and if you make it the point you are dumb).



I do apologize for the rant and the incorrect statements :P




I hope version 2 is out soon- dont we all?

[s2kennyc]

Originally Posted by timnosenzo

For what it's worth, people said the same thing about the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS when it came out. People wondered how much better it could be, why Canon would bother updating an already amazing lens, speculating that Canon just updated it so they could charge more, etc. Come to find out, the new one is much better. It's an incredible lens, and probably the sharpest zoom out there.

So, if the new 24-70L is as good as the new 70-200, I will definitely be buying it!

I agree. This was along the same lines of what I was thinking. The 24-70 is a good lens. Not a great lens. I would rank it's image quality about par with the original 70-200 2.8 IS.

The new mark II of the 70-200 2.8 is much much better than it's predecesor. And like you Tim, I would pick up a new 24-70 II if it had this jump in quality as well.

[gotak]

Originally Posted by s2kennyc

I agree. This was along the same lines of what I was thinking. The 24-70 is a good lens. Not a great lens. I would rank it's image quality about par with the original 70-200 2.8 IS.

The new mark II of the 70-200 2.8 is much much better than it's predecesor. And like you Tim, I would pick up a new 24-70 II if it had this jump in quality as well.

My current debate. I shoot crop but maybe I'll upgrade to 5D3 if it ever arrives and it's actually a good bump up from the current one. And I also would like to have a fully weather sealed zoom in that "standard" range.

I am suppose to look at a local used 24-70 tomorrow but I am wondering if I should wait. For me the personal incentive is the possibility (even if slim) of the new lens having IS. A lot of people say IS isn't important but just yesterday night I had shots which would have been much harder to pull off without IS. So for me I think IS is important.

And IMHO the biggest difference between the Mk1 70-200 2.8 IS and the mk2? The much improved IS. That is the biggest difference you'll notice with that upgrade. Pretty much as soon as you put it on target you'll notice the difference.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Christ I was perfectly happy with my old 28-70mm f/2.8L
The only reason I "side-graded" to the 24-70mm was I got an unbelievable deal!

[gotak]

Originally Posted by CyberDyneSystems

Christ I was perfectly happy with my old 28-70mm f/2.8L
The only reason I "side-graded" to the 24-70mm was I got an unbelievable deal!

Well I was happy with my mk1 but when I got the mk2 I realize it's like if you always drove a bog standard civic you'll never know what a faster car feels like.

[Indecent Exposure]

Originally Posted by timnosenzo

For what it's worth, people said the same thing about the new 70-200 f/2.8L IS when it came out. People wondered how much better it could be, why Canon would bother updating an already amazing lens, speculating that Canon just updated it so they could charge more, etc. Come to find out, the new one is much better. It's an incredible lens, and probably the sharpest zoom out there.

So, if the new 24-70L is as good as the new 70-200, I will definitely be buying it!

Gladly and without hesitation.

[Paolo.Leviste]

I'd have to see. I was actually thinking of moving up to primes, but it's hard to let my 24-70 go. If it comes with IS though, that might just be enough for me to consider it.

I'd have to wait for sample photos from board members here to push me over the edge. +

[Peacefield]

I just found this thread and thought of the same 70-200 analogy as I read through it. I upgraded to the 70-200 but partly because the IS was that much better. My 24-70 copy is pretty sharp and an accurate focuser. While I don't doubt the II version will be sharper, I can't imagine dropping big money on the upgrade. If I really need something that much sharper than my existing 24-70, well, that's what primes are for.