24-70 MkII Patent In the Wild

If the push toward DSLR video has any influence on Canon's lens line-up (which it already kind of does), then the 24-70 replacement will have IS. The 17-55 IS is extremely popular in the DSLR video field, but is not usable with full frame cameras. The 24-105 IS satisfies the full-frame users, but the max aperture is f/4. A 24-70 2.8 IS would definitely be a hot item for videographers.

bigcountry wrote in post #11392002
are people willing to pay $1800-$2000 for this lens w/ IS?

Nikon sells theirs, w/o IS, for the mid 1700's (street) already.

http://www.amazon.com …ikkor-Angle/dp/B000VDCT3C

So, yes, people would pay.

If this has IS I might have to loo into this

does anyone know anything about a possible release date?

I find it interesting that so many think IS is not necessary.

Well, it depends on the photography style. Many photograph people or other moving things. You need shutter speed for these objects. I suspect many who photograph people and the like think IS is a waste of time. For them, this would be the case.

But for photographers like me who prefers still life or landscape photography... IS is tremendously useful because I can shoot at a much lower shutter speed and lower ISO and still get sharp pictures. I have shot in dim conditions with my 24-105mm f/4 IS at only 1/20 and ISO 3200 and got really sharp, bright pictures. With that experience, I will never buy a lens without IS unless its a lens with apertures faster than f/2. And EVEN those fast lens can benefit from IS.

IS also smoothens out video, too. So like it or not, almost all lens will come out with IS from now on. I am looking forward to it. I will pay up. This is a bonus for those who hate IS - you then can buy used lens with no IS for less...

I know what you mean, Yesac13. I used to be one that thought that IS wasn't necessary at these shorter focal lengths - and truthfully, most of the time, it is not. But since I got my 24-105 a few days ago, and with the 28-135 I previously had, I'm finding that I am using IS quite a bit for just the kinds of shots that you mention. Last night, I shot one of those 1/20 second ISO 3200 shots at 99 mm focal length with the 24-105. My odds of getting a good, sharp result at those shutter speeds have gone up considerably with the IS.

If Canon can make a 24-70 f/2.8 IS that retains the smooth bokeh and functionality of the present 24-70 (and perhaps improves corner performance at the wide end at f/2.8), I will probably buy it. Maybe not in the first few months, but eventually.

Well Said X 10 !!

Yesac13 wrote in post #11439783
I find it interesting that so many think IS is not necessary.

Well, it depends on the photography style. Many photograph people or other moving things. You need shutter speed for these objects. I suspect many who photograph people and the like think IS is a waste of time. For them, this would be the case.

But for photographers like me who prefers still life or landscape photography... IS is tremendously useful because I can shoot at a much lower shutter speed and lower ISO and still get sharp pictures. I have shot in dim conditions with my 24-105mm f/4 IS at only 1/20 and ISO 3200 and got really sharp, bright pictures. With that experience, I will never buy a lens without IS unless its a lens with apertures faster than f/2. And EVEN those fast lens can benefit from IS.

IS also smoothens out video, too. So like it or not, almost all lens will come out with IS from now on. I am looking forward to it. I will pay up. This is a bonus for those who hate IS - you then can buy used lens with no IS for less...

Yesac13 wrote in post #11439783
But for photographers like me who prefers still life or landscape photography... IS is tremendously useful.

there's this fancy new accessory out there for you.
maybe you've heard of it...
it's called...

a tripod?!

don't get me wrong, I love IS and would love a 24-70 2.8 IS, but not for stills or landscapes. Those should both be done with tripods unless the venue doesn't allow them IMHO. I want IS for panning shots and shots taking FROM a moving object (boat)... There it's amazing.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #11452695
Those should both be done with tripods unless the venue doesn't allow them IMHO.

dont know about you but i surely dont want to bring a tripod everytime i go out and shoot landscape.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #11452695
there's this fancy new accessory out there for you.
maybe you've heard of it...
it's called...

a tripod?!

don't get me wrong, I love IS and would love a 24-70 2.8 IS, but not for stills or landscapes. Those should both be done with tripods unless the venue doesn't allow them IMHO. I want IS for panning shots and shots taking FROM a moving object (boat)... There it's amazing.

venue? everytime i want to take my camera out to dinner at a lowlit restaurant i should take a tripod?

justinp85 wrote in post #11497573
everytime i want to take my camera out to dinner at a lowlit restaurant i should take a tripod?

I would hold off until at least the second date.

Tom W wrote in post #11499085
I would hold off until at least the second date.

ya i usually don't pull out the 3rd leg till the 2nd date..

jacobsen1 wrote in post #11452695
there's this fancy new accessory out there for you.
maybe you've heard of it...
it's called...

a tripod?!

don't get me wrong, I love IS and would love a 24-70 2.8 IS, but not for stills or landscapes. Those should both be done with tripods unless the venue doesn't allow them IMHO. I want IS for panning shots and shots taking FROM a moving object (boat)... There it's amazing.

Just for your info. Many buildings, schools, theaters, venues, dance halls, restaurants etc.. DO NOT allow tripod!

Also, many places in big cities like NYC probibit the use of tripod. For example, you are absolutely not allowed to take pictures with tripod in the Rockefeller Center area. A 24-70 2.8 IS Zoom is very handy when you are out there taking pictures of the big Christmas tree, and your family, friends, clients...

nonick wrote in post #11501079
Just for your info. Many buildings, schools, theaters, venues, dance halls, restaurants etc.. DO NOT allow tripod!

Also, many places in big cities like NYC probibit the use of tripod. For example, you are absolutely not allowed to take pictures with tripod in the Rockefeller Center area. A 24-70 2.8 IS Zoom is very handy when you are out there taking pictures of the big Christmas tree, and your family, friends, clients...

That is why the dark side made 16-35 f/4.0 VR.

but thats only f/4.0, very slow. anything smaller than f/2.8 is slow, IMO, and it doesn't give enough narrow DoF(~6' if standing 10' away) for that range.

how if it's 16-35 f/2.8 VR, that's a completely different story with the overall design and final product.

KY707 wrote in post #11576852
That is why the dark side made 16-35 f/4.0 VR.