OFFICIAL: 24-70L II, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS

Can somebody actually tell me why Canon wouldn't put IS in this lens? It's not like they were looking to cut costs here.

Stone 13 wrote in post #13842290
I disagree, these lenses are relatively slow compared to much cheaper primes in this price range and have IS. Great for recording video with a relatively small DOF and IS helps with the inherently unstable VDSLR form factor.

They definitely seem better suited for video than general photography. I'm sure they'll produce excellent results either way....

Thats how i see it

For still photography, they're too slow for primes at f/2.8 considering you can get a lot of very good very sharp zoom lenses around the same cost..I'm simply not seeing a large reason to drop my money on them....

Ok they're small, Lovely, So is the 28mm f/1.8 which is half the cost and actually really sharp at f/2.8....

Someone mentioned the economy, Kay, Thats not an excuse when Sigma and Tamron who are also in Japan and deal with Japanese currency, Not to mention Nikon, seem to be having no problems producing lenses at reasonable prices for the US market

The only thing I'm wondering is if Canon's costs havnt flown through the roof because their manufacturing capability got wrecked due to the recent disasters in various companies... I know Nikon said they took some heavy losses to flooding

Before someone says "WELL THEY ARENT FOR YOU" Actually they are, I've been looking for a nicer APS-C Standard Equivalent, So I'm interested in just about any prime that pops out in the 28-35mm range, Its just a sad shame Canon has priced these at such a high amount or I actually might have bought one -despite- them being only f/2.8

Only thing I can think of is to cut down on weight.

benesotor wrote in post #13842351
Can somebody actually tell me why Canon wouldn't put IS in this lens? It's not like they were looking to cut costs here.

Well..theoretically what if the IS version would have cost $2800...

benesotor wrote in post #13842351
Can somebody actually tell me why Canon wouldn't put IS in this lens? It's not like they were looking to cut costs here.

My guess is probably size and weight, They actually managed to make it lighter then the original so I am guessing IS would have increased the weight and size quite a bit.

My guess is the prices of these will settle closer to $600. Canon's list prices are always very high

i was debating between a new camera or lens. in my case i may go for a 5dmkii or a mkiii? who knows will see.. these canon guys really... man thats damn overpriced imo

I haven't seen so much grief, moaning and crying since the Kennedy assassination. It's a stupid lens dudes with alternatives galore ...

pixel_junkie wrote in post #13842414
I haven't seen so much grief, moaning and crying since the Kennedy assassination. It's a stupid lens dudes with alternatives galore ...

and it's a mid-range zoom...ugh

yeah, such an (un)exciting lens line up from Canon this year. Hopefully, there will be more interesting announcements from Canon soon.

Just vote with your wallet - Canon is not immune to revenue drop-offs. It is the ONLY way they will ever listen to their customers/

Here's a quote made yesterday by prominent wedding photographer, Tony Hoffer. This is in regards to a new 24-70. He said, "No need for IS... Cameras go to like ISO 40 million now..."

In my experience, it's effectively true.

tgara wrote in post #13841719
My thoughts exactly. I paid less than $1000 for my 24-70 f/2.8 about 4 years ago (new from B&H with a rebate). I sent it to Canon last summer for a "tune up" and it came back sharper than when it was new. It's the lense I use about 75% of the time.

If the new model had IS, the choice for me would be more difficult, but as it stands, the marginal performance gain of the MkII and the slightly reduced weight (145g) are not significant enough to offset the lack of IS and larger filter size requirement.

Same here... I'm poor so I've been collecting "classic" versions of L lenses hahaha.. I currently have 16-35 mki, 24-70 mki, 24L mki, 15 FE v1, 300 f2.8 is mki, and the soon-to-be mki, 35L, hahah ...in a few years the 70-200 MKII will get upgrade and I have another classic too.

KenjiS wrote in post #13842366
For still photography, they're too slow for primes at f/2.8 considering you can get a lot of very good very sharp zoom lenses around the same cost..I'm simply not seeing a large reason to drop my money on them....

What zoom lens has full frame 24mm coverage, f/2.8, USM and IS? The newly-announced Tamron is the only one I can think of. I'm sure it will have a lot more barrel distortion at the wide end than a prime.

Doesn't really qualify as "a lot".


These lenses do have a place. Again, I think most are upset because they don't fit their specific wants.

Tommydigi wrote in post #13842259
I think size is a big factor, with a lot of people looking at 4/3 etc I think this could be a pretty cool lens. I can see using a rebel with the new 24 over a 4/3 camera. If I didn't have the 24L I would be very interested but still I am somewhat curious to see this one. I really could use a small portable option but I wish they did a new 35 over the 28.

I agree size is a factor, but the 28/1.8 is fairly small making an alternative to the fairly chunky and expensive 24L and 35L (this was my logic for getting it). I just hope they don't retire the 28/1.8 etc.

Clearly adding IS to a f1.8 would make the front element huge. However, digital bodies, even the smaller crop ones, are quite big compared to the old FD film bodies, so below a certain limit it's probably not that important.

Presumably this is also why the 24-70 II does not have IS (I seem to remember this being a wish list for some), but price wise it would have been easier to absorb.

Most people want a prime to be fast though, specially in this focal length range. I just don't see the application however for these quite expensive f2.8 primes. Video perhaps.

DavidG. wrote in post #13842473
Here's a quote made yesterday by prominent wedding photographer, Tony Hoffer. This is in regards to a new 24-70. He said, "No need for IS... Cameras go to like ISO 40 million now..."

In my experience, it's effectively true.

This true, IS is becoming less relevant for a given application due to ISO improvements, but it would open up new applications. I think the real reason would be the increase in the front element size being impractical in weight and cost terms. Notice the larger front element on the 100L IS macro compared to the 100 USM macro.

I did expect the 24-70 II to grow a bit of longer focal length, the 24-105 is a very flexible range, I though they may stretch the new 24-xx to say 24-85 or 24-90. I suspect that would have been a good sales getter.

But whatever we think Canon must feel there is a good market for these lenses, they are not stupid and will have done the market research even if it does not always look like it.