Why most of you will end up buying the new 24-70 II

I don't own the older version, but I got to play with it and fell completely in love. So if the new one is just as good or better with IS to boot... YUM!

Tessa wrote in post #13913290
I don't own the older version, but I got to play with it and fell completely in love. So if the new one is just as good or better with IS to boot... YUM!

If you are talking about Canon, the new one does not have IS. The 24-70 2.8 Tamron that's coming out does however.

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #13912926
In this case, I don't think it's as huge of a difference as you are making it out to be. So you're telling me you or the "customers" will be able to distinguish right away a shot that was taken with a 24-70 II vs the mk1? (assuming the mk1 is a sharp copy) Is it a $1000+ worth of difference in picture quality? I certainly don't feel that way, but you def have to pay a lot more to get that top 1% in quality.

I think the difference in this case is small, and might only really matter to those who shoot wide open. We don't know yet.

But my statement was more of a general one. I get tired of people saying equipment doesn't matter. It's a silly argument. Of course equipment matters.

If it didn't, we all would just shoot with smart phone cameras.

I still have sticker shock over the 70-200 mk II. My problem is, as an owner of the mk I, there is no way I can justify spending that much to have an incremental improvement.

mafoo wrote in post #13912355
We know nothing about the <Tamron 24-70 IS> lens yet. How do you know it would be an upgrade?

I agree that if the Tamron turns out to be a complete dog the Canon 24-70 (either version) will remain the top choice. But if it's IQ is close to the Canon 24-70 II it wins based on IS.

Realistically the Canon *will* have better IQ than the Tamron, and some will pick the Canon due to that. But many others will trade a bit of IQ for four-stop IS.

I don't need a fast zoom in that range and I am perfectly happy with my 24-105. Even for the MK1 I never had any cravings. The choice for me was easy - IS was way more important than speed.

It's still only f/2.8, so no thank you. Not fast enough for that range.

jrbdmb wrote in post #13913695
I agree that if the Tamron turns out to be a complete dog the Canon 24-70 (either version) will remain the top choice. But if it's IQ is close to the Canon 24-70 II it wins based on IS.

Realistically the Canon *will* have better IQ than the Tamron, and some will pick the Canon due to that. But many others will trade a bit of IQ for four-stop IS.

I agree, and I would too.

If Canon came out with two lenses: One with IS, and the image quality of the Mk I, and the one they are going to come out with (better image quality, but no IS)....

I would take the one with 4 stops of IS.

***Sits down for the show***

mafoo wrote in post #13913610
If you are talking about Canon, the new one does not have IS.

Oh... it doesn't? That's a shame.

At this time I could no way justify this upgrade. I just bought the 24-70mk1 and think this bad boy is the bomb.

I picked up the flier in a local camera shop here (Japan) about the 24-70 II last Saturday, and I have been waiting for it, so I was kinda excited......but I'm ALSO one of those who was expecting Canon to release it with IS.

I shoot concerts, and though I can/do use a monopod, IS would make life so much easier.

THUS, I'm now going to wait for the Tamron reviews/test shots.
Or, if it's a dog, maybe Sigma will release a new 24-70 with stabilisation before I'm desperate.

IMHO, Canon has screwed-up by the lack of IS in the new 24-70, while simultaneously releasing two wide-angles primes with IS.

skygod44 wrote in post #13913993
IMHO, Canon has screwed-up by the lack of IS in the new 24-70...

To be fair, no one has a 24-70 2.8 with IS. One has now been announced with no release date, or any indication of quality, but that's about it.

My guess is it's a hard problem to solve. Trying to make the IQ better then the Mk I, add IS, and make it affordable enough for people to buy, has got to be challenging.

http://www.pixelatedim​age.com …011/10/a-year-with-sigma/

mafoo wrote in post #13914169
To be fair, no one has a 24-70 2.8 with IS. One has now been announced with no release date, or any indication of quality, but that's about it.

My guess is it's a hard problem to solve. Trying to make the IQ better then the Mk I, add IS, and make it affordable enough for people to buy, has got to be challenging.

Well they did it quite easily with the 17-55 IS, 70-200L 2.8 IS, 24-105 IS (and the list goes on and on..)

Putting IS into the 24-70 can't be rocket science.