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

Lester Wareham wrote in post #13842557
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.

even for video, giving up all that light..... well that sucks. Might as well get a cheap crop and slap on a 17-50 sigma with OS.

I'm spending my upgrade money on a Nikon D800E.

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 ...

where were you during the 1st week of flip-LCD and video mode?

chardog wrote in post #13842618
Might as well get a cheap crop and slap on a 17-50 sigma with OS.

you can't be serious.

IS or not, I don't care. Over $2,000 for a mid-range zoom is a ton.

Now...lets say Canon is really trying to ensure the "L" lenses are for "Professionals" who don't think twice at the price of a lens. Fine. Then where are our quality offerings below the "L" lenses? What have we had recently, a very nice 15-85mm, and what else?? 24mm & 28mm 2.8 IS??

I feel like Canon is ignoring the "prosumer" and unless you're a paid professional who will buy the newest stuff no matter what, or an amateur who goes to Costco to buy a Rebel kit in a box, you're out of luck.

They offered the 24 and 28 IS lenses to scratch the itch of those wanting IS for the 24-70.

Not sure why they didn't offer for the 24-70 though. Don't get it.

Agree - this prosumer wants a new 50 1.4 and 85 1.4.

No. I think they have finally realized that L glass is a status item. The DSLR market has become so huge that fashion and status are clearly important to some people. So they can get away with a $2300 midrange zoom without IS just fine because they feel that 1.) Plenty will buy it just to have the latest most expensive lens....Kind of like a $600 purse....and that 2.) The IS version was apparently so heavy that they didn't thing people would want to buy it in such huge numbers.
The sad thing is - I bet they are right. For every one of us who may have paid $600 less for one and won't pay this price, or that would have paid for IS there is surely some fool gearhead out there willing to buy this one - and possibly two fool gearheads.
So it's a gamble, yes. But then after they make the money from the fools, there's no reason they can't go stick a $600 rebate out there to capture the rest of the market.

If it had IS and was 2 pounds heavier and $500 more folks would complain about that too. Lots of lens options out there so if these are not for you, don't buy them. why get upset.

gocolts wrote in post #13842821
I feel like Canon is ignoring the "prosumer" and unless you're a paid professional who will buy the newest stuff no matter what, or an amateur who goes to Costco to buy a Rebel kit in a box, you're out of luck.

well but let me ask you what should canon make to make sense from business point of view? (i.e., no, they're not going to sell you a 24-70 f/2.8 IS for $500).

kfreels wrote in post #13842912
So they can get away with a $2300 midrange zoom without IS just fine

Nikon's $1900 right now, so why shouldn't they?

Also don't compare street price with MSRP.

I don't see the point for IS on wide(r) lenses like the 24-70, especially at f/2.8 and with high-ISO. Sure it's nice, but I'd rather have a smaller, lighter and cheaper lens. Okay, it might be great for video... But I have no interest in that (and what video cameras are for).

Maybe Canon should offer free diapers with their announcements, every body in here pooped their pants. What a sight!

Go buy something else, sheesh. Why **** about things you can't change??? Do you cry when it rains and you can't play outside, too?

Are you all shareholders in the company? Probably should have bought stock instead of your T2i....lol.

Then ask the "government" to print some money....oops, someone missed Economics class....

Ah, just having fun with ya.

yep, lotta money for a short zoom, but if Canon release a 5D3 with 25+ MP and 50,000+ ISO and this lens can resolutionize (is that a word?) the sensor then its a whole different ball game.
The ISO ratings and lack of noise now are moving up to maybe making IS obsolete in the future, perhaps this is Canon's forward thinking???

Although what I will say here will most likely get lost in this enormous thread, there are a few things to really keep in mind. And this is all coming from someone who has been waiting for a very long time for the update to the 24-70 and hoping it would have IS:

1) Canon is thinking LONG term here. This lens is not going to be updated for another 10 years probably. Although I love what IS can do, realistically if they come out with bodies that can shoot at 6400, 12k+ ISO with great DR and low noise it pretty much negates the IS need. Given what we've seen from the 1DX this is the way things are going. So in their mind it makes sense not to add IS since the newer bodies will negate the need for it.

2) IS just adds another possible failure point for a lens. This lens is aimed at pros who will most likely be buying the newest bodies when available. Would you rather have a lens that might have a weak point and break in 5 years (maybe) or a tank that can withstand anything (hopefully)?...especia​lly when you might not need the IS given that you can shoot at 12K is and get amazing results?

Frankly I am disappointed because I really wanted the IS. Shooting with the 70-200 2.8 II IS made me giddy with the shutter speeds I could get away with. But the more I think about it the more Canon's move makes sense.

Now...the price that is a different matter....$2,300 for this lens seems a little crazy. I was thinking it would've been more in the 1,500-1,800 range. Hopefully the market will (eventually) take care of that and we'll see the price drop to a reasonable range.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13843099
...Go buy something else, sheesh. Why **** about things you can't change???

...Are you all shareholders in the company? Probably should have bought stock instead of your T2i....lol.

1) I did. I got tired of waiting on Canon. So I bought Leica and Hasselblad. Haven't used the Canon gear much since 2008 as a result.

2) I'm not a shareholder - but I do have a suitcase full of L lenses - which is just as much of an investment, if not more. Shame I don't have a decent body to attach them to though.