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

.mark. wrote in post #13847281
There's a picture of the hood (EW-88C) here:

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …sm#SuppliesAndA​ccessories

Bigger photo here: http://iservice.libert​ytimes.com.tw/3c/news.​php?no=4637&type=8

For $2299, it better be bloody good at everything (focusing accuracy, sharpness, speed of focus, build quality)

For the primes they have updated, it makes sense that they would update 2 of the oldest primes in their line-up, but at the same time they are probably the 2 most unused primes as well..
Maybe they thought adding IS would make them more useful and attractive for video

Twister286 wrote in post #13847775
For $2299, it better be bloody good at everything (focusing accuracy, sharpness, speed of focus, build quality)

Just like the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II.

I think you will see many people liking this lens, even with the increased price.

dsit995 wrote in post #13847827
For the primes they have updated, it makes sense that they would update 2 of the oldest primes in their line-up, but at the same time they are probably the 2 most unused primes as well..
Maybe they thought adding IS would make them more useful and attractive for video

Strange decision from Canon... It would have been better to update the 35mm f/2 for example, many people were waiting a new version of this 35mm (adding rounded blades would have been a good idea!). And the focal lengthes 24mm/28mm are very close so.... very strange. But maybe the Canon marketing dept wants to test the "f/2.8 prime with IS but no special element" concept.

Titi

FWIW I spotted a small inconsistency in the published data. Canon lens website says the 24-70 has inner-group focus, while the press release seems to say that all of the new lenses are rear-group.

titi_67207 wrote in post #13847900
Strange decision from Canon... It would have been better to update the 35mm f/2 for example, many people were waiting a new version of this 35mm (adding rounded blades would have been a good idea!). And the focal lengthes 24mm/28mm are very close so.... very strange. But maybe the Canon marketing dept wants to test the "f/2.8 prime with IS but no special element" concept.

Titi

I totally agree, Ive been wanting a 35mm FL for both crop & FF.... but I cant shell out the $$$ for the "L" and also feel that the f2 just isnt worth it

If indeed those are the prices the Canon is beginning to price themselves out of reach for most of us.

Boy, that "bucket hood" of the ol' Brick is looking better and better now ain't it?

i dont think IS is necessary, but I do want a lighter version of 2470.

I have waited a long time for this lens. The lack of IS is the only reason I won't look at it at this time. Not for that price. This announcement disappointed to me. If it had IS and indeed has the IQ the test charts are showing my 24-105 would have been be up for sale.

I know people say IS is not neccesary and I believe them, but I find it very valuable.

dennyluohao wrote in post #13848130
i dont think IS is necessary, but I do want a lighter version of 2470.

The new version is lighter.

I'll wait for both tested and user reviews. I may change my mind. I am interested in that new 24-70 Tamron but I'm not sure what the IQ will be like. Wait for the tests there as well.

silvex wrote in post #13848623
The new version is lighter.

A little, sure - but nothing to get excited about really.

spotz04 wrote in post #13845375
Here's the numbers, 24-70 weight by comparison -

Mark I = 33.6 oz / 2.1 lbs
Mark II = 28.4 oz / 1.78 lbs

Weight savings = 5.2 oz. / .33 lbs

Canon really didn't shave off that much.

so what do we call the new 24 70? Brick ii, smaller brick, lighter brick, baby brick, junior brick?