Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 11 Jun 2009 (Thursday) 00:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-70 L Mk II (a Stealthy Prophecy)

 
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 723
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Jul 11, 2009 05:32 |  #151

I think Sigma needed to sort out their archaic micro motor af system out first, the previous model is great optically...but it's AF system was rank. It's interesting to see how much lighter the current Sigma lens and it's predessor are compared to the current Canon and Nikkor versions are. Does a 24-70L really need to be 950g?


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youҒre having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2669
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jul 11, 2009 14:20 |  #152

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8261502 (external link)
I think Sigma needed to sort out their archaic micro motor af system out first, the previous model is great optically...but it's AF system was rank. It's interesting to see how much lighter the current Sigma lens and it's predessor are compared to the current Canon and Nikkor versions are. Does a 24-70L really need to be 950g?

Well...the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, while not 24 at the wide end, is a very tiny lightweight lens and its smaller than the Nikon/Canon/Sigma 28-80 f/2.8s....


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jul 11, 2009 19:54 |  #153

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8261502 (external link)
I think Sigma needed to sort out their archaic micro motor af system out first, the previous model is great optically...but it's AF system was rank. It's interesting to see how much lighter the current Sigma lens and it's predessor are compared to the current Canon and Nikkor versions are. Does a 24-70L really need to be 950g?


Actually the new $800 Sigma has HSM, which is their version of USM. It is definitely not a micro-motor like the $400 24-70 version. They just released that new HSM lens as a more Pro model and that is why I am surprised they didn't go all the way and add IS. Right now it is close enough, you might as well just drop 200 more on the L. If it had IS, then it would very appealling.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 723
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Jul 12, 2009 12:20 |  #154

A new IS version from canon will be a lot more than the current model....think 50-65% more.


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youҒre having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hk300
Senior Member
253 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2007
     
Jul 23, 2009 09:17 |  #155

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8267329 (external link)
A new IS version from canon will be a lot more than the current model....think 50-65% more.

I am not sure ... i would guess perhaps only 10% more. See for instance the 18-55IS and 55-250IS ... you practically get the IS for free.

If the new version (with IS) will replace the old 24-70 at a 50-60% higher price, Canon will lose a lot of business to Sigma, because assuming this 50-60% higher price tag, you would be able to buy 3x Sigma 24-70HSM ... not very likely.

I have seen comparisons between the Canon 24-70L (using 1Ds3) and the Zeiss 24-70 (using Sony A900) and it shows that the Canon is no longer best in its




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 723
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Jul 23, 2009 10:20 |  #156

hk300 wrote in post #8330019 (external link)
I am not sure ... i would guess perhaps only 10% more. See for instance the 18-55IS and 55-250IS ... you practically get the IS for free.

If the new version (with IS) will replace the old 24-70 at a 50-60% higher price, Canon will lose a lot of business to Sigma, because assuming this 50-60% higher price tag, you would be able to buy 3x Sigma 24-70HSM ... not very likely.

I have seen comparisons between the Canon 24-70L (using 1Ds3) and the Zeiss 24-70 (using Sony A900) and it shows that the Canon is no longer best in its

I don't think that Canon are that fussed about the Sigma lens pricing, the previous Sigma model was a LOT cheaper than the canon version optically is was it's equal, maybe even eclipsing the Canon in some areas, but it never sold in the qualtities as the Canon. If they add 40% to the current 24-70L's price, it will still be a lot cheaper than the Nikon variant.
Bare in mind that the canon 24-70L is THE original 24-70/2.8 lens and therefore the oldest and the one that every one wants to beat. It's been ahead of the crowd for a long long time. The competion has just caught up, but it's still a great lens (as it always has been). We are not talking night and day difference here, just that the Nikon and CZ lenses are a wee bit better in the corners. Sure you can measurebate over it...but the proof is in the pictures and there's a lot more top pictures that have been shot with the Canon 24-70 than both of the other two lenses put togther. Put 20 large prints on my desk taken with all three lenses, taken by top photographers...I probably couldn't spot the difference between these lenses. But i would see the differnent photographer's style bursting through the pictures...what's more important to you? It's about the photography, not the measurebating

Regards,

Gareth Cooper


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youҒre having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 51
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Jul 23, 2009 10:29 |  #157

24-70 f2.8 IS $1500...I am all in.

I don't measurebate...I master...nevermind.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thatkatmat
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,340 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 199
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold
     
Jul 23, 2009 10:55 |  #158

Where's the title fairy when you need them^^^^^


My Flickr (external link)
Stuff
"Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." -Jimmy Conway
a9, 12-24/4G, 24-70/2.8GM, 100-400GM, 25/2 Batis, 55/1.8ZA, 85 /1.8FE, 85LmkII, 135L...a6300,10-18/4, 16-50PZ, 18-105PZ

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jacobsen1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,629 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Mt View, RI
     
Jul 23, 2009 11:19 |  #159

nicksan wrote in post #8330375 (external link)
24-70 f2.8 IS $1500...I am all in.

I don't measurebate...I master...nevermind.

me too?!

and that price sounds about right. the 17-55 2.8 IS is ~$1k, so adding IS to the L will bump it up to that neighborhood. I'm guessing ~$1700 MSRP with a street price of ~$1500 by xmas? Although with the way lens prices have been going up, it might stay at whatever MSRP they release it at....


My Gear List

my sites:
benjacobsenphoto.com (external link) | newschoolofphotography​.com (external link)
GND buyers FAQ

FOR SALE: 5Dii RRS L-bracket, 430II, 12mm macro tube PM ME!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Markitos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,615 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Durham, NC
     
Jul 23, 2009 13:26 |  #160

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8330651 (external link)
me too?!

and that price sounds about right. the 17-55 2.8 IS is ~$1k, so adding IS to the L will bump it up to that neighborhood. I'm guessing ~$1700 MSRP with a street price of ~$1500 by xmas? Although with the way lens prices have been going up, it might stay at whatever MSRP they release it at....

That seems pretty reasonable.


|Fuji X-E2|Fuji X-E1|Fuji 18 f/2|Fuji 35 f/1.4|Fuji 60 f/2.4 macro|Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4|Fuji 55-200 f/3.5-4.8

http://www.newschoolof​photography.com/forum/ (external link)Where I Hone My Skillz (external link)
Where My "Serious" Stuff Is (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 723
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Jul 23, 2009 14:24 |  #161

Looking at recent history, the 24IIL and TS-e 24IIL...I think this lens will be nearer $1900 US and we'll be lucky to get one at that price for about a year. I wouldn't expect any price drops for several years. Try to get a 24IIL or a TSE-24...they are like gold dust and you'll pay top bananas for it. Which brings us back to the earlier threads about how good the original lens is, especially for the price. I paid £650 (UK) for mine just before the price hike, now it's worth more 2nd hand than the new price I paid for it. If this new model is released at £1500 (uk) then it'll raise the 2nd hand value of the old one even more, not that I want to sell my gold brick.


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youҒre having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gabe63
Senior Member
618 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Lafayette, CA
     
Jul 23, 2009 21:40 |  #162

thatkatmat wrote in post #8251809 (external link)
I'll take one for sure if it's anywhere under $2000 US
I will say to those who think you don't need IS on a 24-70.......Have you shot with a 17-55IS ? If you have and you've shot static subjects in low light with it, you'd understand....Just makes it WAY more versatile......and as such, worth the extra snap...to me anyways.

Agree, I would buy a 24-70 2.8 IS. I loved my 17-55, see the hole is my sig range, I am waiting.


:D 16-35IIL, 50L, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 200L F2.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 51
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Jul 27, 2009 10:41 |  #163

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8331580 (external link)
Looking at recent history, the 24IIL and TS-e 24IIL...I think this lens will be nearer $1900 US and we'll be lucky to get one at that price for about a year. I wouldn't expect any price drops for several years. Try to get a 24IIL or a TSE-24...they are like gold dust and you'll pay top bananas for it. Which brings us back to the earlier threads about how good the original lens is, especially for the price. I paid £650 (UK) for mine just before the price hike, now it's worth more 2nd hand than the new price I paid for it. If this new model is released at £1500 (uk) then it'll raise the 2nd hand value of the old one even more, not that I want to sell my gold brick.

Yeah...I am afraid you might be right on this. Canon will be able to milk a new 24-70L with IS for all its worth.

But dammit, I think I'm gonna end up buying it even at $1900. :o

Yes, the extra stop and IS is worth $1000 more than my 24-105L...just like the extra stop and IS on the 200L f2 IS is worth $4000 over the 200L f2.8. ;-)a




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blam
Goldmember
1,900 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB, CAN
     
Aug 04, 2009 22:31 |  #164

i sure hope a new IS version comes out. maybe they'll lighten it a touch as well :P




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
psycorpse
Senior Member
Avatar
325 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
     
Aug 04, 2009 22:40 |  #165

Gabe63 wrote in post #8333566 (external link)
Agree, I would buy a 24-70 2.8 IS. I loved my 17-55, see the hole is my sig range, I am waiting.

The only hole that I see is the hole in the pocket book.


EF 50mm f/1.8 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

32,664 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-70 L Mk II (a Stealthy Prophecy)
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
954 guests, 394 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.