Still waiting for the new 28-70L IS :)

Yes this should be in the rumours section.

Taking my occasional visit to my favourite local shop I was chatting with them as usual.

Many local Vancouver shops were emailed by a rep supplier regarding a rare stolen bag of camera gear during the 2010 Winter Olympics here in Vancouver (heads up to any camera shop locally). The gearbag was equipped with the "test" lenses for canon during the olympics. In the list was the 70-200 f/2.8IS mkII and a 28-70L f/2.8 IS.

I jokingly said it was probably an old red ring 28-70L. In this particular case the description was that it was a new "L" lens with a focal length of 28-70mm and had image stabilization.

I take this info as a "joke" but my friend at the camera store is the one that read the actual email.

If the 70-200 mkII is 2700 bucks I couldn't image what a 28-70L IS would be worth.

If it is true, why the hell would Canon have taken 4mm off of the wide end and gone back to an older focal length design?

TaDa wrote in post #9932600
If it is true, why the hell would Canon have taken 4mm off of the wide end and gone back to an older focal length design?

Hard to say. I've seen some rumors off by a mile while others were dead on. As far as this FL with IS I waited and got tired of waiting so I bought the 24-70. If the 70-200 was any indication even when they do release one it will have a steep price increase.

I want my 24mm.

I still cant believe they would make a 28-70 IS.

The camera shop said other local shops have gotten the same exact email. This "email" was from a rep/supplier. I was told the origin (name of the emailer) and it sounded like a common tie with the local shops so I'm assuming it was the Canon supplier/rep.

I would want 24mm's on a zoom. However if that new zoom does not exhibit back focus on the wide end I will cry and buy it.

Whats sick is the local price for the 70-200 f/2.8IS is 2700 CDN.

K6AZ wrote in post #9932743
If the 70-200 was any indication even when they do release one it will have a steep price increase.

All of the "MkII" lens vesions are an indication that the price of a new 24-70IS will be steep. I'm betting at least 2K.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #9932819
All of the "MkII" lens vesions are an indication that the price of a new 24-70IS will be steep. I'm betting at least 2K.

Seems to be going that way with almost all lenses. I really bit the bullet and bought the four I knew I would need. After Bing, eBay bucks, and my credit card rewards I netted about $1160 for the 24-70. The IS would be nice to have but as I said seeing what they did with the 70-200 I wasn't going to take any chance. Beside, I discovered I was about +$4k in my tax account over what I owe so I went on a spree.

The pricing Canon is charging on there lenses for Image Stabilization is INSANE HIGH! In most cases just for 'IS' alone you are paying 35-50% more for the same lens(mostly). thats crazy. The only focal length I would even consider paying such a premium for IS is the 70-200mm or higher because IS really does help in those focal lengths when hand holding.

JayStar86 wrote in post #9933117
The pricing Canon is charging on there lenses for Image Stabilization is INSANE HIGH! In most cases just for 'IS' alone you are paying 35-50% more for the same lens(mostly). thats crazy. The only focal length I would even consider paying such a premium for IS is the 70-200mm or higher because IS really does help in those focal lengths when hand holding.

Fortunately for me I don't need IS at those FLs. I get by just fine with the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. I agree on the pricing, it does seem a little strange.

JayStar86 wrote in post #9933117
The pricing Canon is charging on there lenses for Image Stabilization is INSANE HIGH! In most cases just for 'IS' alone you are paying 35-50% more for the same lens(mostly). thats crazy. The only focal length I would even consider paying such a premium for IS is the 70-200mm or higher because IS really does help in those focal lengths when hand holding.

What is even more insane is that a $150 kit lens can have IS, but an L lens with it is often hundreds (as in $500-600) more. They have us right where they want us.

District_History_Fan wrote in post #9933259
What is even more insane is that a $150 kit lens can have IS, but an L lens with it is often hundreds (as in $500-600) more. They have us right where they want us.

agreed.... canon(and other's) are milking this technology for every penny for as long as they can.... as much i would like IS in my zoom's.... im not willing to pay the premium for it unless is a longer focal length range zoom.... and even then im doubtful about it.

JayStar86 wrote in post #9933117
The pricing Canon is charging on there lenses for Image Stabilization is INSANE HIGH! In most cases just for 'IS' alone you are paying 35-50% more for the same lens(mostly). thats crazy. The only focal length I would even consider paying such a premium for IS is the 70-200mm or higher because IS really does help in those focal lengths when hand holding.

...well there is always the 'in body' camp of Sony or Pentax.

size, size, size, size.

24 -70 size >> 28 - 70 size.

RWatkins wrote in post #9934682
...well there is always the 'in body' camp of Sony or Pentax.

lol. thats one way to go about it.

cccc wrote in post #9936707
size, size, size, size.

24 -70 size >> 28 - 70 size.

valid point you make... but still i think a lot of people will be disappointed at the 4mm loss on the WA.....