borism wrote in post #10714472
I don't think added IS will impact weight that much, by simply rethinking some of the material distribution (by using more lighter modern materials on the electronics etc) of the older design , the weight issue can be very well controlled without impacting the durability of the newer lens, heck look at the Kit 18-55, it has IS and is super light (grated is far from L quality) but you get the point.
I would love to see a 24-70 2.8 IS , more modern, better optics, newer coating ... etc
I had the 15-85 IS, it was tack sharp, pretty light, super fast AF and the IS was a miracle and addictive.
I am on that list
I don't think 18-55 or 15-85 are good indicators of what can be done to 24-70. Both of the lenses have variable aperture that doesn't come to 2.8 even on the wide side of the range.
Canon's 24-105 is lighter than 24-70, and has IS, and is a great lens, but it's not a 2.8. Getting that aperture to open up and keep it fixed across the whole zoom range that's what makes the lens become heavy and large. I have 17-55 2.8 IS and it's not a light or small lens.
We can see that 70-200 2.8 II didn't go down in weight. I think we shouldn't expect it from 24-70. I just hope that they can move glass around that way that they can keep zoom all internal.
As for IS, find that in 24-70 range I rarely go down to such slow shutter speeds that I need IS. And when I do, I actually do want blur to occur.
I think as a feature IS is great and is very very helpful when needed (especially in the telephoto range), the problem is that it's that I just don't think it's needed much in wide or standard range. And if that cost can be put to making a better glass - I'd rather have that, than IS.
Added weight from IS is a valid concern but don't worry about the price. IS cost will be a drop in the bucket of the price increase.
Yes, unfortunately, I think you are right about the price. How much do you think it will cost? I think $1500 is the lower end of the price-range. Realistically, probably close to $1700.