Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Refreshed Anytime Soon?

mdaniel wrote in post #10959705
I just mounted up the lens and started playing. Nothing special, but I can tell I'll have fun with the lens.

The best way to pass the time waiting for the revision is playing with the original.

mdaniel wrote in post #10959705
I've already been waiting for a year. I could see continuing to wait for a refresh 400 f/2.8 or something along those lines, but not for such a modestly priced lens.]

I don't need to have it right know so I can wait for the second version.

The 35L + 70-200mm is a good pair that will make every picture. I just ordered a zeiss 21 for my landscapes and sold my 24-105 because I didn't use it all that much anymore because of it's f/4.

I also pretty sure that Canon won't ignore the demand after this glas. They've proven with the 70-200mm that they can make a good product twice as good,

I think it'll be a serious update and because of that I decided to wait for it.

JelleVerherstraeten wrote in post #10988857
I don't need to have it right know so I can wait for the second version.

The 35L + 70-200mm is a good pair that will make every picture. I just ordered a zeiss 21 for my landscapes and sold my 24-105 because I didn't use it all that much anymore because of it's f/4.

I also pretty sure that Canon won't ignore the demand after this glas. They've proven with the 70-200mm that they can make a good product twice as good,

I think it'll be a serious update and because of that I decided to wait for it.

I am seriously thinking of getting the Zeiss 21mm lens, would appreciate some feedback on that.

http://www.canonrumors​.com/

Looks like there is still some hope

I'll be curious to see what the IQ difference is between the two lenses.

I can't see spending an extra $500 an such a short lens for IS though.

I have a 135 f/2 and have never felt it lacking because it doesn't have IS. FWIW

I reckon a 2 stop sharpness improvement. like the 70-200 MkI-II

A lot of people use the 24-70 for weddings, the IS would be welcome when shooting at 1/50sec.
I'd even hazard a guess that 95% of the owners use them professionally because for non pro use the sensible option is the 24-105L, it's cheaper, has more reach and has IS.

Remember, L glass doesn't really devalue. Whether it has IS or not only really matters due to extra initial outlay and weight.

Tommydigi wrote in post #10956172
I wonder how many people who say this lens is in need of an upgrade have actually tried the The 24-70. I guess it could be made better ( maybe sharper wide open, IS etc. ) but Its a great lens that is more then capable.

Good luck with the purchase, I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Mine's a POS, every wedding I shoot I almost deliberately shoot around it using the the 16-35L mk II, a 50 f/1.4, and an 85L mk II, so far haven't missed the 24-70's inherent softness, backfocus, and AF problems in AI SERVO (I use a 1Ds mk III)... Many pro's that I work with and network with also think that this lens is NOT up to par with other L-series lenses in our bags - too many bad copies around...

Seriously, if Canon wants to gain the competitive edge again lens wise - it should consider updating a lens that EVERYONE would use. Heck if they made a 24-70mm f/2 IS WHICH is SHARP from wide open and sold it for $3.5-4kAUD I'd pre-order just to have it!

mrmarks wrote in post #11000459
http://www.canonrumors​.com/

Looks like there is still some hope

I'll believe it when I see it for sale at B&H or Adorama.

Canon will drag their feet on this one (and the 100-400) until it becomes obvious they have to do something...and then they'll do it right around the time the economy takes a major dive...then they'll get bent because "there isn't a demand for it!"

I agree, Canon will drag their feet on this one. But we'll see I suppose. We used 2 of these cameras for my photography companies shoot we did for an Michigan health insurance company. We desperately needed this update at that point in time.

At least that's some worthwhile news. Interesting that there's zero mention of IS.

That does not sit well with me.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #11260202
At least that's some worthwhile news. Interesting that there's zero mention of IS.

That does not sit well with me.

I have the same feeling.

I'm very interested in this lens if it has IS. If it doesn't have it, it would be a big bummer for me...

DeaconG wrote in post #11010719
I'll believe it when I see it for sale at B&H or Adorama.

Canon will drag their feet on this one (and the 100-400) until it becomes obvious they have to do something...and then they'll do it right around the time the economy takes a major dive...then they'll get bent because "there isn't a demand for it!"

Canon did not drag their feet on all the super tele lenses before they announced all the unneccessary upgrades (IMO) this year... Why would they drag their feet on the 24-70L which is much much in higher demand and much less perfect than the tele L's??</p>

tougemon wrote in post #11006960
Mine's a POS, every wedding I shoot I almost deliberately shoot around it using the the 16-35L mk II, a 50 f/1.4, and an 85L mk II, so far haven't missed the 24-70's inherent softness, backfocus, and AF problems in AI SERVO (I use a 1Ds mk III)... Many pro's that I work with and network with also think that this lens is NOT up to par with other L-series lenses in our bags - too many bad copies around...

Seriously, if Canon wants to gain the competitive edge again lens wise - it should consider updating a lens that EVERYONE would use. Heck if they made a 24-70mm f/2 IS WHICH is SHARP from wide open and sold it for $3.5-4kAUD I'd pre-order just to have it!

I am surprised I know many who love the 24-70. Mine is very sharp at 3.2 and certainly good enough at 2.8