# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 20, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8617"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8617" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8617"></a></div>
<strong>More information

</strong>With all the additional 5D Mark III conversation coming about, I’ve also experienced an increase in EF 24-70 f/2.8L II talk.</p>
<p>The latest I have heard is the suspected final prototype is in the hands of the select few for testing. It has the same external zoom and is slightly shorter than the current model. It is also lighter.</p>
<p>There has been an IS version that was bigger and a lot heavier, as well as an internal  zoom model, both of which were deemed too big and/or heavy.</p>
<p>There is also a suggestion that the <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_new_lenses.html">24-70 f/2.8L II could end up a kit lens</a> for the next 5D camera.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## candyman (Jan 20, 2012)

Less heavy & shorter is very nice. 
And what about the IQ and other possible improvements?


----------



## infared (Jan 20, 2012)

I never really understood this lens. I prefer the 24-105mm f/4. More range, especially for headshots (more compression) and with a 5DMark II the one stop usually isn't that much of a deal breaker. If I really have no light or need bokeh...I am going to fast primes, anyway..so this lens never really fit in for me. Guess it is just different needs and some prefer this lens. Glad to see it is about to improve though.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 20, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> There is also a suggestion that the 24-70 f/2.8L II could end up a kit lens for the next 5D camera.



Makes a lot of sense to me. Almost all the time when I've come across people in the field shooting video with the 5DII they're using a 24-70, primarily for its shallow DoF. Of course since they're shooting video they don't care about IS either...


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 20, 2012)

I really wish they had gone ahead and made this an internal zoom  I love my 24-105, but if the next 24-70 was internal, I'd buy it for when I'm in dusty, dirty places like Burning Man. I wish Canon had more internal zooms in my book, even though they'll mostly be larger and heavier.


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 20, 2012)

Much makes sense, but i do wish they'd gone with the internal zoom option.

External zooms just strike me as asking for weather and environment based trouble over internal zooms.
I mean, how many people baulk at the idea of buying a 70-200 L IS2 f2.8, even though size and weight are more suited to a weight lifting competition at the Olympics...


----------



## benlila (Jan 20, 2012)

A kit lens without IS seems unlikely. 5D fans will want to shoot video with IS.

Internal Zoom and IS seem too drastic to be likely improvements. Despite the patents, I would want a change in zoom range, e.g. 24 - 85 mm. This would make it similar in range as the EF-S 17 - 55 mm IS .


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 20, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> I mean, how many people baulk at the idea of buying a 70-200 L IS2 f2.8, even though size and weight are more suited to a weight lifting competition at the Olympics...



Proably most small people - both my lady friends last night struggled with the 1ds3 + 70-200 f/2.8II.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm actually quite interested in how this all will play out, IS, no IS etc.

Also never say never, but the IQ boost will have to be really really massive for me to open my wallet if the lens ships without IS.


----------



## traveller (Jan 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Picsfor said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, how many people baulk at the idea of buying a 70-200 L IS2 f2.8, even though size and weight are more suited to a weight lifting competition at the Olympics...
> ...



Is your real name Peter Stringfellow? 

Seriously, I can't see how size and weight would be a problem for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS version; most people that would be in the market for such a lens would be using it alongside a 70-200 f/2.8 lens anyway.


----------



## japhoto (Jan 20, 2012)

traveller said:


> Seriously, I can't see how size and weight would be a problem for a 24-70 f/2.8L IS version; most people that would be in the market for such a lens would be using it alongside a 70-200 f/2.8 lens anyway.



I agree here, the MkI is 950g and the 70-200II is 1490g and I for example don't find the latter to be especially heavy lens.

So add IS and internal focusing to the 24-70 and I bet it still wouldn't weigh over the 70-200II or be physically larger than it is.

The only problem I could see here is if you need it for longer hikes where the weight might be an issue, but like I've said before, 500g in my backpack wouldn't change a thing...


----------



## photalian (Jan 20, 2012)

just when I finally busted loose and bought an original brick... but I'm sure this sucker will be in the $2500-3000 range.


----------



## Stone (Jan 20, 2012)

If this is the final version, the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase. On the other hand, I'll be quite disappointed with no internal zoom and to a lesser extent no IS. This is supposed to be the top of the line lens in this range and leaving out these two things I think is a mistake. Weather sealing while good would be better with internal zoom and slow SS can only be helped by IS especially at the longer end of the zoom range. I'll probably still buy it once I pick up a FF body this year, as I'm sure Canon will improve on it's already great optics, but after the kit lens and my 15-85, I hate external zooms...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2012)

Stone said:


> the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.



Pure, unfettered optimism.  The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II was the same basic physical design as its predecessor (internal zoom, with IS), and still Canon managed to set an MSRP that was a 32% premium over the original (translating to >$1800 for the 24-70mm II).


----------



## japhoto (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.
> ...



Well, the price increase will probably be less than it would with IS and internal zoom, but I agree with Neuroanatomist here, there's nothing stopping them doing the same thing as they did with the 70-200II pricing.

@Photalian,

Enjoy the lens, since it'll probably take a lot of time for the new one to hit the shelves if and only if it's released in the near future. I'd do extensive MA-testing on it though if you have a body that you can do that with.


----------



## Stone (Jan 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.
> ...



Definitely wishful thinking on my part, Canon could at least give us internal zoom to soften the blow. 
Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 20, 2012)

Weight is not an issue to me nor size really. Though the current model is a beast. What I really want from the Mk II version is more sharpness. The original is fine, nothing outstanding. Nothing that will blow your mind like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I walked around London for several days with the 24-70 on a 7D. I pretty much kept it stopped down to F6.3-8 the whole time since i was mainly doing architecture shots. It was pretty razor sharp but being sharp at f8 isn't really impressive. I've used it for weddings at f2.8 and it performs well enough however.

I like seeing this lens without IS. I have no good reason for saying so. I don't think it would add much to cost or weight to include IS. I just don't think the focal range justifies IS and I like to see that Canon realizes that. If you are a videographer this really isn't a ideal lens for you anyway.


----------



## 00Q (Jan 20, 2012)

lets just say that I have already been emtionally devastated by this lens that i refuse to imagine and fantasise what the new model is gonna be like and imagine the date that it will arrive ever again. this is because i was so hyped up for it for the jan 3rd announcement and it never came. 

so im emotionally protected for another potential upset.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 20, 2012)

Stone said:


> Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....



I agree, I'd take the added weight for the internal zoom and IS. I carry my 70-200 with no problems.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 20, 2012)

Tomorrow I am going on a shoot with the 1d4 and the 70-200 f/2.8

That is the light camera

The main camera will be the 1Ds3 + 400 f/2.8

No monopod or tripod just handshooting. 

Can't see many size 0's managing that ??? ???


----------



## acoll123 (Jan 20, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Weight is not an issue to me nor size really. Though the current model is a beast. What I really want from the Mk II version is more sharpness. The original is fine, nothing outstanding. Nothing that will blow your mind like the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I walked around London for several days with the 24-70 on a 7D. I pretty much kept it stopped down to F6.3-8 the whole time since i was mainly doing architecture shots. It was pretty razor sharp but being sharp at f8 isn't really impressive. I've used it for weddings at f2.8 and it performs well enough however.
> 
> I like seeing this lens without IS. I have no good reason for saying so. I don't think it would add much to cost or weight to include IS. I just don't think the focal range justifies IS and I like to see that Canon realizes that. If you are a videographer this really isn't a ideal lens for you anyway.



I have thought about getting the 24/1.4 L for the IQ but have decided to wait for the new 24-70 instead. I already have the 24-105 (which I will probably sell if I get the new 24-70) so I have the range covered just not the IQ at that range. I hope when the 24-70 comes out it will compete with the 24 L in IQ.


----------



## JR (Jan 21, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Weight is simply not an issue for alot of us.....
> ...



While weight is an issue for me in general, I would for sure take extra weight if I could have this lens with IS. But I know it is not going to happen! One thing does seem to be sure now is it seem emminent that it will be announced by March or so.

If it was offered as a kit with the 5DmkIII as mentionned it would be a plus. Too bad the 1 series does not offer kit lens! WOuld have been a great buy with the 1DX!


----------



## willrobb (Jan 21, 2012)

candyman said:


> Less heavy & shorter is very nice.
> And what about the IQ and other possible improvements?



Shorter and lighter would be very nice, after a day walking about with the current 24-70mm on a gripped 5DmkII hanging off my neck I feel some aches and pains...maybe I just need to work out more :

For me the internal zoom or IS doesnt matter so much. Aesthetically I don't like the look of the external zoom, but I've never (touch wood) had any issues with dust or moisture getting in over it's 4 years of use, I can see why taking it to Burning man would be scary though.

I appreciate the IS on my 100mm macro and when I am shooting people doing speeches in low light I sometimes wish I had the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II instead of the non IS version, but for my 24-70mm I've never ever felt the need for IS, that's just me though, I know a lot of people would like it.

The IQ improvements are what I am more intereted in hearing about, but I guess we won't know anything for sure until the lens is released and has been tested inthe field.


----------



## VirtualRain (Jan 21, 2012)

I really don't understand Canon's concern about weight with IS... it's competing with my tripod, so I think it's an easy win! FFS Canon! As long as there's a switch to turn it off, there's no reason not to have it on every lens. It's not rocket science, it's 1990's technology.


----------



## nikkito (Jan 21, 2012)

Canon should send us all a few prototypes to test. we will say if they are heavy or not


----------



## DzPhotography (Jan 21, 2012)

VirtualRain said:


> I really don't understand Canon's concern about weight with IS... it's competing with my tripod, so I think it's an easy win! FFS Canon! As long as there's a switch to turn it off, there's no reason not to have it on every lens. It's not rocket science, it's 1990's technology.


second that


----------



## simonxu11 (Jan 21, 2012)

Geez~~~~~~~~~~~~





































there are two versions and it qualifies CR2, what a joke~~~


----------



## gmrza (Jan 21, 2012)

willrobb said:


> I appreciate the IS on my 100mm macro and when I am shooting people doing speeches in low light I sometimes wish I had the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II instead of the non IS version, but for my 24-70mm I've never ever felt the need for IS, that's just me though, I know a lot of people would like it.
> 
> The IQ improvements are what I am more intereted in hearing about, but I guess we won't know anything for sure until the lens is released and has been tested inthe field.



In general, I believe the main intended use case for this lens is events or photojournalism. In both these use cases, it is generally necessary to keep shutter speeds fast enough to freeze motion of people walking at moving. That means shooting at shutter speeds which make IS less relevant - generally over 1/80s - which on a full frame body obviates the need for IS. That is probably the rationale used in why this lens most probably will not have IS.


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 21, 2012)

gmrza said:


> That is probably the rationale used in why this lens most probably will not have IS.



Also with that kind of lens there is a distinct advantage of having an external zoom: you can design the lens shade more effective.
Sure, some might say you could just mind the suns position, but that sounds rather unintentionally funny in the context of most environments...


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 21, 2012)

There are multiple versions of the 70-200, why can't there be multiple versions of the 24-70?

I would want the internal zoom and IS model, even if it doubled the size, weight, and price.


----------



## Stone (Jan 21, 2012)

willrobb said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Less heavy & shorter is very nice.
> ...



if by "hanging off my neck" you mean you're using a conventional neck strap for that kit, your neck and back would thank you greatly if you moved to a sling strap like Black Rapid or one of it's competitors. I can carry my gripped 7D/70-200 2.8 with an R-Strap for hours with no discomfort.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 21, 2012)

Stone said:


> willrobb said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



+1

I carry two all day (just got home after 4 hours shooting) with the BR double harness


----------



## canonluvr (Jan 21, 2012)

Seriously.. i'm unboxing my 24-70mm right now. I'm sick of this rumor


----------



## blarygake (Jan 21, 2012)

I just wish there was a 24-75 2.8
Pool your scientists and make it happen!

My Tamron is 28-75
My Canon is 24-70

The 24-105 sucks because F4 sucks.


----------



## tt (Jan 21, 2012)

If it is still a prototype, and it's a possible for launch alongside a 5D Mark III/a boxed set - then that kind of hints that we won't be seeing a release of the 5DMK III for a bit, right? 
Did the 24-105 boxed set arrive at the same time as the 5D Mk II alone, or come after?


----------



## bvukich (Jan 21, 2012)

tt said:


> If it is still a prototype, and it's a possible for launch alongside a 5D Mark III/a boxed set - then that kind of hints that we won't be seeing a release of the 5DMK III for a bit, right?



That's one heck of a leap of logic.

At this point, the only thing we know for sure, is that there's nothing we know for sure.


----------



## bvukich (Jan 21, 2012)

blarygake said:


> The 24-105 sucks because F4 sucks.



That's simply an absurd statement.

If f/4 isn't fast enough for *your* shooting style; then fine, the lens is unsuitable for *you*. But claiming it sucks because it's f/4 is like claiming a 135/2L sucks because it isn't a zoom. It just isn't a cogent argument.


----------



## blarygake (Jan 22, 2012)

It's obviously a personal preference I'm stating. 
I'd own the 24-105 if it was faster. I'm just not in the presence of good light often enough to deal with a lens like that.


----------



## bvukich (Jan 22, 2012)

blarygake said:


> It's obviously a personal preference I'm stating.



It's obvious to me, but when people make broad generalizations like that; it's usually not obvious to them, hence my comment.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 22, 2012)

Stone said:


> willrobb said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



+1 My RS7 is easily one of the best purchases I've made. Get any R-Strap and weight won't be an issue anymore. If you still have troubles getting the camera up to your face, then you may need to work out a little


----------



## Radiating (Jan 22, 2012)

Here's a *brilliant* idea. Why not let the consumer decide? Release BOTH the 24-70mm II and bulky and heavy 24-70mm IS side by side. This worked amazingly for the 70-200mm line.


----------



## Radiating (Jan 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > the good thing is no IS & keeping external zoom shouldn't mean a dramatic price increase.
> ...



Actually if you adjust for inflation and exchange rate both lenses cost the exact same price. In fact Canon has charged the exact same price with almost no variation for every lens they have upgraded since the 80's. The lens will cost the same at intro no matter what, profit per lens will instead vary, though total profit is the goal.

I'm sure total profit would be higher with IS and the same weight and size but would be lower if it is too bulky, IS is not very expensive at all. Still it can't hurt to release both with a higher profit margin on the IS. Say $2000 for the regular and $2700 would work from my research into the cost of IS on Canon's end.


----------



## Jim K (Jan 22, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > willrobb said:
> ...



I carry my 100-400 on a Black Rapid 7. Very nice, much "lighter" and it doesn't bang into the tripod like it did on a regular neck strap.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2012)

Based on rumors over the years, Canon has yet to find a design that users really like, but then, I never liked the five copies of the existing 24-70mm L that I had. 

I certainly hope they can come up with one that is better and lighter.


----------



## DzPhotography (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm sick of this rumor too, I'm gonna order the current version next Friday, it's back in stock


----------



## xROELOFx (Jan 23, 2012)

Jim K said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...


agreed, i use it with my 2.5 kg 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x + 7D (while i have a big backpack on my back) without any problems.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 23, 2012)

For me...I don't care about the size, weight and cost... I would like to buy the internal zoom f2.8 IS - Can't be more than 70-200mm f2.8 IS II


----------



## whatta (Jan 23, 2012)

Jim K said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...



I will try out this Black Rapid stuff too, seems to be a resonable investment, thanks for the tip.


----------



## KHAWACHEN (Jan 26, 2012)

*Thought I share my BlackRapid setup.
7D + 70-200 2.8 mk2 on BlackRapid RS-Sport 2 strap*

















whatta said:


> Jim K said:
> 
> 
> > D_Rochat said:
> ...


----------



## BornNearDaBayou (Jan 27, 2012)

I like the current 24-70. It is so damn heavy though!! I hear the older 28-70L was/is an amazing piece of glass. On par with Nikon's 28-70. I have had two of the current 24-70's, but always traded or sold for other gear. 

One was sold to furnish me with the 35L. I haven't looked back since. I do not believe we will see IS on the new 24-70. It would jack up the price to close to $2k. The market for that as a kit lens would be slim.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2012)

BornNearDaBayou said:


> I do not believe we will see IS on the new 24-70. It would jack up the price to close to $2k.



I think Canon will have no problem jacking the price of a 24-70 II up close to $2K even without IS...


----------

