# EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 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=""></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>It’s not coming soon

</strong>There are plans to release an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS sometime in the next 18 months. I have confirmed from two sources that the end of 2013 or early 2014 is the earliest we’d see a production model announced.</p>
<p>There are no plans for a non-IS 24-70 f/4L.</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Zoom Lens $2049</a> (Save $250)</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Daniel Flather (Dec 20, 2012)

*pops corn*


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 20, 2012)

Ok, time to sign away my first AND second born, and my both my legs. I need my arms to hold the camera and shoot, otherwise I'd sell those off too. Are we going to hit $3K for a normal zoom lens?


----------



## wayno (Dec 20, 2012)

The legendary 70-200 2.8 II IS is starting to sound like a bargain in comparison to what this likely will be. I wonder if the 24-70 II will start to normalise price-wise sometime between now and then?


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 20, 2012)

Exactly. Now that they decided to hit the world up for $2,300.00 on the NON-IS version, what the heck are they going to price the IS version at? There has to be a limit ofo what the market will bear, and I think they already went to that limit on the NON IS.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 20, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Exactly. Now that they decided to hit the world up for $2,300.00 on the NON-IS version, what the heck are they going to price the IS version at? There has to be a limit ofo what the market will bear, and I think they already went to that limit on the NON IS.



Maybe (hopefully?) the Non-IS will be down to something like $1800-$1900 by then, and they can bring in the IS at $2300-$2500? That'd "look" a lot more reasonable, with a price premium of a few hundred dollars. While still being more expensive than the current one at introduction. Especially if it's going to be 1+ years before it'll come out.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 20, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Exactly. Now that they decided to hit the world up for $2,300.00 on the NON-IS version, what the heck are they going to price the IS version at?  There has to be a limit ofo what the market will bear, and I think they already went to that limit on the NON IS.



Get ready to add $500 - $700 on top of non IS


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2012)

hooray! i wonder if its too early to pre-order.... :-[


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2012)

Will weigh 7 tons and require _83mm_ filters. 

Nice.


----------



## Woody (Dec 20, 2012)

DB said:


> It would seem that Image-Stabilization may soon be considered the _de facto_ standard on all of Canon's zoom lenses (plus some primes too). I wonder if this is because they feel they've gone as far as they can in terms of ISO performance?



Because Canon is addressing the complaints of those folks who want every lens stabilized. This crowd loves the in-body IS.

Previously, Canon tried to please the crowd who wanted the megapixel race to end. Look where it got them...

I don't think the general crowd knows what they really need.


----------



## spdntrxi (Dec 20, 2012)

Great.. I waited on v1 because the rumors of v2.. now that I'm nearly ready to buy v2... the rumor of v2 w/IS ?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2012)

It had better be less than the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which would mean the non-IS version will have to drop in price by quite a bit to make room.

I guess Tamron is pushing Canon to do this? If you forced me to replace my 24-105 right now, the Tamron would be my first choice and the 24-70/2.8L II would be third after buying another 24-105.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2012)

spdntrxi said:


> Great.. I waited on v1 because the rumors of v2.. now that I'm nearly ready to buy v2... the rumor of v2 w/IS ?



I'd prefer the IS version, but the rumor of one isn't going to stop me from buying the 24-70 II...


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> spdntrxi said:
> 
> 
> > Great.. I waited on v1 because the rumors of v2.. now that I'm nearly ready to buy v2... the rumor of v2 w/IS ?
> ...



i've got a good v1 and the 24-105 to tide me over till the IS version comes out, I cant wait to see the IQ it will deliver


----------



## EchoLocation (Dec 20, 2012)

I see this being $2899 at introduction in around 2014. This was planned all along. They release the non IS 24-70 first and tempt all the early adopters in to dropping $2300 bucks. Then, 2 years later, they make a new latest and greatest 24-70 IS, and get all those early adopters to fork over top dollar for another version.
They could have made this lens last year, but then they wouldn't have sold so many non IS versions to people who will eventually upgrade to the IS(like so many on here.)
There are only a few zoom lenses that can create this much anticipation and excitement, and Canon plans on maximizing that excitement in to as much sales as possible.


----------



## Dylan (Dec 20, 2012)

I know it's a CR2, but this actually frustrates me (if it's true). I bought the mark II version because it seemed like the replacement for the brick (which I owned). Honestly, professionals need to know what to expect when they make large purchases like this. Canon knew they were going to release an IS version when they sold the non IS and I took the bait totally thinking I made the right purchase. I was shocked that they came out with a F4 version, but now this? It's simply an inconvenience and can end up costing someone a lot of money with the drop in price for what they paid for the mark II in such a short time-frame. So I lose $400 or so and forced to try and find a seller. Thanks Canon.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 20, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> I see this being $2899 at introduction in around 2014. This was planned all along. They release the non IS 24-70 first and tempt all the early adopters in to dropping $2300 bucks. Then, 2 years later, they make a new latest and greatest 24-70 IS, and get all those early adopters to fork over top dollar for another version.
> They could have made this lens last year, but then they wouldn't have sold so many non IS versions to people who will eventually upgrade to the IS(like so many on here.)
> There are only a few zoom lenses that can create this much anticipation and excitement, and Canon plans on maximizing that excitement in to as much sales as possible.



The price would have to be about what you say, or else who would ever keep buying the Non-IS version? 
Only Zeiss could keep a straight face charging that price on a normal zoom. Of course to compete with Zeiss, they would also have to deliberately disable IS AND AF at the same time they jacked up the price?


----------



## pwp (Dec 20, 2012)

After my five dreadful 24-70 f/2.8 MkI copies, I reluctantly compromised with a 24-105 f/4is. What a pleasant surprise! I like IS. 

Last month I had a 48 hour test drive of the 24-70 f/2.8II. Wow, it's a stunner. Yep, the IS version will more than likely cost more than the approx $2300 being asked for the non-IS release, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a price drop in the non-IS lens when the IS ships. They couldn't charge more than the 70-200 f/2.8ISII.

-PW


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 20, 2012)

Well I for one am really pleased. I had no idea what I wanted for Xmas 2013. But then it might not be ready in time. Valentine's Day 2014 perhaps. Oh wait, I wouldn't want to get the first release in case there is something wrong. Ahhh I know, Xmas 2014. How exciting.....


----------



## Stone (Dec 20, 2012)

I can't say I'm surprised if this is true, Canon knows EVERYONE was expecting the 24-70II to have IS. MSRP will be over $3k for sure....


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 20, 2012)

I simply can't wait for a version II with IS. This is a bread and butter lens. I bought the current version and have already gotten a lot of use out of it. IS is nice to have, but I wouldn't wait a year or more for it.


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 20, 2012)

I really don't see this being priced too much higher than the current 24-70 2.8. I think Canon would hurt themselves more by pricing it so high. My personal prediction is for this lens to come in around $2499 while the current 24-70 drops to between $1899 and $1999. 

Hey, I could be very wrong, but there's not way I'll be picking one up at that price. I'll be waiting a couple years for it to become a bit more reasonable (And even then, I'll probably go with the cheaper non-is version)


----------



## infared (Dec 20, 2012)

Let's see...Canon...2014...24-70mm, f/2.8 .....IS....hmmmm....well Intro Price $3500? Sounds about right...no?


----------



## RafaPolit (Dec 20, 2012)

I don't think its just a matter of price... I actually think that they really need to push the release date as far as possible in order to avoid infuriating current buyers. If a new lens is just out of the oven, you don't expect the company to put out in the market exactly what this should have been in about a year... every person that bought the mII will feel cheated, and that is not a good practice!!!

(Although Apple does it every time they put out a new product in the market almost identical to the previous one and everyone pays them... so what do I know really!  )

The other problem is that the mII release price was just too much!... it should have been $1900 not $2500, so now they have no price to ask for this one, as no one will pay $3000 for this one over the Tamron, even if its 3 times better. I really can't understand Canon current lens roadmap, save for the pancake 40!

Rafa.


----------



## infared (Dec 20, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> Will weigh 7 tons and require _83mm_ filters.
> 
> Nice.



83.5mm filters!


----------



## infared (Dec 20, 2012)

pwp said:


> After my five dreadful 24-70 f/2.8 MkI copies, I reluctantly compromised with a 24-105 f/4is. What a pleasant surprise! I like IS.
> 
> Last month I had a 48 hour test drive of the 24-70 f/2.8II. Wow, it's a stunner. Yep, the IS version will more than likely cost more than the approx $2300 being asked for the non-IS release, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a price drop in the non-IS lens when the IS ships. They couldn't charge more than the 70-200 f/2.8ISII.
> 
> -PW



WANNA BET?!?!?!?!?!?  In case you haven't noticed...Canon's pricing policies since the Tsunami have been off the charts....


----------



## Gcon (Dec 20, 2012)

IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length

The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 20, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> There are plans to release an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS sometime in the next 18 months. I have confirmed from two sources that the end of 2013 or early 2014 is the earliest we’d see a production model announced.</p><p>There are no plans for a non-IS 24-70 f/4L.



It's not a surprise that Canon has been researching this. However, a fact that has been flogged repeatedly on these forums is that Canon is out to make money, not just produce great gear. Is it really cost-effective for Canon to support both of these lenses? Either this is targeted to the video crowd (supposing strong sales of the non-IS Mk II to the stills-only crowd) or the Mk II isn't selling well enough. If the problem is lack of Mk II sales, then maybe the IS model would replace the Mk II. That would be weird, though...

This just doesn't make sense unless they had delays with the IS version, and felt compelled to release the non-IS Mk II as an interim solution.

It's all just idyll speculation (pun intended) on my part since I can only dream about lenses too expensive for my hobby budget.


----------



## pwp (Dec 20, 2012)

Gcon said:


> IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length


That may be true for your shooting style, but at evening events I shoot with flash & like to hold the background as much as possible. That means slower shutter speeds. Of course IS is not going to stop motion blur, but it definitely delivers a higher percentage of keepers. Also handy for low light industrial shoots when you've got to move fast and don't always have time to set up the tripod. IS is handy for heaps more applications too. It's just another tool in the kitbag that you learn the limitations of and use it to the max.



Gcon said:


> The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.


Hah! Yes, it's often the case.

-PW


----------



## M.ST (Dec 20, 2012)

A working prototype exits since over one and a half year.

Very funny to see this now after a long time passed.


----------



## Meh (Dec 20, 2012)

Gcon said:


> IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length
> 
> The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.



Never takes long for someone to say they are so awesome that they don't need to complain about gear. Way to go dude, yer so awesome and kewl.


----------



## Meh (Dec 20, 2012)

Cameras don't take pictures, people take pictures. Stop complaining and learn yer gear dude.


----------



## Meh (Dec 20, 2012)

Don't ask what your gear can do for you, ask what you can do with your gear.


----------



## Meh (Dec 20, 2012)

The lens in your hand is worth two in your dreams.


----------



## mememe (Dec 20, 2012)

They just cant release that right now!

Why? They already gone the wrong way. They released the 24-70 II for the price that would fit better for the IS-Version of this lens. The IS-Version has have to be somewhat more expensive and that would be a Problem when comparing to the Tamron one now that the non IS II is priced like an IS one should be.

And since ppl buy the totally overpriced 24-70 II they just cant bring it now. I guess II will drop to the price of the old 24-70 and the IS will be about the price you pay for the II now.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2012)

With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video. A video 24-70 model will certainly exceed $3,000. Right now, I've seen the version 1 going for $2049 at Adorama, thats likely as low as it gets for the next few months.


----------



## sanj (Dec 20, 2012)

I like.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 20, 2012)

Canon f*cked up. I hope the Tamron really hurts their sales. 
I will not buy the I
I will not buy the Non-IS II 
I will not buy the 4 IS
And I will not wait for the III IS


----------



## Viggo (Dec 20, 2012)

"It won't stop action" LOL, that's what the somewhat fast aperture is for, with IS you can do the exact opposite which, believe it or not, can yield some great creative stuff, and if that made you think blurred water, it tells me you're missing out what IS really let's you do..


----------



## robbinzo (Dec 20, 2012)

I like the idea of this lens but the pricing fills me with dread. Likely you will need a 1Dx to balance this beast and arms like Popeye to wield it.
I think the IS is more important for video than for stills.
I plan to buy the 5D III in the New Year but which lens to buy?
I've heard good things about the 24-105 f/4 which seems to be excellent for video. Since I currently use a crop sensor, the f/4 on FF will be similar to f/2.8 on crop so I may just get the 24-105 f/4 with extra reach and not go for the second mortgage for a 24-70 f/2.8. Personally I won't wait for this lens to make an appearance. I reckon it will be affordable for me some time in 2016.
I can understand why owners of the 24-70 f/2.8 II would be annoyed at having their purchase effectively de-valued by this IS version. Even so, you should expect the mark II to maintain a very healthy re-sale value.


----------



## tomscott (Dec 20, 2012)

I feel sorry for the early adopters.

Similar with the early adopters for the 5DMKIII with it now less than a year later at less than £1000 cheaper!

With this in mind anyone would be mad to be an early adopter, loosing 400-500 or even £1000!!!! Within a year. MENTAL.

Canon needs to sort their structure out, or they will loose custom.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 20, 2012)

Honestly not a lens I'll bother thinking about. Especially for my needs and considering the focal length range. I'm happy with my mark II. And IS isn't a need for me. Maybe a little bit helpful but definitely not something that would seal the deal for me.


robbinzo said:


> I plan to buy the 5D III in the New Year but which lens to buy?
> I've heard good things about the 24-105 f/4 which seems to be excellent for video. Since I currently use a crop sensor, the f/4 on FF will be similar to f/2.8 on crop so I may just get the 24-105 f/4 with extra reach and not go for the second mortgage for a 24-70 f/2.8. Personally I won't wait for this lens to make an appearance. I reckon it will be affordable for me some time in 2016.


You should just experiment with which lens you'd find more practical. The 24-105 is a beautiful lens on a Full Frame sensor and the IS is handy.


----------



## ddashti (Dec 20, 2012)

This addition will be greatly welcomed. It's really needed out there!
As for the f/4 non-IS, it's not so necessary.


----------



## sanj (Dec 20, 2012)

tomscott said:


> I feel sorry for the early adopters.
> 
> Similar with the early adopters for the 5DMKIII with it now less than a year later at less than £1000 cheaper!
> 
> ...



Am ok. No need to feel sorry for me. I will use this lens for two years and upgrade later. No stress.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 20, 2012)

IS not needed? It's like the brakes on my car.. Yeah, i drive so fast i don't need them..

Well, what if you don't dragrace but decline a mountain? Do you need them then? Not everybody shoots action. And you shoot everything, like a journalist, having fast aperture and IS is a complete lens that can do pretty much anything...

The same goes for my 85, yes it has the fastest aperture available, but I don't only use it for motion stopping, why would I? So when shooting in dark surroundings i could shoot at 3200 is instead of 51200 with a 4 stop IS, tell me that doesn't matter? I could also shoot much much freely with aperture selection, 1.2 isn't always ideal dof...


----------



## lastcoyote (Dec 20, 2012)

wonder how heavy it'll be?


----------



## tomscott (Dec 20, 2012)

Thing is IS isnt a necessity, but a really nice useful feature. For a lot of people it means a lot more keepers and the lens can be stretched to its limits with conditions.

With the price tag I would expect to have it. It would be a force to be reckoned with in the market if it did have it. Question is why make 3 incarnations of the same lens! One F2.8 is more then enough, I think it would have made more sense to make a homologation of the 24-105mm with the macro ability. This lens would have appealed to more people.


----------



## pwp (Dec 20, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video....



Well maybe that's true for the way you shoot, but it's possible yours is not the only shooting style on the planet. Throw someone creative a new tool like IS on a 24-70 and chances are they'll start delivering shots that were not possible to achieve without it. Every new option delivers potential for new creative possibilities. 

From the day that film cameras stopped being mainstream, we have had a rapid, almost endless succession of new and exciting developments in what is still a very young, though rapidly maturing industry. I'm talking about the digital revolution and it _HAS _been a revolution, now maturing into brisk evolution. 

24-70 with IS? Bring it on. Also bring on all the developments still in R&D and also those not yet invented. We live in exciting times.

-PW


----------



## infared (Dec 20, 2012)

pwp said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video....
> ...



+++100!!!!!!!!! (Hint...when I really need to hand-hold and shoot in the "dark" ..this photographer grabs his Olympus OMD with incredible IBIS...it shoot circles around my 5D III for non-action image situations) Normal-range, FF, fast zoom from Canon with IS with pro resolution will be a good seller....and a no-brainier....


----------



## infared (Dec 20, 2012)

tomscott said:


> I feel sorry for the early adopters.
> 
> Similar with the early adopters for the 5DMKIII with it now less than a year later at less than £1000 cheaper!
> 
> ...



Don't cry for me, Argentina! I am shooting great sharp FF images with an incredible AF system on an improved sensor in low-light RIGHT NOW with a 5DIII and 24-70mm II!!!!!! ;D ;D
One thing I have done to assuage my 5D III financial wound is to realize that when I bought my full-price 5D III I was able to sell my 5D II for $2100. ...now if I sold the 5D II I would be lucky to get $1200... So it kinda evens the pain out a little!


----------



## sanj (Dec 20, 2012)

Viggo said:


> IS not needed? It's like the brakes on my car.. Yeah, i drive so fast i don't need them..
> 
> Well, what if you don't dragrace but decline a mountain? Do you need them then? Not everybody shoots action. And you shoot everything, like a journalist, having fast aperture and IS is a complete lens that can do pretty much anything...
> 
> The same goes for my 85, yes it has the fastest aperture available, but I don't only use it for motion stopping, why would I? So when shooting in dark surroundings i could shoot at 3200 is instead of 51200 with a 4 stop IS, tell me that doesn't matter? I could also shoot much much freely with aperture selection, 1.2 isn't always ideal dof...



Agree. Agree. Agree.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 20, 2012)

Gcon said:


> IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length
> 
> The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.



I've handheld my 24-105 at 24mm and 2 seconds. I routinely hand hold it at 1/5th or so. Here. This is 1/5th at 45mm and ISO 400. Would you have preferred 1/40th and ISO 3200 without IS?

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/5D_13386.jpg


----------



## Scott911 (Dec 20, 2012)

time to buy stock in third party lenses?

When I was in photo school in late 80's, early 90's, the general thought was that the third party lenses were almost canon quality, the main reason you'd pay canon money was to retain strong re-sale value.

Although I have yet to buy a non canon lense in all these years - it seems like one has to strongly consider tamron / sigma options after looking at these canon prices. 

What is the profit margin on these things?


----------



## iso79 (Dec 20, 2012)

Looking forward to get the non-IS version when it drops in price when the IS version comes out. I've been shooting for 15 years and have never had a need for IS.


----------



## gmrza (Dec 20, 2012)

pwp said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > With a FF body, IS is not needed for the 24-70 range unless you are doing video....
> ...



I think this is a case that there is probably market demand for both IS and non-IS versions of a 24-70 f/2.8. For some the additional weight of the IS will not be worth it - there are a lot of people who can't afford to shoot at less than 1/60s or 1/80s, especially where people form part of the subject.
IS is very useful for cases where you can't, for some reason, use a tripod. I think video users will also be very keen on an IS version of this lens.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 20, 2012)

Gcon said:


> IS. Meh. IS isn't going to stop your subjects moving. Period. Also I quite like the higher ISO grain noise of the 5D Mark III. IS is not an issue at this focal length
> 
> The most noise is from fanboys who don't actually shoot - they just want all the feature boxes ticked on their shiny equipment they don't use much, and not having it gives them something to complain about in forums like this. My advice - get the current Mark II, stay off the caffeine and learn how to hold the camera properly with steady hands, build a bridge and then get over it.



I really dont get what you IS=meh guys are smoking. Anything that helps you get the shot is important.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2012)

gmrza said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



where IS helps bigtime on a lens shooting people in low light with flash is when you drag the shutter and shoot at say 1/10th second, lower iso get nice background exposure that is still sharp balance the flash to ambient and still get super sharp people

many people overllok this possibility perhaps they just dont shoot like this?


----------



## marinien (Dec 20, 2012)

lastcoyote said:


> wonder how heavy it'll be?



Want some Internet wisdom? Well ... the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC weighs 825g :


----------



## spdntrxi (Dec 21, 2012)

maybe I'll buy the f4 IS to tie my over.. or just use my Contax 35-70 F3.4 but it's more "work"


----------



## Zv (Dec 21, 2012)

Interesting discussion about IS on this thread. For me personally at this focal range IS is very handy. I recently went and did some night photography, my objective was to test out the IS on my 17-55. I was getting clean shots with ISO 100 and shutter speeds like 1/8 second. Now the 17-55 doesnt even have the latest 4 stop technology and it was giving me about 4 stops. Imagine what this latest version will do? Tripods? Forget about it, I have very little use for them these days!


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 21, 2012)

marinien said:


> lastcoyote said:
> 
> 
> > wonder how heavy it'll be?
> ...



yes but the canon wont have happy meal build quality....


----------



## mrmarks (Dec 21, 2012)

I am quite happy with my 24-70L2. Whether I get the 24-70L2IS will depend on the IQ difference between both lenses, and the weight/bulk difference as well.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 21, 2012)

All has yet to be revealed. Perhaps the last shoe to drop will be the release of a super-premium Canon "L"-branded tripod for $2,500.00. 

People without IS will feel they need one, and many of them would be physically and emotionally unable to resist anything, no matter how pedestrian, that has a prominent red ring on it somewhere.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 21, 2012)

heyyyy batter hey battter hey batter heyyy batter batterbatter

$4300 24-70 2.8 IS the ideal lens for the beginning enthusiast!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 21, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> I am quite happy with my 24-70L2. Whether I get the 24-70L2IS will depend on the IQ difference between both lenses, and the weight/bulk difference as well.



If the new IS can't match the wide open long performance or the wide edge performance of the 2.8 II I will gladly stick with my non-IS II even if the new IS came in at $2300 also.


----------



## SJ (Dec 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> spdntrxi said:
> 
> 
> > Great.. I waited on v1 because the rumors of v2.. now that I'm nearly ready to buy v2... the rumor of v2 w/IS ?
> ...



yep.. 24-70 II is great lens 8)


----------



## sanj (Dec 21, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Anybody that doesn't think IS is useful on a 24-70 is such a limited shooter I really don't understand your opinion. I can understand people not wanting or needing it for their style of shooting, but to deny it is necessary for some others needs and style is just crazy.
> 
> For a start, as has been pointed out, dragging the shutter would work much better to include some ambient that isn't too blurred, IS will help the ambient while the flash keeps your subject sharp. Secondly, more and more places are banning tripods and monopods, try shooting anywhere in India where you would want to use a tripod and armed police will stop you very quickly! But places like museums and cathedrals normally don't allow legged support.
> 
> ...



Very well put!


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 21, 2012)

Too little, too late. Even if this were released tomarrow, I'd still buy the tamron 24-70 over the canon. The canon would be stupendously expensive and the tamrons IQ is already excellent. Why buy the canon? Oh yeah, that pretty red ring. :


----------



## iso79 (Dec 21, 2012)

Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 21, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.



Have you looked at the new Tamron 24-70? From the limited time I rented it and the images I'm seeing, it's quite good. Also from the reviews I've read, it's very good. IQ, not quite up to the 24-70 v2, sure, but still around as good or a bit more than the 24-70 v1. Build quality seems quite good, although again, not quite up to L standards. But it's $1300, not $2100-2300 or whatever the 24-70 v2 is going for right now.

Now, most of the rest of the Tamron glass, far as I know you're mostly correct, but if their 24-70 is the new direction they are going it, they're likely to become a serious off-brand competitor for people who can't quite afford L and don't want to pay the vastly more expensive new non-L primes with IS.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 21, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.
> ...



+1 The Tamron 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC are a huge shift in IQ and quality from them. Add the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and you've got a superb third party kit.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 22, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Tamrons are junk. They're good starter lenses but that's about it.



I dumped my 17-40L after trying a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and my Tamron 28-75 2.8 outdid all three 24-105L I tried.
OTOH I did quickly sell my Tamron 70-300 VC after I tried a Canon 70-300L and I tend to doubt the Tamron 24-70 VC can match the Canon 24-70 II, the wide angle pics looked noticeably worse to me in the photozone sample shots, although no worse than the older Ls and better than the 24-105. I do wonder about the LR talk about a glued in front element for the 24-70 VC which I admit does sound a little dodgy. The ones I have (17-50 and 28-75) though have held up great.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 22, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Now, most of the rest of the Tamron glass, far as I know you're mostly correct, but if their 24-70 is the new direction they are going it, they're likely to become a serious off-brand competitor for people who can't quite afford L and don't want to pay the vastly more expensive new non-L primes with IS.



I really wouldn't say that. The 17-50 2.8 can take down the 17-40L (only on APS-C, granted) and a good 28-75 can outdo the 24-105L (over the more limited shared range and without IS and with much slower AF, granted).


----------



## mrmarks (Dec 26, 2012)

Any estimates of the weight of the 24-70 f2.8 IS ?


----------



## gjones5252 (Dec 26, 2012)

I for one am excited about this lens. Had i not seen this rumor i would have probably purchased the 24-70II. If they can do similiar quality in a IS model i will totally go for it. I understand there will be a cost difference and probably a fair amount at that. 
I am getting tired of using 24-105 at 4 all the time. Honestly i don't really enjoy that lens and have been looking for a better general purpose zoom. But f4 is to dark for what i want to use it for. So to have f2.8 and IS? Thats like having a general purpose zoom at F1.4(subjects not moving). Thats huge.
And its just icing on the cake for video.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 26, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> Any estimates of the weight of the 24-70 f2.8 IS ?


I don't imagine it would be much. I honestly think it would way around the same as the 24-70 mark I.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Dec 26, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> Any estimates of the weight of the 24-70 f2.8 IS ?



No need to wonder, it's 825g, while the Canon 24-70L v1 is 953g(!) and the Canon 24-70L v2 is 803g.

Personally, the Tamron still feels quite heavy, but I'm used to lighter lenses, so I'm going to have to start doing more push-ups now to get ready for when I get it.


----------



## dan (Dec 30, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> Ok, time to sign away my first AND second born, and my both my legs. I need my arms to hold the camera and shoot, otherwise I'd sell those off too. Are we going to hit $3K for a normal zoom lens?



Hehe. It wont be that bad dude. The new normall zoom will drop in price to make room for the IS.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 30, 2012)

I really think the MSRP of the 24-70 II is $1999 and Canon is just milking a couple hundred bucks from each early adopter like they did with the 5D3. I'd expect it to level out by the end of 2013, maybe sooner.


----------



## SlasherMcGee (Nov 12, 2013)

I'm torn between the 24-70mm F/2.8 II, the 24-70 F/4 IS, and the 24-105 f/4 IS.. While doing some research I came across the following article from about 11 months ago:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-exists-as-a-working-prototype-cr2/

Most of the recent discussions on the internet have users stating "The IS version will never come to be!!". This article seems to refute that point! Thoughts?

Bump!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 12, 2013)

SlasherMcGee said:


> I'm torn between the 24-70mm F/2.8 II, the 24-70 F/4 IS, and the 24-105 f/4 IS.. While doing some research I came across the following article from about 11 months ago:
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-exists-as-a-working-prototype-cr2/
> 
> ...



This thread has been dormant for 11 months. 

Many have theorized that the IS F/2.8 would be too large and/or too heavy, or that it would dilute Canon's ability to maintain the non-IS version price of $2k. 

Others (like myself) have offered that the two recent 24-70s (the F/4 IS and the F/2.8 II) _are just the first two_ of what will eventually be a four lens offering, like what is currently offered for 70-200 users: F/2.8 and F/4 both with an without IS, establishing four price points in the segment.

For whatever reason, we don't have the piece de resistance, and we continue to wait for it even with Tamron currently offering one. The only event that would drive Canon to offer an IS F/2.8 standard zoom would be Nikon themselves offering one.

It's like a cold war in that regard.

- A


----------



## Ruined (Nov 22, 2013)

Do you really think canon will let Tamron corner the market on wedding dslr videographers? no way! Just a matter of time before the IS comes out, I think within a year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Do you really think canon will let Tamron corner the market on wedding dslr videographers? no way! Just a matter of time before the IS comes out, I think within a year.



Are a lot of wedding videos shot at f/2.8? Is pixel-level sharpness critical for dSLR video? There are still the 24-105/4L IS and the 24-70/4L IS from Canon...


----------



## Ruined (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think canon will let Tamron corner the market on wedding dslr videographers? no way! Just a matter of time before the IS comes out, I think within a year.
> ...



If you talk about whether you "need" certain aperatures and whether sharpness is "critical", we probably all would be happy with APS-C, STM motors, and f/4. But, when one is given an arguably better option for the same price, one will often go for the better option.

I actually did quite a bit of searching on this, and the answer is YES - the Tamron 24-70 VC appears very popular amongst wedding videographers given the commentary on various forums & youtube as it gives them both f/2.8 as well as image stabilization. The Canon 24-70 f/4 & 24-105 lack 2.8, while the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 lacks image stabilization.

If you were doing wedding photos+videos, would you rather carry a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 for photos *AND* a Canon 24-70 f/4 IS for video (on top of your 70-200 and everything else)? Or would you rather just carry a single Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC that can do both? Given the extra bulk of two lenses in the same focal range, I would see why many who do photos&videos are flocking to the Tamron.

So, if Canon continues to ignore this market for whatever the reason, they are bottom line likely going to lose significant marketshare amongst this professional group to Tamron. There is no good reason why they didn't launch an IS lens in the first place aside to make people buy the same lens yet again, as Tamron with much lesser resources and expertise has proved that it can be done with similar image quality. I am guessing Canon can exceed Tamron's quality, so if Canon had actually released the 24-70 II with IS, I have no doubts it would be very close to the current 24-70 II.

Again, I believe Canon will respond by the end of 2014 with a 24-70 IS, or risk continue losing customers to Tamron with one of their bread and butter lenses.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 22, 2013)

If this rumour turns out to be true, I would be willing to get the IS version of the 24-70 f2.8.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 24, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> If this rumour turns out to be true, I would be willing to get the IS version of the 24-70 f2.8.



Someone else said this earlier in the year and it makes sense...

The 24-70 II will likely be the kit lens for the rumored big bucks ultra high MP camera that Canon is supposed to announce next year. It is the only ultra high res standard zoom they make right now, so it would be a natural fit.

But, then what do they sell those ultra high mp camera buyers if they already have the II? The 24-70 IS of course!  Plus, the IS would be a potential upgrade for anyone who has the 24-70 I (or II).

Again, if Tamron can do it with less resources, less expertise, not that much bulkier, not that much worse looking, and at half the price - I see no reason Canon could not execute on this other than attempting to milk as much as they can out of the II before they release the IS. Likely its also the reason they went with the 82mm thread on the II, in preparation for the IS which needs a larger front element than 77mm.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 27, 2013)

I am not ready to spend around $3K in a normal lens, and many people out there won't. Canon needs to update those lenses that do not render good IQ and sharpness, rather than focusing on improving 'excellent' lenses.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 27, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I am not ready to spend around $3K in a normal lens, and many people out there won't. Canon needs to update those lenses that do not render good IQ and sharpness, rather than focusing on improving 'excellent' lenses.



Well, remember that 24-70 is a bread and butter lens, one of the most important in Canon's lineup. It is to their benefit to ensure they have the best version available out there IMO. Tamron is getting a lot of business with a nice quality 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens for half the price due to Canon's unwillingness to release an IS version.

Also, Canon does not HAVE to increase the price, they could actually *drop* the price of the non-IS version to ~1699 which would put it in a lot more reasonable space than it is now. Then put the IS version where the old version was, at 2299.


----------



## kennephoto (Nov 27, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not ready to spend around $3K in a normal lens, and many people out there won't. Canon needs to update those lenses that do not render good IQ and sharpness, rather than focusing on improving 'excellent' lenses.
> ...



I hate when people make this much sense! Sarcasm of course, because I totally think what you're saying is what canon should do! I've used the 24-70 II and loved it and would buy it if it came down in price a bit more especially with the way you say they should do it!


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Well, remember that 24-70 is a bread and butter lens, one of the most important in Canon's lineup. It is to their benefit to ensure they have the best version available out there IMO. Tamron is getting a lot of business with a nice quality 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens for half the price due to Canon's unwillingness to release an IS version.
> 
> Also, Canon does not HAVE to increase the price, they could actually *drop* the price of the non-IS version to ~1699 which would put it in a lot more reasonable space than it is now. Then put the IS version where the old version was, at 2299.



+1 Exactly!


----------



## M.ST (Nov 27, 2013)

The 24-70 2.8 IS L lens based on the version two without IS exits since a longer time and is an fantastic lens. Many of the 24-70 2.8 II L lenses had massive quality problens and that for a very high price. Even my EF-S 15-86 IS lens feels more solid like my 24-70 2.8 II L production lens (only the zoom function). The prototype/ preseries version however is fantastic. 

I see it in the price range 2.399 to 2.499 Euros.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 3, 2013)

M.ST said:


> The 24-70 2.8 IS L lens based on the version two without IS exits since a longer time and is an fantastic lens. Many of the 24-70 2.8 II L lenses had massive quality problens and that for a very high price. Even my EF-S 15-86 IS lens feels more solid like my 24-70 2.8 II L production lens (only the zoom function). The prototype/ preseries version however is fantastic.
> 
> I see it in the price range 2.399 to 2.499 Euros.



I echo the concerns of quality issues with the design and manufacturing of the 24-70 II.

There are not one, but two multi-page threads about multiple people having to return their lens for a new copy 3+ times because the barrel clicked or squeaked when zooming. One person had a copy that was fine, then started squeaking over time. Amazon even had to pull the lens off their site for some time while they investigated all the complaints. Clearly, there is something in the manuf chain or design that is not right with this lens for a $2200 piece of equipment. If it was a $500 kit lens, fine, but it is not... This is one of the big reasons I have not bought this lens.

It is long overdue, Canon needs to stop playing games and release the 24-70 f/2.8 IS, preferably in a design that is less problematic than the 24-70 II. Tamron, of all companies, is showing them up! Can't go ragging on Tamron for build quality when the Canon that costs twice as much clicks and squeaks away... In the meantime I will continue to use my primes and aging zoom.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 3, 2013)

mrmarks said:


> Any estimates of the weight of the 24-70 f2.8 IS ?



The difference between the 70-200 f2.8 and the MkII IS version is 6.4 ounces, I'd expect similar figures when comparing the 24-70 f2.8 MkI to a 24-70 f2.8 IS. The former is 33oz, the later should be in the 39oz range, probably a bit less. This is well below even the lightest 70-200 f2.8, even those without IS/OS etc.


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 3, 2013)

Been thinking about the Tammy. Between my 14 and my 70-200 and my soon to be delivered 100 Macro, I am kinda getting hooked on the f/2.8 lenses. But, for now, I will wait to see what, if anything, Canon does.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 6, 2013)

It's been over a year and you are still waiting? So wait away... Waiter's gonna wait...


----------



## Ruined (Dec 6, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> It's been over a year and you are still waiting? So wait away... Waiter's gonna wait...



Considering the production issues with the EF 24-70 II with people having to exchange 4 or 5 times to get a copy that doesn't squeak/tick or have other problems, waiting might not exactly be a bad idea - at the minimum until they get the zoom problems consistently fixed.

What is a bit more troubling is Canon is refusing to fix the lenses with this problem, saying it is normal for the lens to squeak or tick when zoomed (unlike every other canon zoom that exists)- leaving video shooters out of luck.


----------



## dolina (Dec 10, 2013)

I'd very keen in owning one if one were to be sold.


----------

