# Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS Still in Testing [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 19, 2017)

```
We’re told that the long rumored IS version of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is still in testing but has not yet been given an announcement date. There are apparently still two versions of the lens being developed, with only one coming to market.</p>
<p>Canon’s goal is to make the new IS version of the lens noticeably better optically than the current EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and just adding IS to the 6 year old optical formula. The second goal of the lens has been weight, adding image stabilization adds weight and bulk to a lens. Nikon’s non-VR and VR versions of their 24-70mm f/2.8 has a weight difference of about 170 grams, which you can feel when shooting all day, the VR version is also noticeably bigger in size.</p>


<p>We were told back in 2012 that Canon had worked on an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS & EF 24-70mm f/4L IS alongside the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II development, and as we know, chose to release the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS a few months after the current f/2.8 lens. Now keep in mind that L zooms take years to develop from start to finish and various prototypes will obviously exist.</p>
<p>Every other lens manufacturer seems to have an IS version of their 24-70mm f/2.8 version and Canon seems to pride itself on being the market leader in lens technology, so I think it’s only a matter of time until we see an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2017)

Anyone care to guess what this puppy is gonna cost?


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 19, 2017)

USD1,950.00 in US market.



unfocused said:


> Anyone care to guess what this puppy is gonna cost?


----------



## Skywise (Oct 19, 2017)

WANT IT!

Since moving to FF I've really missed my old trusty APS-C 17-55 F2.8 which was my previous walk around lens. I've got the 24-70 F2.8 II and while it takes fantastic shots I miss the IS at times (or it's better to say I miss shots without the IS!)


----------



## ethanz (Oct 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> USD1,950.00 in US market.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The non IS version was $2,300 new, I doubt a new IS version would be less than that upon release...

My 24-70 f2.8 II is excellent, I don't know if I could justify spending on a new lens yet.


----------



## Talys (Oct 19, 2017)

I am actually remarkably happy with my 24-70/f4 IS. The weight/size is awesome, and the performance is just great. 

I originally intended on buying the 24-70/2.8 II, but when I tried the f/4 IS at the store, I fell in love with it right away, and it has since become one of my favorite lenses.

I do agree that Canon "needs" one in its portfolio, if only for completeness.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 19, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Canon’s gold is to make the new IS version of the lens noticeably better optically than the current EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II </p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>[/html]



Have to say that’ll be quite a feat.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Oct 19, 2017)

Canon's "goal" probably not "gold" second paragraph


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 19, 2017)

CR Guy made a typo but I think he meant to say Canon's goal IS to make the lens optically better and NOT to simply add stabilization to the old formula, right


----------



## dolina (Oct 19, 2017)

I hope it comes sooner than later. This would be so useful to a lot of photogs.

Here are the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses with and without IS that are more than $1000.

$2,396.95 - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens 
$2,198.00 - Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens 
$2,098.00 - Sony Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM II Lens 
$1,796.95 - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Lens 
$1,699.00 - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens 
$1,299.00 - Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art Lens for all mounts
$1,199.00 - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens for all mounts
$1,099.00 - Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD Lens for all mounts
$1,096.95 - Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8ED SDM WR Lens 

The Nikon with VR in late August 2015 was offered at $2399.95.
The Sony in March 2016 was offered at $2200 
The Canon without IS in Febuary 2012 was offered at $2,299.00.

My guess is that the 24-70/2.8 with IS will be offered above $2,400 and be lowered to actual street price 6 months after release.

Next up a 16-35 f/2.8 with IS!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> CR Guy made a typo but I think he meant to say Canon's goal IS to make the lens optically better and NOT to simply add stabilization to the old formula, right



Think so. Makes sense -- you'd sell more lenses / command a higher asking price that way. 

Consider: if it's the same f/2.8L II lens with IS, you get a certain number of pent-up interest folks buying on day one. But if it's _also_ better than its predecessor, the best 24-70 zoom on the planet, etc. even folks who don't want IS will buy one.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2017)

dolina said:


> Next up a 16-35 f/2.8 with IS!



Yes, because that's what everyone is screaming at Canon for: _another UWA L zoom_. :

Off the top of my head, besides the lens this thread is all about, I can think of 10 lenses we need more in Canon's portfolio than an UWA f/2.8 IS zoom:

1) A workhorse all-battlefield 50 prime with a flat plane of focus and some form of USM
2) Some way to shoot with first party AF longer than 400mm FF without using a teleconverter or spending $9k
3) A proper astro lens
4) Better EF-M lenses, particularly ones with USM focusing
5) Either refresh the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or as least offer 7D2/80D users a constant f/4 USM standard zoom
6) An update to the 400 f/5.6L to give it IS
7) 135 f/2L refresh, surely with IS
8.) 85 f/1.8 USM refresh, likely with IS
9) Wider FL 1:1 macro for FF
10) More pancakes (especially a wider one for FF)

- A


----------



## Ditboy (Oct 19, 2017)

"so I think it’s only a matter of time"... the phrase that will eventually lead to Sony or Fuji taking over where Canon has been for the last 20 years. They kept saying that about Nikon making an autofocus camera that works, and while they said it, Canon took the market.

Read more: http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-is-still-in-testing-cr2/#ixzz4vyZveboA


----------



## slclick (Oct 19, 2017)

ethanz said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > USD1,950.00 in US market.
> ...



Same. No need at these focal lengths. It works.


----------



## DaveGershon (Oct 19, 2017)

This would have to be an amazing lens. My copy of the 24-70mm f2.8 II is very good. It works well on my 1DxII and 1DIV bodies. IS would be nice. Maybe it is improved for higher resolution sensors.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 19, 2017)

slclick said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



I really cannot recall ever needing IS on my lens while on my FF camera. Shutter speed is usually set high enough to freeze subject motion, which IS cannot do, I just currently do not get many images that are blurred due to camera shake.

BUT --- High MP cameras are coming, 60MP, 100MP, who knows, and on crop cameras, we are already at 60 MP equivalent, so IS will be needed in the future in order to help resolve all those pixels.


----------



## bsbeamer (Oct 19, 2017)

If Canon can improve vignetting at the wide end on a 24-70 F2.8 with IS, they can take my money in pre-order. Have held off on upgrading since I pretty much need IS at this point.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I really cannot recall ever needing IS on my lens while on my FF camera. Shutter speed is usually set high enough to freeze subject motion, which IS cannot do,



Sure, MSP, but with respect not all of us are shooting subjects that might move. IS is gold on wide and standard FLs for capturing moments when a tripod/flash cannot be brought to bear: street, interiors, handheld landscapes (perhaps when hiking, walking about, etc.), waterfall shots, macro, and so on. I shoot in low light handheld all the time, and I personally consider IS a nearly indispensable feature. 

...and of course there's that whole video thing. I don't partake in that myself, but I'm told it has a following.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I really cannot recall ever needing IS on my lens while on my FF camera. Shutter speed is usually set high enough to freeze subject motion, which IS cannot do,
> ...



Even with subjects that move. At events, a speaker or an audience member will often pause and be motionless for a few fractions of a second. Very easy to shoot them at 1/15 or even 1/8 of a second with good IS and have the subject not blurred. Not so easy to do without IS.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 19, 2017)

Now, if only it can also get the macro capabilities of the F/4L IS


----------



## Jopa (Oct 19, 2017)

That's actually a sad news - we won't see the new 24-70 IS in 2018 for sure :'(


----------



## davidcl0nel (Oct 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Yes, because that's what everyone is screaming at Canon for: _another UWA L zoom_. :



Maybe even a 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS III which is even better or just lighter/shorter a tiny bit. Yes i know 200 f/2.8 means a lot lens, but maybe it is a little bit easier now. Or it is worse but a lot lighter, but with a very good correctible profile. I don't need 12 extra lenses to get the chromatic abberation to zero, if the color is absolutely predictable and just one click in software.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Even with subjects that move. At events, a speaker or an audience member will often pause and be motionless for a few fractions of a second. Very easy to shoot them at 1/15 or even 1/8 of a second with good IS and have the subject not blurred. Not so easy to do without IS.



You can totally get that shot without IS. Just raise your ISO from 1600 to 12800. Easy. 

I make the argument all the time that for low light I'll take an f/2.8 IS lens over an f/1.4 one, so it's a far easier argument to make when it's f/2.8 vs. f/2.8 IS.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Now, if only it can also get the macro capabilities of the F/4L IS



Canon doesn't hybridize / dabble with the purpose of pro f/2.8 zooms. I'd be shocked to no end if the 24-70 f4L IS's 1:1.4 macro makes it into the next f/2.8L. Shocked.

- A


----------



## slclick (Oct 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if only it can also get the macro capabilities of the F/4L IS
> ...




Isn't it 1:2?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2017)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



Negative. Max mag is 0.7x, or 1:1.4.

- A


----------



## slclick (Oct 19, 2017)

Oh that's nice almost the real deal


----------



## Famateur (Oct 19, 2017)

Skywise said:


> WANT IT!
> 
> Since moving to FF I've really missed my old trusty APS-C 17-55 F2.8 which was my previous walk around lens. I've got the 24-70 F2.8 II and while it takes fantastic shots I miss the IS at times (or it's better to say I miss shots without the IS!)



You might consider the 24-70 F4L IS. I haven't touched my 17-55 F2.8 IS in the two three years (time sure flies) since purchasing the 24-70 F4L IS. In fact, I'm gonna sell it to help fund either a new body or the 16-35 F4L IS.


----------



## Talys (Oct 19, 2017)

Famateur said:


> Skywise said:
> 
> 
> > WANT IT!
> ...



Same here!

I also own both the 24-70 f/4 and until recently, the EFS17-55 f/2.8. There's just no comparison.

The 17-55 was awesome... 10+ years ago. But the autofocus is relatively slow (it hunts a little), it's a little noisy, there's a lot of chromatic aberration (to the degree where it's not always/easily correctible), it's not close to the sharpness of the 24-70, and the IS on the 24-70 noticeably superior.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 19, 2017)

Taking this rumor at face value and assuming all is true, my best guess at the two different prototypes floating around is that one is internal zooming and the other is not...

If a 24-70 2.8 IS shows up, well there's the ultimate walk-around lens right there. Assuming better IQ (and reasonable weight), I'd give up both the non-IS 24-70 2.8 AND the f4 version for this. Hell, might even consider throwing in the 24-105 for good measure, but might still want the extra reach from time to time.


----------



## Famateur (Oct 20, 2017)

Talys said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Skywise said:
> ...



Indeed, my experience as well on all points. Will be listing my 17-55 on eBay soon...


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 20, 2017)

$3200.00 USD?




unfocused said:


> Anyone care to guess what this puppy is gonna cost?


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 20, 2017)

I love mine so much, even if I won the lotto, I don't think I would upgrade. OTOH, if this had huge improvements that were significant, I might consider. Emphasis on HUGE!





ethanz said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > USD1,950.00 in US market.
> ...


----------



## Berowne (Oct 20, 2017)

I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 20, 2017)

I am most intrigued by the bit of the rumor that the new lens will have better IQ. Forgetting IS for a second, but Canon is working on a 24-70 f/2.8 lens with better IQ than the current 24-70 II, which is already impressive. So, the "prime-like" zoom might even get better. Excellent.

As for IS, something that can do more is always appealing over something that can do less. The first question is do we sacrifice anything (size, weight, IQ? Surely money)? The second question is how often would we use that extra feature. IS can be very useful, but I do find myself shooting off a tripod or at least 1/125 more an more. 

So, I will probably be more interested in this lens primarily if it really does have better IQ than the current 24-70 II, and secondarily for IS.

That said, I am a happy user of the 24-70 II. It is my most used, do everything lens.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 20, 2017)

Berowne said:


> I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.



I own both. I actually favor the IQ out of the 24-70 II over the 16-35 f/4 IS. Not by much, but I do favor it. So, you may have got a bad copy.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 20, 2017)

It is very likely that the lens you have rented had an issue or was not AFMA tuned to your camera.
at 24mm, F4 24-70 is sharper in the centre and mid frame.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=949&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0




Berowne said:


> I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.


----------



## Berowne (Oct 20, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > I rented the 24-70/2.8 II and was somewhat dissapointed. But perhaps my expectations have been too high, because I am used to the pretty nice 16-35/4 IS. So I think, a new 24-70/2.8 IS should not be above 2k€ and optically better than the 16-35/4 IS. Guess this is improbable.
> ...



Maybe the rented lens was decentered a bit. Anyway, the 16-35/4 is a bargain.


----------



## mjg79 (Oct 20, 2017)

The current 24-70 2.8 L II is almost perfect so it is interesting to hear that Canon wants to improve the optics and not just add IS.

The only weak spot in the design is 60-70mm at f/2.8-4. And it's not really that bad. From 24-60mm it really is as sharp as a good prime, the AF is fast, the rendering pleasant and neutral. 

When I got a 5DSR I was pleased that it still performed flawlessly 24-60 so I can only assume Canon is going to pay attention to the long end.

The price will be interesting. We all assume they are going to charge a fortune but they have priced the new 85L IS quite reasonably (for an L lens at any rate) and I suspect that is down to Sigma's very highly regarded presence at 85mm. The situation is even more apparent at 24-70 with IS - both Sigma and Tamron produce well regarded lenses and (for Tamron the second one with IS, now much improved) - and both are priced very aggressively. So we might get a pleasant surprise - can't hurt to be optimistic!


----------



## Skywise (Oct 20, 2017)

Talys said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Skywise said:
> ...



Oh absolutely. I'm just looking at it through the lens of nostalgia as that was really the first lens that made me realize "Wow... glass really DOES make the difference!" I sold my 17-55 about 4 years ago to help fund my upgrade to a 6D and the 16-35 f2.8. I went with the wide angle first as I had a trip planned to DisneyWorld and wanted to video the fireworks. Getting the 24-70 f2.8 a year later once I had recharged the bank accounts.

The 24-70 is absolutely superior and I really don't mind the lack of IS so much as I wish it was as light as the 17-55!

I've also picked up the 16-35 f4 IS last year. Still deciding if I like it better than the F2.8 for fireworks videoing/night work. But the 24-70 has become my standard walk around lens now.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 20, 2017)

I don't own a 24-70/2.8 II, but by all accounts, the IQ is outstanding ... so pretty ambitious of Canon to aim for improvements. I hope they succeed better than they did with the 24-105/4L II!

Nevertheless, I'd be satisfied with a 24-70/2.8L IS that just matches the 2.8 II's IQ. However it performs, I expect a launch price of US $2,400-$2,500. I would wait until the price drops to $2,000.

But give me a 24-70/2.8L IS and an AHSanford 50mm Special, and I'd be done.


----------



## Mancubus (Oct 20, 2017)

Canon is surely taking its time on this lens, they better do something really good and not screw up like Nikon did (the VR version has less image quality than the non-VR).

I'm also surprised to see people praising the 24-70 F/4. I had that lens and it was definitely the worst lens I've ever owned (relative to the price):
- mediocre image quality
- very strong focus shift
- rubber focus ring started to come off despite the lens being quite new and well cared
- totally unworthy of the red ring (the 24-105 is way better value)

Hoping for a GOOD 24-70 2.8 IS!!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2017)

JonAustin said:


> But give me a 24-70/2.8L IS and an AHSanford 50mm Special, and I'd be done.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 20, 2017)

Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.

5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.

Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.


----------



## Patak (Oct 20, 2017)

My 24-70 2.8 MkII was the most used lens for the 3 years I owned it (fell into the ocean and not usable anymore). 

Ever since, I have been watching the price and it goes up and down but will replace it. Do not miss IS one bit. Image is sharp, colorful and crisp. Not sure if it could get too much better. I will not be waiting for the new version.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.
> 
> 5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.
> 
> Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.



Glad you've found what you were looking for, but it seems a very odd flowchart governed your decision making. If you moved from FF to crop over a 24-70 f/2.8 IS not being offered, I get it... _if what you moved to offered that specific functionality._

Your response to not getting an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS was to get an 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 on crop... it would appear that f/2.8 and IS coexisting in a standard zoom had nothing to do with your decision. (Also, an EF 24-70 f/4L IS seems to have been overlooked in all this -- would have kept you in FF, given you IS, and still would have better subject isolation than that 18-135 -- but I digress.)

Again, I'm happy for you that you have what you need, but the notion that Canon failing to give you a Ferrari led you to happily buy 3-4 Fords implies you probably didn't want a Ferrari in the first place.

- A


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.
> ...



I had a similar reaction to Lee Jay's post, but doubt that I could have articulated as well as you have.

That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2017)

JonAustin said:


> That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.



Precisely why I am not selling my 5D3 and buying something better: I must develop my skills at this point. 

As much as I'd love more resolution or a bump in DR for landscapes, my biggest deficiency right now is no longer my gear -- it's my skill level. I just need to shoot more.

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.
> ...



Long and winding road, remember?

The 24-70/2.8IS would have replaced two primes and an f/4 zoom with IS which I used for moderate light, stationary subjects and general walkaround. Combined with better sensors, the f/2.8 would have been fast enough for freezing moving subjects in low-light.

Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light, and a slower hyperzoom with IS for stationary subjects in low light and general walkaround. The advantage is the 18-135 USM is a way more flexible lens - way more range than the 24-70, works really well for video including compatibility with the PZ-E1. So, I lost the ability to use one lens for all low-light situations, but I gained three times the range in better light and way better video capabilities, not to mention saving something like $5,000.


----------



## slclick (Oct 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.
> ...



T H I S


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light, and a slower hyperzoom with IS for stationary subjects in low light and general walkaround. The advantage is the 18-135 USM is a way more flexible lens - way more range than the 24-70, works really well for video including compatibility with the PZ-E1. So, I lost the ability to use one lens for all low-light situations, but I gained three times the range in better light and way better video capabilities, not to mention saving something like $5,000.



Apologies, thanks for clarifying. So you got a superfast standard zoom with limited FL multiplier and a slower standard zoom with a much larger FL multiplier. Bases covered, got it.

I have a bad habit of seeing something - 35mm and thinking it's an UWA zoom, so I didn't think of the Sigma as a standard zoom option in crop. My bad. 

- A


----------



## Berowne (Oct 21, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.
> 
> 5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.
> 
> Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.



The 7DII is a fantastic camera. My son purchased one a year ago and is pretty happy with it, especially together with the new 100-400. But since we acquired a 6D half a year ago (my first FF), he is all the Day talking with Daddy about a 1DxII (AF, Speed and FF). We rented one and he (and me) would not give it away again. 

But this is a lot of Money for a camera and my Feeling is, similar to ahsanford, that I should better develop my skills. Anyway I will not longer prefer a crop camera. If you compare Crop+10-18STM and FF+16-35/4, the choice is clearly with the FF-variant. I would also not replace FF+85/1.8 with Crop-50/1.8STM. The IQ is simply better with FF.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 21, 2017)

Talys said:


> I am actually remarkably happy with my 24-70/f4 IS. The weight/size is awesome, and the performance is just great.
> 
> I originally intended on buying the 24-70/2.8 II, but when I tried the f/4 IS at the store, I fell in love with it right away, and it has since become one of my favorite lenses.
> 
> I do agree that Canon "needs" one in its portfolio, if only for completeness.


Agree completely. Though I would love f2.8, the sharpness and overall feel and size of my f4 IS is just right. It balances perfectly with my 5Diii (just replaced with iv). Also the macro switch is far more useful and handy than most people give it credit for.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 21, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light



Isn't it the same effective depth of field as f/2.8 on FF, and same effective speed as f/1.8 on full frame?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 21, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light
> ...



Depends on how you weigh the equivalence equation but if you factor in noise then Lee Jay is correct, take these two exposures and they will yield identical images if the sensors are same generation. Same dof, subject movement, image noise etc.

FF 1/200 sec f2.8 iso 400
Crop 1/200 sec f1.8 iso 160


----------



## Talys (Oct 21, 2017)

Berowne said:


> But this is a lot of Money for a camera and my Feeling is, similar to ahsanford, that I should better develop my skills. Anyway I will not longer prefer a crop camera. If you compare Crop+10-18STM and FF+16-35/4, the choice is clearly with the FF-variant. I would also not replace FF+85/1.8 with Crop-50/1.8STM. The IQ is simply better with FF.



The price difference is huge, though (between double and triple). 

Also, I don't think I would buy a 85/1.8 today, except used (any more than I would buy a 50/1.4 new). Mostly, the autofocus on newer generation L lenses are just so much better. I'd either go cheap and buy 50/1.8, or go high and get the new 85/1.4. Yeah, yeah, 3x the price, I know 

Depending on the FL that you need 100/2.8L Macro is a cheap fantastic alternative too.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.
> ...



Quite good "self analysis". I had similar feelings after upgrading in some fields from 5D classic to 200D or 5D mark iv.
I have chosen the 200D / SL2 because I have to learn a lot of things and current APS-C is good enough for my current
tasks and skills.

While DR isn't that important in a lot of situations I am running out of DR very often because I really like contra light for
landscape, architecture, macro, etc. The 200D delivers. This is confirmed by my experience how easy I can get the results
I intended or I have seen in the real scene.
While the dxomark ratings of sensors are obscure, the DR measurements give some hint about the usable DR and the 200D / SL2
gained a good rating between 80D and 5D iv in DR.

Back to the topic: Though a while that 24-70 WITH IS is an interesting option for me, just for the 200D / SL2 but: It is
too large to make sense on a light and compact SLR like 200D. And (see above) I tend to leave FF at least for a while.
For me an optically very good EF-S 4.0 20-60 IS nanoUSM with 1:3 closeup capability would be the best "standard zoom".
I need sometimes moderately wide optics, but usually live in the tele region + like to capture smaller objects. And it would
fit to the perfect EF 4.0 70-200 IS USM ...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 21, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...


How can you come on a website for gearheads like us, and suggest that APS-C can be better than full frame in any measure?  Do not you know this is blasphemy?  You have achieved the feat of annoying at the same time supporters of the "big is better" and those of the "small mirrorless is the future".


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Next up a 16-35 f/2.8 with IS!
> ...



I agree with you on points 7 and 1, the rest are a bit meh...
The 100-400 LIS II is easily the better lens than the 400m f5.6 L and makes it completely redundant in most measurable areas except cost.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 22, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



I am scientist. I never heard the word "blasphemy". Therefore I do not know what it is 

And I am enjoying my not big (is better) and not mirrorless (is the future) plasticky, limited, unobtrusive 200D / SL2 with a very good sensor ...


----------



## Berowne (Oct 22, 2017)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Example: 7DII+100-400 II+1.4 Ext. III = nearly 1000mm FF-Aequivalent. Not enough for 4000€? (no croping, developed in LR 5.7 with some standard-presets and slightly adjusting brightness) 

Sorry, mistake, the Eagle was done with 6D, added a Detail of the same Pic and here is a Flower with the above combination.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 22, 2017)

Berowne said:


> Example: 7DII+100-400 II+1.4 Ext. III = nearly 1000mm FF-Aequivalent. Not enough for 4000€? (no croping, developed in LR 5.7 with some standard-presets and slightly adjusting brightness)
> 
> Sorry, mistake, the Eagle was done with 6D, added a Detail of the same Pic and here is a Flower with the above combination.



Very cool shots.


----------



## Talys (Oct 23, 2017)

Berowne, very nice eagle shot! Beautiful eye focus.


----------



## Neutron_K (Oct 27, 2017)

I too find 24-70 L II magnificent enough. Yet I travel with my camera a lot and need to go indoors. IS will be on for 50% of my shots. I appreciate this update a lot.


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2017)

I have the original 24-70/2.8 and would be keen to upgrade to a 24-70/2.8 with IS. 

It is a mystery to me that Tamron, Sigma & Nikon have one already while Canon doesnt.


----------



## MYB (Oct 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Off the top of my head, besides the lens this thread is all about, I can think of 10 lenses we need more in Canon's portfolio than an UWA f/2.8 IS zoom:
> 
> *1) A workhorse all-battlefield 50 prime with a flat plane of focus and some form of USM*
> 2) Some way to shoot with first party AF longer than 400mm FF without using a teleconverter or spending $9k
> ...



+1


----------



## traveller (Oct 30, 2017)

dolina said:


> I have the original 24-70/2.8 and would be keen to upgrade to a 24-70/2.8 with IS.
> 
> It is a mystery to me that Tamron, Sigma & Nikon have one already while Canon doesnt.



Probably because at the moment the choice is between large size (Nikon) and compromised optics (Sigma and Tamron). Canon has stated that they aren’t willing to accept either.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 30, 2017)

Don't need it, but want it if it is as good optically as the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Realistically, I have not felt a need for IS at those focal lengths yet, but I am not getting any younger. Shaking comes with age, sometimes. :'(


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 31, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't need it, but want it if it is as good optically as the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Realistically, I have not felt a need for IS at those focal lengths yet, but I am not getting any younger. Shaking comes with age, sometimes. :'(



I have a love-dislike relationship with IS. It's nice at the longer focal lengths and makes framing easier, but it's not unusual for me to have some blurry shots as IS is being spooled up after switching targets (i.e. sports) and I'm trying to take a shot as soon as possible. For shorter focal lengths where it doesn't help for framing all that much, I'd probably leave it off unless I'm specifically targeting still-life with a slow shutter speed.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 1, 2017)

The 24-70 2.8 II is a stunningly sharp lens.
I don't miss IS on it at all.
IS is useful if you are not a careful photographer or suffer from a high degree of shake.
I think sometimes knowing you don't have IS makes you consider shutter speed and technique which leads to better photographs.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 2, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> IS is useful if you are not a careful photographer or suffer from a high degree of shake.



Which do you think has better IQ on a stationary subject, ISO 800 0.4s or ISO 12,800 1/25s?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > IS is useful if you are not a careful photographer or suffer from a high degree of shake.
> ...



+1. All day.

How many times do we need to cover this? If you can't bring enough light or stabilization to the party and the subject isn't moving, IS is good for _everything_. Walk your ISO down from the stratosphere to something with a lot more DR/color depth, etc. or keep the ISO the same as the non-IS lens and stop it down for DOF/composition or sharpness reasons. 

In a sense, with stationary subjects in light that base ISO can't cover exposure-wise, IS is like having a built-in 3-4 stops better-than-your-hands s---ty tripod when you don't have a tripod or are not allowed to bring/use a tripod. It is super useful.

Whether _you_ need it or if you want to assert that 'some folks lack the chops to have still hands' or '*I* never needed it' is irrelevant. Some of us have different needs, and IS helps us address those needs. Sensors are getting better but not to the point that we should be happy that 'hey, with some face-melting NR and pushing things in post, this ISO 12800 shot isn't bad.' _It would look much better at 1600.
_
Now whether you want to pay for the added cost / weight of IS we can debate, but the notion that it's useless for wider angles, only needed for people with poor grip/technique, etc. is tantamount to putting fingers in your ears to other photographers' needs.

- A


----------



## GoldWing (Nov 4, 2017)

I look forward to the lens being priced at $1,9999 - My old 1DX cost about 7,000 / My new 1DXMKII cost less.... If Canon keeps the price low.... Every photographer will upgrade their kit.....


----------



## risto0 (Nov 5, 2017)

Canon 24-70 2.8 II is fantastic lens - great picture quality and sharpness. But I do miss IS as...
...sometimes the light is even so low that pumping up ISO to tolerable level still leads to exposure 1/20 which means visible handshake on larger images
...sometimes I really would like to reduce exposure time in purpose to capture a motion of.. fore example a passing vehicle
...I am not into video recording (because of lacking video editing skills and necessary high-performing pc) but sometimes I try it for fun. Lacking IS is clearly visible on videos if not using any additional stabilizing equipment. I believe IS would produce much smoother footages. 

So yes, I would need IS and probably go for the IS version of 2.8 lens when it comes out. At the moment I switch to 16-35 f4 for video.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



Good point and, frankly, I do not know the answer for you. For me it is quite simple.

I use Canon IS (and non IS) lenses from 16 to 800mm (+ a bit more with extenders) yet I find IS to be the most useless feature on any of my lenses. If I turn IS on then it is even worse! I have had whole days of photography mucked up until I discovered the "OFF" switch.

Admittedly this was primarily on moving subjects, but I found that static subjects (such as medieval church interiors) also benefited from using the "OFF" button.

A few of months ago I was describing this to a Canon Rep at a local photography show and, frankly he thought I was mental - but he was very polite. Unfortunately we didn't have a really long lens available so we had to make do with a Canon 500 F4 L IS Mk2 and a 5D4. Let's just say that he was a little puzzled as to how his shots at 1/160 sec at F8 were sharper when the IS was turned off (hand held) compared to IS on. Unfortunately I hadn't brought along my Canon 800mm so we couldn't really see how steady he was. But, for me, with arms like matchsticks 800mm and 1/160 sec is simply not an issue. I wonder what that translates to on a 24-70?

I have the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 and love it! One of the factors in my decision to buy it was the lack of IS. Unfortunately I didn't have that option with most of my other lenses. I have asked Canon UK if it is possible (at my expense) to remove IS from my other lenses but they don't want to do it! Not happy.

P.S. I am happy to demonstrate if you can get to South Wales - you may be surprised, I was!


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> A few of months ago I was describing this to a Canon Rep at a local photography show and, frankly he thought I was mental - but he was very polite.



I'm with him.

I've tested this extensively and shots I can't get *at all* without IS often become tack-sharp with IS.

I only have one demo handy, but here you go.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2017)

I took advantage of the IS even on the older 24-105 f4L (version 1).

That way I was able to shoot with lower speeds and bring the ISO to more realistic numbers. 

I am talking about static subjects (museums and churches interiors).

So I definitely prefer IS. Also my 500 4L IS II works excellently with IS set to ON.
I also observed IS on my 70-200 lenses (2.8L IS II and 4L IS) The advantages were very obvious.

I would love to have a 24-70 2.8L IS with IQ similar to my 24-70 2.8 II.

There only one different case where the absence of IS was beneficial but I am talking about something completely different now: NOT an IS lens with IS set to OFF but a version of a lens without IS vs the same with IS.

I am referring to the very old EF 300mm f 4L (NON IS as I said previously). That lens is reported as being better than its IS counterpart.

I don't/didn't have both lenses to make comparisons but I have made the following comparisons using tripod and live view manual focusing:

1. 300mm f/4 L NON IS + 1.4X II 
2. 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS (version 1)

The test case 1 result was a little better. Should the lens was a 300 f/4L IS the results would be the oposite as had been reported consistently by many sources in the past. 

So I can safely assume that the non IS model is sharper.

The above of course refers to the past and to a case where the lens does not include IS vs to a lens with IS set to off.

Now back on topic a question for the 2.8 II users: Should an EF24-70 2.8L IS come to existence would you sell your beloved copy?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 7, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > A few of months ago I was describing this to a Canon Rep at a local photography show and, frankly he thought I was mental - but he was very polite.
> ...



So that means that you agree with me - after all he (the Canon Rep) did! Much to his surprise


----------



## yeahright (Nov 8, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...


From how I read this post it does NOT back your argument, on the contrary. You brought up the example of 800mm and 1/160 s earlier. Maybe in this example you are right, if you have a steady hand. But are you seriously saying IS would not help you for stationary subjects in dim lighting handheld at 1/4 s or 1/2 s? Or would you say: "Under such conditions I wouldn't take the photo anyway, because even if it may turn out better with IS than without (possibly even significantly), it will still never reach my high standards of tack sharp images."


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2017)

I believe it is safe to assume that in these times the modern Canon lenses are not degraded by the mere presense of IS elements. So it is better to have IS and its ON/OFF switch rather than not.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 8, 2017)

Whilst I wouldn't pretend to be able to hand hold most (if any) of my lenses at 1/2 sec I do not encounter the need to do this. Whilst I do like interior shots of Norman churches I have yet to find the need for IS. 

My main gripe with IS is the way that it mucks up AF (especially tracking) and that the IS elements never seem to settle back in the same place when IS is off - can't be a good thing. Additionally it is of little (any) help on static subjects with long lenses and, so far, has no use on short lenses that I have (yet) found.

So I don't want to pay for a "Feature" that makes my lenses larger, heavier, more expensive and makes it more difficult to get the shots that I want - I am a bit funny that way 

I don't do "People" photography but I do dabble with most genres (my main interest is wildlife) and in the last 3 years and 11 months I have found no need for IS and have benefited from a higher (very much higher on wildlife) keeper rate. Best upgrade I ever made to my photography and it was free!

Agree or disagree - it is of little concern to me however if you ever visit the South Wales area I am happy, in the spirit of helping others, to demonstrate the advantages of the Off switch.

All the best.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

tron said:


> I believe it is safe to assume that in these times the modern Canon lenses are not degraded by the mere presense of IS elements. So it is better to have IS and it's ON/OFF switch rather than not.



I agree in principle (I also love IS and generally am not a skeptic) but don't we lack the apples to apples comparison to make that statement?

What I mean is: IS and non-IS lenses rarely come out _simultaneously_, so they often are slightly different optically as time goes on.

For instance, look at the 70-200 lenses -- the closest IS vs. non-IS physical constructs that I know of:

70-200 f/4L = 1999
70-200 f/4L IS = 2006

70-200 f/2.8L = 1995
70-200 f/2.8L IS = 2001
70-200 f/2.8L IS II = 2010

What I don't know is if these two families of lenses are identical from an optical design standpoint or if they are different. If they are different, we can't really use them as the basis of stating IS has no effect, correct?

Help me out gang, are there any IS and non-IS lenses that are identical otherwise out there?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 8, 2017)

Just checked at TDP -- both families above have different numbers of elements/groups from each other, so those two families are out for a 'clean' IS vs. no IS comparison.

- A


----------



## tron (Nov 9, 2017)

I believe there is no identical pair. So the only possible comparison is an apple to oranges one.

300mm f/4L > 300mm f/4L IS

70-200 f/2.8L IS II > 70-200 2.8L > 70-200 2.8L IS

70-200 4L IS > 70-200 4L

Quite apple to oranges so I put the above merely for fun.

The closest comparison is the one with the switch ON and OFF on the same lens.


----------



## tron (Nov 9, 2017)

As far the interior of churches and museums I have found IS to be of great help especially at normal and at above normal focal lengths (50mm-105mm)...


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 9, 2017)

You can't really use the same optical design for IS and non-IS because you need the IS group... Can't just take a non-IS lens and add IS to one of the groups. Not in general anyway.


----------

