# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-cr1/"></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="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Thinks that make you go…..

</strong>I have received two separate communications in regards to an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS  being in the wild in prototype form. We knew this prototype has existed for quite some time, however we figured the concept was dead with the release of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. Canon would bring this lens to market alongside the non-IS version. Canon already does this with the 70-200 f/2.8s & 70-200 f/4s, so it’s possible they bring it to the standard zooms as well.</p>
<p>It’s a bit early to talk about pricing strategy, but the new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II will drop in price over the next 12 months, as you can see by the recent big drops to the EOS 5D Mark III.</p>
<p>This is from a new source, take this with a grain of salt. I’m intrigued as I do know the IS version exists.</p>
<p>The timelines for future lenses seem to all be going into 2013, more on that later.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 29, 2012)

If it really appears, will it have...
1. IQ of 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3k$
2. IQ of 24-70 2.8 I and price over 2.5k$
3. IQ better than 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3.5k$
??


----------



## pedro (Oct 29, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> If it really appears, will it have...
> 1. IQ of 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3k$
> 2. IQ of 24-70 2.8 I and price over 2.5k$
> 3. IQ better than 24-70 2.8 II and price over 3.5k$
> ??


If I am right on this one, IS today is a much required element due to the whole movie stuff. Well, still hope that there will be a 12-24/14-24 f2.8 NON IS by Canon sometime in the next two to three years....Although, non IS seems as unlikely as the rumored lens (wishful thinking?) itself...And 1.8k might not be enough for purchase once it is announced...;-)
Cheers, Pedro


----------



## Ew (Oct 29, 2012)

Unexpected pressure from Tamron?


----------



## Etienne (Oct 29, 2012)

Ew said:


> Unexpected pressure from Tamron?



My thoughts too.

However I shudder at the thought of the price of the IS version. Tamron will probably still be the way to go.


----------



## dolina (Oct 29, 2012)

Thank God for competition then.  This is the lens I wanted from the get go.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 29, 2012)

For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Oct 29, 2012)

If it's true, i don't think it's pressure from Tamron since the Tammy IQ isn't as good as the 24-70LII

I would bet that if Canon does release this the IQ will not be as good as the mkII but will rival the Tammy at a similar price to the mk1.
Why? Because if the IQ is on par with the mk2 and with IS included, then those who bought the mk2 would be kinda disappointed and this will be prices too ridiculously high.

If they released it with the mk1 IQ but with IS, then at least for people who have IQ in mind, they buy the mk2, for those who want to do video and need IS, they buy this…


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 29, 2012)

Seriously, if they release a 24-70mm IS, it'll be like $3K. That'll make it the second most expensive Canon zoom ever (behind the waiting-to-be-released 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x USM). Undoubtedly, it will have none of the compromises of the Tamron VC (distortion, slow AF).


----------



## willis (Oct 29, 2012)

Between $2799 - $3299. :


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 29, 2012)

Canon is finally releasing the lens we've really wanted, After we've recieved the lens that we've really wanted, after the lens we've really wanted.


----------



## robbymack (Oct 29, 2012)

Finally a $3500 zoom for the video crowd


----------



## kirillica (Oct 29, 2012)

I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?


----------



## friedrice1212 (Oct 29, 2012)

If this happens I'm way more interested in a cheaper non-IS 24-70L II than the (will be) absurdly expensive IS version. If we consider the price gap in the 70-200 range I think that the non IS will be a killer deal


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2012)

kirillica said:


> I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?



It's about having the flexibility to go slow when there's a need. The two new wide primes with IS - I wonder if the people using them turn IS off? I'm betting no...


----------



## tron (Oct 29, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.


+1


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 29, 2012)

kirillica said:


> I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?



Introducing this lens together with high MP body will force you to use higher shutter speeds at the same time even for static objects... or simply leaving IS on 
After having spent 7-9k$ for body it doesn't make a big difference to add another 500-1k$ for IS in a lens costing 2k$ itself


----------



## kirillica (Oct 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?
> ...


well, as I said, this possibility exists only for non-moving subjects


----------



## kirillica (Oct 29, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?
> ...


how MP are connected to SS?


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 29, 2012)

kirillica said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > kirillica said:
> ...



If your object moves you can do nothing but increase the shutter speed anyway, but for static objects (at 100% magnification) you will notice more blur on a camera with high MPs - assuming of course you don't intend to make 800x533 photos for web from 40MPs body....


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 29, 2012)

kirillica said:


> I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?



Yes, I've shot at up to 1 second handheld with my 24-105. In some cases, on moving subjects where I wanted the motion blur, but in most cases on stationary subjects.


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 29, 2012)

I too wonder what the price going to be ... 3-4000? 

If I would work for Canon I would package it in white boxes and advertise it as a special lens that makes your photos special in a special way.. that at the end you will feel especially special too 
They might just double the price of the non IS version or just pick a number from a hat that they took from a cat... )


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 29, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> If it's true, i don't think it's pressure from Tamron since the Tammy IQ isn't as good as the 24-70LII
> 
> I would bet that if Canon does release this the IQ will not be as good as the mkII but will rival the Tammy at a similar price to the mk1.
> Why? Because if the IQ is on par with the mk2 and with IS included, then those who bought the mk2 would be kinda disappointed and this will be prices too ridiculously high.
> ...



I disagree. I bought Tamron 24-70mm VC for the VC feature. The IQ of Tamron 24-70mm is not as good as Canon 24-70mm MK2, but it's better then the MK1 version. That's good enough. However, lack of IS make me go with Tamron. IQ is not the only factor for people choosing a lens.


----------



## candyman (Oct 29, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > If it's true, i don't think it's pressure from Tamron since the Tammy IQ isn't as good as the 24-70LII
> ...




+1
And let's not forget, it is about 1000$€ cheaper than the Canon 24-70 MK2. The so called Canon 24-70 MKII with IS is just a rumor and no sign if and when it will hit the market for actual use.
The Tamron is on my short-list


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2012)

kirillica said:


> how MP are connected to SS?



MPs are not really connected, but pixel size is, and in general, more MP means smaller pixels. A given amount of shake means a specific amount of movement in terms of arc-seconds. With smaller pixels, a given amount of movement covers more pixels on the sensor, which translates to more blur. So, smaller pixels means you need an even faster shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. 1/FL is a film rule. Even 1/1.6xFL is not enough on a high MP, small pixel sensor.



Lee Jay said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > I keep on asking: why you need IS in this lens? to shoot 1/10? well, almost all "moving subjects" can do a lot of stuff within this time range, so you'll get blurred image anyway (well, with another kind of blur, but...). for non-moving subjects only?
> ...



Exactly. The 24-105L IS is a greg 'walkaround' lens aka general purpose zoom. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is great for events, etc., but not as great as a walkaround lens - because of the lack of IS.


----------



## vab3 (Oct 29, 2012)

If IS is important for video, then maybe a stepper motor, too?


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Oct 29, 2012)

sigh, IS would be sooo great for video... but im sure it would cost an arm and a leg ... more than version 2. 

not to mention i hate playing the waiting game, I bet I can wait a year, give up, buy the non is one and the BAM.. IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2012)

vab3 said:


> If IS is important for video, then maybe a stepper motor, too?



Egad, no. I'll take nice, fast ring USM, thanks...


----------



## Shamus1 (Oct 29, 2012)

While I certainly don't regret upgrading to the 24-70 f2.8 II as it a super lens, AND I do hope Canon releases an IS version, I will be just a little piqued that after spend the extra increase for the non-IS version, that I will have to consider what to do on the IS one. If both had been released simultaneously, would have just spent the extra for the IS.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2012)

I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > how MP are connected to SS?
> ...


Well, it's true and false in the same time. on 1:1 imagination - true. the smaller pixel you have, the more details you can capture. and details mean movements as well. 

but

up to A4 prints, I guess, no one really mentions it  so downscaling, let's say 24Mp to 8Mp gives the same result as originally captured image with 8Mp.


----------



## brianleighty (Oct 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> MPs are not really connected, but pixel size is, and in general, more MP means smaller pixels. A given amount of shake means a specific amount of movement in terms of arc-seconds. With smaller pixels, a given amount of movement covers more pixels on the sensor, which translates to more blur. So, smaller pixels means you need an even faster shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. 1/FL is a film rule. Even 1/1.6xFL is not enough on a high MP, small pixel sensor.



Thanks for that explanation neuro. I'd always noticed on my crop bodies the 1/1.6 photos were still a little blurry. I just always assumed that maybe I have more shaky hands than other photographers. But your explanation makes me feel better about me being more normal


----------



## stewy (Oct 29, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.


What does 1/40 have to do with IS? Do you know what IS is used for? Do you never shoot anything with a slower shutter speed?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2012)

stewy said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.
> ...



I'm shooting with 5D III + 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II - you think I don't know what IS does?


----------



## VanWeddings (Oct 29, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I would bet that if Canon does release this the IQ will not be as good as the mkII but will rival the Tammy at a similar price to the mk1.



well there's already this lens that exceeds mk1 IQ, costs about the same, has IS, and is available now. it's the tamron 24-70 VC


----------



## Etienne (Oct 29, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> If it's true, i don't think it's pressure from Tamron since the Tammy IQ isn't as good as the 24-70LII
> 
> I would bet that if Canon does release this the IQ will not be as good as the mkII but will rival the Tammy at a similar price to the mk1.
> Why? Because if the IQ is on par with the mk2 and with IS included, then those who bought the mk2 would be kinda disappointed and this will be prices too ridiculously high.
> ...



Most reviews show the Tamron and Canon produce the same level of IQ, each having advantages and disadvantages over the other. Check out http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff

Canon's lens is great, but at a $1000 less, the Tamron is the winner.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 29, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> If I would work for Canon I would package it in white boxes and advertise it as a special lens that makes your photos special in a special way.. that at the end you will feel especially special too



Aahhhh, you mean like Apple does!


----------



## zim (Oct 29, 2012)

Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?


----------



## DzPhotography (Oct 29, 2012)

I already want one now :-\


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 29, 2012)

zim said:


> Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?



That would be a M00t lens because of the 24-105L.


----------



## zim (Oct 29, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?
> ...



ah true true


----------



## DB (Oct 29, 2012)

Perhaps Canon had always intended to market a 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS, but just were not ready yet or they wished to maximize their revenue with early-adopters first with the non-IS mkII version? Who knows. But what I do know is that IS lenses are very different to their non-IS counterparts, not just in terms of additional weight (the f4L IS is 55g heavier than the non-IS and the mk1 70-200 f2.8 IS USM is 160g or 10oz more than the non-IS version), but also the internal workings have to be completely redesigned to accommodate the Image Stabilization mechanism - thus you end up with a different lens in terms of groups/elements etc.

Do people think that the adoption of a wider diameter (82mm instead of 77mm) on the new 24-70mm f2.8L mkII has anything to do with plans afoot that Canon Inc. has to launch an IS version? In other words, did they increase the width of the lens because they had planned all along to incorporate IS at a later date and wish to utilize common parts across the assembly of both products.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 29, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.



Do you prefer ISO 6400 at 1/40th or ISO 1600 at 1/10th?


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 29, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> brianleighty said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop. The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC. Both require less blur to be effective.


----------



## SebSic (Oct 29, 2012)

Do you really think Canon will release shortly a 24 70 II IS ?
I am not shure at all.
If so the IS versin wil have sale IQ en be heavier. IMO


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 29, 2012)

OMG... This lens is going to cost $3k.... I mean, I know the newer Canon lenses are sharp... But the price is getting quite ridiculous.. I had a similar discussion with a Nikon friend who was wondering if spending double the money for the 1.4 85mm was worth it over the 1.8 85mm. I look at him and say 'Dude, the images with the 1.8mm are PLENTY sharp and great... Why?'

I guess if you need the latest and greatest and most expensive gear to improve your photography, then so be it. Sell me your old gear!


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 29, 2012)

zim said:


> Any chance the IS version is actually an f4L lens?



I'd prefer IS with a 2.8 rather than with a F4.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> vab3 said:
> 
> 
> > If IS is important for video, then maybe a stepper motor, too?
> ...



yeah just try a 40mm pancake side by side with the old 24-70 mk1 STM is ok but AF is not spectacular


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop. The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC. Both require less blur to be effective.
> ...



I suspect most people (I'm sure there are exceptions) don't judge critical focus based on their intended final output. Rather, they view the image at 100% (most likely with a loupe tool). Therefore, comparing two images shot on different bodies with differently-sized pixels, with the subject projected onto the image plane at the same physical size, the image from the higher resolution/smaller pixel sensor will appear larger, and thus more subject to the perception of blur.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.
> ...



at 1/10 you better pray your subject(s) stand still as building. Answer to your question, I'll take 6400 over 1600 on 5D III or 1D X.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2012)

@privatebydesign - thanks for the correction...and the freebie


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I still think, and as I understand what happens there on the surface of the sensor, that the size of the pixels doesn't play such an important role here, as the resolution. Assuming, that:
1. on the current sensors, geometry of particular subpixels makes them evenly spread across the surface
2. three or (even rather as for now) four of subpixels create a real pixel
3. information from subpixels (creating a pixel) distant from each other is interpolated in terms of luminosity
4. there are microlenses decreasing the infuence of the real geometry of subpixels

I would rather say, that if we want to observe the difference in contrast between the final pixels to catch the motion blur, then 
1. if 4 subpixels act as one pixel
2. and those subpixels are evenly spread across the surface
then only the final resolution of final pixels (and not subpixels) determines this matrix'es capability to catch the motion blur caused either by the camera shake or the subject's move.

This can change somehow, if detection is on photo's WB or one of clear RGB components area. In the latter case it can happen, that the other subpixels remain "blind" no matter if the real move has occured or not, but such a case I'd say is rather rare.

Looking at the real sensor's geometry and it's ability to detect motion blur, I think, that the resolution determines it's real pixel size as area limited by subpixels (but not in terms of it's light capturing capablities) so the bigger the resolution, the smaller the real pixels (even if empty somehow in the middle), so the bigger the ability to detect blur. At smaller resolutions, subpixels acting here as a bigger pixel interpolate the move on the bigger sensor's surface, so their sensivity to "detect" the move is smaller.

Does it make sense?


----------



## sanj (Oct 30, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.



For me IS comes in handy at 1/40.


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Oct 30, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.



As a response to this I can only think of a famous remark once made by the eminent John McEnroe Jnr. whilst cordially discussing the call made on the previous point with the central umpire.


----------



## sanj (Oct 30, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.
> ...



True!


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2012)

sanj said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer 1/40 or above..."IS" is useless in this case.
> ...



IS is super usefull for me on the 24-105 since i mostly shoot
static things (industrial plant) with this lens on the 1D
however very often the platfrom from which i am shooting is vibrating or 
swaying in some way therefore in this shooting situation IS is essential
and i can reliably shoot down to 1/20th second. in this scenario a faster aperture does nothing
also i shoot mostly at f8 in these things and only open up the lens when lighting is very bad
ah I still dream of a 24-105 f2.8 IS


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 30, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > True, but one of the advantages of higher pixel counts is larger prints examined more closely, and another is additional ability to crop. The first effectively reduces CoC, the second effectively increases enlargement, this reducing CoC. Both require less blur to be effective.
> ...



Yeah, that's true, but the larger pixel counts enable you to alter the CoC criteria (down) through any of these methods more before getting into pixel-blur territory, so it's sort of an enabler rather than a cause on its own.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 30, 2012)

It is true, there are IS prototype 24x70's. They were left over from the RD of the new 24x70's.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 30, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



But sometimes your objects are still (and you need some DOF), even if they once went over Mach 3.

ISO 400, 45mm, 1/5th: http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/5D_13386.jpg

I can't handhold 45mm at 1/5th without IS, so that would have been at least ISO 3200 and 1/40th without it.


----------



## vuilang (Oct 30, 2012)

$3000 for a standardized Lense?
if so, will $1800 justified by lillte different in IQ,sharpness from Tamron?


----------



## gmrza (Oct 30, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least. - For that reason, IS on a 24-70 is not important for that use case, while it is important for a 70-200mm lens used in the same circumstances.

You are just part of an unlucky minority.

Canon possibly didn't consider the video crowd with bringing the 24-70 f/2.8 II to market. On the other hand, if Canon had included IS, all the PJs and wedding shooters would have complained about the unnecessary cost of unneeded IS with the lens.

It looks like Canon can't win - they are bound to make somebody unhappy, no matter what they do!


----------



## sanj (Oct 30, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I share the dream!


----------



## mrmarks (Oct 30, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least. - For that reason, IS on a 24-70 is not important for that use case, while it is important for a 70-200mm lens used in the same circumstances.
> 
> You are just part of an unlucky minority.
> 
> ...



Agreed, and IS would also add unnecessary weight and degrade the IQ


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 30, 2012)

What if this were really an non-L consumer FF lens designed to be paired with a 6D and future 'entry level' FF offerings?

-Brian


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

bbasiaga said:


> What if this were really an non-L consumer FF lens designed to be paired with a 6D and future 'entry level' FF offerings?
> 
> -Brian



It would be strange because 24-105 is dedicated for FF "entry level" and plays this role quite well.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 30, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.



I shoot weddings, and my main lens is the 24-105. It's not uncommon at all for me to get some shots at 1/5th to 1/20th, and for them to be fantastic. The catch is, it would be nice to have that extra stop of brightness when I do need to pump up the shutter speed - it would save a stop of ISO - but not while requiring me to change lenses to get those slow shots too.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 30, 2012)

I am not sure I get the point with another 24-70mm. Then why release the v2 ? Was the IQ of the v1 so bad that it needed such an urgent refresh ? Maybe they could have waited a bit more to release a better product with IS. My guess is that a lot of people who bought the v2 will be highly frustrated when the v3 IS is ready.

Same with the 135mm f2 that is an excellent lens and IMO is not the most urgent need.

On the other end, they still have a few very lousy old lenses (20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2.5 macro, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus :), the wide angle zooms are not that good (both 17-40mm and 16-35mm), the TS-E 45mm and 90mm NEED the new design with separate controls, the 100-400mm could use a mechanical update, the 400mm 5.6 cries for an IS, there is no excellent wide angle between 14mm and 24mm (the 17mm TS-E is too specialized and expensive for normal use) and so on....

Instead of refining the 4th version of their tele-converters, maybe they should have a COMPLETE range of modern lenses to start with.

I understand they put a lot of emphasis on the big whites since this is big money, but what is honestly the percentage of photographers who can afford a 13,000$ 600mm f4 (aside from some full time specialized pros) ?

Mr. Canon, we have had a lot of refreshes lately, maybe it would be time to surprise us a bit with something really new....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Come announcement time, Canon delivers a lens at around twice the price of the Tamron with marginally better IQ and no image stabilisation. Oops. Tamron out played Canon.



The Tamron lens is cheaper, yes. One reason is design choices and build quality. Roger Cicala took apart a Canon 24-70 II and found it to be very robustly built. He also had an only-glued-in-place element come loose in several of his Tamron 24-70 VC lenses (yes, they're shipped a lot, but the failures also occurred on pretty new lenses).


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure I get the point with another 24-70mm. Then why release the v2 ?
> ...



I see a lot of folks who are happy with the Tamron, but haven't heard of too many who think it out performs the new Canon (optically speaking anyway. Price/value ratio is subjective and may be a different story). The 5dMKiii outclasses the D800 in many types of photography. Other than price class these two camera's cannot be compared, and even that is a meaningless comparison. 

Back to the 24-70...I don't really think Canon has room 'above' the V2 price wise. I think if there is going to be another one in the line up, it would have to be a less expensive model with a simpler optical system to save cost. Maybe it would be a fast non-L zoom for consumers, or maybe it would go asn an L series in the $1500 range as a step up from the slower 24-105, still with IS, though lacking the prime-like performance of the V2.

-Brian


----------



## Jesse (Oct 30, 2012)

Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > Problem is, I don't think the 24-70 (without IS) was designed with you in mind. I would guess that the main use case Canon considered was reportage - PJs and wedding shooters being the two biggest camps. - Both of those groups need to keep their shutter speeds up to reduce motion blur - in the region of 1/80s to 1/125s at least.
> ...



If your main lens is 24-105 for wedding, how many flashes do you bring with you?


----------



## Radiating (Oct 30, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> For me, it would have to be lower than the cost of the 70-200/2.8L IS II, which is a bigger lens, with bigger elements, spectacular optics, and IS. To get there, they'd likely have to reduce the cost of the II non IS.



I'm not sure most people understand this but it is much much much much harder to make a normal zoom than a telephoto zoom. You can make extremely good telephoto zooms day and night for cheap, as evidence by every manufacturers and all the third party telephoto zooms being great lenses.

Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.

I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.

Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.

So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.


----------



## willis (Oct 30, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.


But then Canon should design bodies again.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 30, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Same with the 135mm f2 that is an excellent lens and IMO is not the most urgent need.
> 
> On the other end, they still have a few very lousy old lenses (20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2.5 macro, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus :), the wide angle zooms are not that good (both 17-40mm and 16-35mm), the TS-E 45mm and 90mm NEED the new design with separate controls, the 100-400mm could use a mechanical update, the 400mm 5.6 cries for an IS, there is no excellent wide angle between 14mm and 24mm (the 17mm TS-E is too specialized and expensive for normal use) and so on....
> 
> ...



I 2nd that.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 30, 2012)

willis said:


> Jesse said:
> 
> 
> > Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.
> ...



I wonder if anyone ever designed a stabilized converter ?
One could thing about a 1.2x that would convert any lens into IS with minimum loss in IQ, angle of view and speed.
It would of course not be ideal for WA lenses, but could be a useful accessory.
But maybe this is not technically possible (or marketing wise) ?


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> willis said:
> 
> 
> > Jesse said:
> ...



The best would be oversampled sensor signal readout and intelligent merge of subimages, but not yet 
BTW - this is also a solution for DR increase


----------



## sb (Oct 30, 2012)

CatfishSoupFTW said:


> sigh, IS would be sooo great for video...



I never understood this need... IS is not a replacement for monopod/shoulder rig/steadicam/slider/tripod, what kind of video production would require handholding anyway?


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

sb said:


> CatfishSoupFTW said:
> 
> 
> > sigh, IS would be sooo great for video...
> ...



If Andrzej Sekuła would have C300 or 1Dx with nice IS lenses , he could use them instead of Panavision in Pulp Fiction in a scene where Bruce Willis (aka Butch) crosses the backyard going for his watch


----------



## Jesse (Oct 30, 2012)

"what kind of video production would require handholding anyway?"

......................


----------



## Jesse (Oct 30, 2012)

Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 30, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Come on guys, you're all avoiding the real issue here - CANON SHOULD BE PUTTING STABILIZERS BUILT INTO THEIR CAMERAS.



USING CAPS doesn't mean digital in-cam IS can suddenly stabilize an optical viewfinder...



Jesse said:


> Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.



... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-(


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Jesse said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.
> ...



+1. Good, Bad and the Ugly has some of the most powerful static shots of any movie. I Have a strong dis-like of the "organic" camera-shake in modern film.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 30, 2012)

Shamus1 said:


> While I certainly don't regret upgrading to the 24-70 f2.8 II as it a super lens, AND I do hope Canon releases an IS version, I will be just a little piqued that after spend the extra increase for the non-IS version, that I will have to consider what to do on the IS one. If both had been released simultaneously, would have just spent the extra for the IS.



Judging by the recent price drops of 5D III, it seems Canon strategy is to launch with as high a price as possible, then drop the price some months later. If 24-70 IS is launched, I suspect it will sport a price similar to $2300 the 24-70 non-IS sports currently, but the non-IS then likely will drop in price around that time to say $2000.


----------



## Jesse (Oct 30, 2012)

"... and I hate it (seen Bourne 3?), people thinking shaky cam and 1sec-cuts can replace a script should get shot :-("

Someone's never seen a Cuaron film.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 30, 2012)

6 pages of miss informed rumor thread. It is actually an f/4 lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 30, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > gmrza said:
> ...



One on every camera, but I don't rely on flash for anything but fill. When I need speed because of dark conditions, I break out the primes - f/2.8 is too slow.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I wonder...what kinda shots do you shoot at 1/5 or 1/10 at wedding and at what f-stop???


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


with flash and second curtain sync 1/5 or 1/10 is just fine and the IS takes care of camera shake
especially if they are posed shots where the subjects are not moving


----------



## sb (Oct 30, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.



Sure, and that style is most often achieved by using a shoulder rig and not by actually hand-holding...


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

sb said:


> Jesse said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, handheld is a style and TONS of movies, tv shows and docs use it.
> ...



They can also add shake in PP


----------



## Bosman (Oct 30, 2012)

Why post? Just why?


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Why post? Just why?



Just for fun


----------



## Bosman (Oct 30, 2012)

Well theres that


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm not sure most people understand this but it is much much much much harder to make a normal zoom than a telephoto zoom. You can make extremely good telephoto zooms day and night for cheap, as evidence by every manufacturers and all the third party telephoto zooms being great lenses.

Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is. It is actually much harder to do than making a 200-400mm 1.4x TC lens.

I've spoken to Canon reps and Canon has gone to great lengths to try to make a pro image quality 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens prototypes, even going as far as making a lens that has a 105mm filter thread.

Fast Normal zooms actually have much bigger elements than fast telephoto zooms do. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has 2 77mm elements and a 60mm element as it's largest elements. The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. I has three 77mm elements. The 24-70mm Mk. II has even bigger elements.

So yeah just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it's worth more, you're paying for more air, not glass. If anything a fast normal zoom should cost 2-3 times as much as a equal quality telephoto zoom. The only reason why telephoto zooms are the most expensive is because there is a market for them with sports and wildlife photographers.
[/quote]

Really? Hmmm. This does not go down at all with me. Naaa...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2012)

sanj said:


> Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is.



I was under the impression Canon didn't choose the 24-70/2.8IS prototype because of weight and bulk issues, and not because it's very difficult to add IS to any lens?


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Making a normal zoom, especially a fast normal zoom with IS is the greatest challenge their is.
> ...


i could care less about the weight and bulk they should just release it to
god knows how expensive it would be thought.... $3500?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i could care less about the weight and bulk



But since this lens is aimed at the pro market, less weight should be really better if shooting all day. The one thing I find strange though is that people who recommend the much heavier 70-200/2.8is all the time now say that the 100g weight loss on the 24-70ii is important to them :-o


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > i could care less about the weight and bulk
> ...



i'd rather the heavier bulkier lens on a 5Dmk3 than the smaller lighter lens on the bulk of the 1DX


----------

