# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Mentioned Again [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 15, 2015)

```
We’re told once again that Canon is actively working on an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS lens. We’ve been told in the past that Canon was working on this during the time of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II lens development.</p>
<p>One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released  was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8L II instead.</p>
<p>We’re told that two or three prototypes exist, but no final design has been decided on. The IS being worked on for the lens will provide better performance than anything currently in the Canon lineup, along with more optical upgrades, one would assume a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-develops-new-camera-lens-optical-element/" target="_blank">BR element</a> would be part of the development.</p>
<p>Do not expect this lens from Canon for 18-24 months at the earliest, as there’s no pressure to release it, even after <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/nikon-to-announce-24-70-f2-8-vr-24-f1-8-200-500-f5-6-vr/">Nikon recently announced a VR version of their 24-70 f/2.8</a>.</p>
```


----------



## plam_1980 (Sep 15, 2015)

I know they want to milk the 24-70 f/2.8L II as much as possible, but it is really annoying if they can have it in 6-12 months but delay it for 24 just because they don't feel the pressure...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 15, 2015)

plam_1980 said:


> I know they want to milk the 24-70 f/2.8L II as much as possible, but it is really annoying if they can have it in 6-12 months but delay it for 24 just because they don't feel the pressure...



I suspect the current 24-70 f/2.8L II would remain current if/when the IS version comes.


----------



## plam_1980 (Sep 15, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> plam_1980 said:
> 
> 
> > I know they want to milk the 24-70 f/2.8L II as much as possible, but it is really annoying if they can have it in 6-12 months but delay it for 24 just because they don't feel the pressure...
> ...



Then what would be the reason to hold off the IS version, if they can sell well both?


----------



## Nitroman (Sep 15, 2015)

24-105 f4 IS II please ... 

I'm sure we'd all like a little extra length.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 15, 2015)

plam_1980 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > plam_1980 said:
> ...



Upgrades beyond just IS.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 15, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Do not expect this lens from Canon for 18-24 months at the earliest, as there’s no pressure to release it, even after Nikon recently announced a VR version of their 24-70 f/2.8</a>.</p>



Gotta love the logic here...


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 15, 2015)

plam_1980 said:


> I know they want to milk the 24-70 f/2.8L II as much as possible, but it is really annoying if they can have it in 6-12 months but delay it for 24 just because they don't feel the pressure...


i'm actually more puzzled about the fact that Nikon's products are available in 1, max 2 months after the annoncement, but with Canon, you have to wait 3-6 months.


----------



## NadaMal (Sep 15, 2015)

I think they'd keep the 2.8L II and the 2.8L IS on the market together. I'd wager they'd lower the price of the 2.8L II again by maybe 20%, and introduce the new 2.8L IS at a very high introductory price, where it'd remain for some time.

I would need some persuading to part with my 2.8L II, as it is such a fine lens.


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 15, 2015)

18-24 months? Canon is doing their best to make people go for non-IS version first and upgrade to IS version after that. It is better if they sell two lenses instead of one. It will most probably be my case as well ... 

But if its going to be a new (even better) optical formula including BR element it will not be just the same lens with IS. It will be whole new product which takes some time to get to the market.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 15, 2015)

Nitroman said:


> 24-105 f4 IS II please ...
> 
> I'm sure we'd all like a little extra length.



...and a little more.... 24-135 f/4 IS. A EFS 15-85 equivalent focal length with constant f/4 aperture. What an amazing walk around lens that could be if Canon nailed the optical formula. Trade off would likely be size. 

I would rather have that than a 24-70 f/2.8 IS. If we are talking about a lens bigger than the current 24-70 II.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 15, 2015)

Am I the only one who would ideally prefer to see a 24-105L 2.8 without IS for the same weight instead?


----------



## Kathode-Ray (Sep 15, 2015)

I would also rather see an update of the 24-105 instead of this one.

Would be really nice if they could make it a 24-120 f/4 IS USM, just like the Nikon. A little sharper, and without the CA please


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 15, 2015)

18-24 months? My frustration with Canon grows a little more.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 15, 2015)

How can we be frustrated? 11-24 f4L, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II, 5DS/DSR, 7DII, 35 f1.4L II, 16-35 f4L IS, 400mm f4 DO II ....


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 15, 2015)

"no pressure to release it within the next 18-24 months"? Yes indeed, because anybody will have moved to body-stabilized Sony cameras like the A7R2 which are better than even a 1DC, 5D3 and 7D2 combined - and everything you will ever need from Canon in the far future is the lens lineup that already exists today. So technically, it doesnt matter if Canon releases a 24-70/2.8 VR tomorrow or in 10 years. I would have needed and bought this lens in the last 7 years. Sleep on Canon, it's enough to release the lens in 2017 together with the new 1080p 5D4.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 15, 2015)

plam_1980 said:


> I know they want to milk the 24-70 f/2.8L II as much as possible, but it is really annoying if they can have it in 6-12 months but delay it for 24 just because they don't feel the pressure...



Or that they don't feel that the current pressure dictates their busy R&D schedules? 
From reading between the lines, a number of prototypes were made...but the decision was a no. Now they have re-opened this as a product development, but with a possible re-work / re-design. But it's been "urgency" rationalised and it's just not important enough to queue jump existing lenses which are already in the pipeline (16-35IIIL?) which are further into their development. 

I'm not a big IS user for wide and standard lenses. So for me it's irrelevant. I'd only buy one if it offered a significant improvement in optics and AF.


----------



## e_honda (Sep 15, 2015)

Get ready for sticker shock when this comes out. This thing is going to approach $2999.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 15, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> 18-24 months? My frustration with Canon grows a little more.



.....ummmm....remember, Canon hasn't said anything about this lens. This is a rumor. So you are frustrated that you potentially have 18-24 month notice of a lens release due to a rumor mill....

Canon has been releasing some gems lately.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 15, 2015)

docsmith said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > 18-24 months? My frustration with Canon grows a little more.
> ...



True. I'm just venting.

I've just been waiting for this lens for what seems like a long time now.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 15, 2015)

Eldar said:


> How can we be frustrated? 11-24 f4L, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II, 5DS/DSR, 7DII, 35 f1.4L II, 16-35 f4L IS, 400mm f4 DO II ....



I think it is understandable how a large portion of the FF camera owners would rather have a fast standard zoom w/ IS over any of the items on the list.

[Personally, I would love having the 11-24 f4L & 35 f1.4L II, but I'm not rich enough to buy either. At most, I would replace my 16-35mm f/2.8 with the 16-35 f4L IS.]


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 15, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Mitch.Conner said:
> ...



I feel your pain..... I have been waiting for an updated 400F5.6 since way back when the dinosaurs walked the earth.....


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 15, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > How can we be frustrated? 11-24 f4L, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II, 5DS/DSR, 7DII, 35 f1.4L II, 16-35 f4L IS, 400mm f4 DO II ....
> ...



I bought 16-35 f4L IS and that lens replaced my 24-70 Tamron as city walkaround lens. It is simply amazing lens with great IS and nice price tag. You can actually have both 16-35 f4L IS and 24-70 f4L IS for less than 24-70 f2.8L MkII without IS. And that is a big deal for many enthusiasts.


----------



## JonAustin (Sep 15, 2015)

I'll toss my hat into the ring with those who would rather see an updated 24-105L. It's my most used lens (I'm now on my 2nd copy), and I would really like to see it replaced with a new model that sports the latest tech (better optical performance, latest generation IS, new lens coatings, etc.). And a little FL extension on the long end would be nice, too!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 15, 2015)

The lens overdue updating is the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM whilst it still produces great results the chromatic abberations especially at 24mm and 105mm should be able to be bettered today as should the small amount of shading either end.
This lens is a staple for many photographers and as sensor MP increases the weaknesses become more apparent.


----------



## rs (Sep 15, 2015)

joejohnbear said:


> Nikon's VR was a turd because they rushed it to market, and they further delayed released, so all you people complaining about 18 months for a lens with a 15-30 year cycle are idiots. You should buy the 24-70 VR from Nikon which is available now and is sharper and faster focusing than the non VR lens... Oh wait! It's none of those things!


At least the Nikon 24-70 VR is smaller than the Canon 24-70 II. Oh, hold on...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

I believe that Canon _must_ have co-developed an IS version of a 24-70 f/2.8L II on or around the same time as the 24-70 f/2.8L II itself. They likely did this to...


...future-proof the design from the threat of a Nikon 24-70 2.8 IS offering. They didn't have to go to the expense of offering both a pricey L II and _an even pricier_ version with IS, but if they needed to, they could do so relatively quickly.


...be able to share they vast majority of lens elements, subcomponents, outer housing, etc. I mean, they did something similar with the 70-200 f/2.8 models and the 70-200 f/4 models, didn't they?
It's 2015 and Canon are notorious slow/planning/execution people -- I refuse to believe a 24-70 f/2.8L IS hasn't (a) been largely designed already and (b) doesn't fit in an almost identical housing. It will weigh more, but I think it will fit right inside of the current 24-70 f/2.8L II.

So as much as this forum has BR fever with the 35L II MTF charts, I highly doubt we'll see a new optical formula, BR, etc. with the 24-70 f/2.8L IS. Expect the current 24-70 f/2.8L II (a stellar zoom lens) with the added weight and performance of IS. For Canon to do anything else would be impractical, expensive, and (even) slower to market.

- A


----------



## TeT (Sep 15, 2015)

kraats said:


> Nitroman said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105 f4 IS II please ...
> ...



That is incorrect... f/4 with or without IS cannot support fast enough shutter speeds to stop action indoors in dim/poor lighting. F/2.8 does; F/2.8 with IS lets you shoot slow shutter speeds indoors to capture images that you would otherwize be flipping to Primes for...

on the otherhand, I would love to have a 24 105 II


----------



## TeT (Sep 15, 2015)

e_honda said:


> Get ready for sticker shock when this comes out. This thing is going to approach $2999.



with IS and improved optics, it may be worth it (assume it would settle in at 2K to 2.5K eventually)


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 15, 2015)

docsmith said:


> Nitroman said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105 f4 IS II please ...
> ...



+1. 24-135 F4 IS is also my dream lens especially for events. With my 6D, I can go as high as 6400 anyway so, the extra length for me is more useful.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The lens overdue updating is the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM whilst it still produces great results the chromatic abberations especially at 24mm and 105mm should be able to be bettered today as should the small amount of shading either end.
> This lens is a staple for many photographers and as sensor MP increases the weaknesses become more apparent.



Disagree on the 24-105L getting replaced -- it _already was replaced_, and it was also moved to a lower price point / feature set as a non-L budget lens. Canon couldn't make a 24-105 optically good enough _and cheap enough_ to serve as that starter-L kit lens, so they offered a 24-70 f/4L IS that they _could_ make and they offered a 24-105 non-L to those that still needed the length.

Yes, they still sell the 24-105L, but we don't know for how much longer. I don't see it (or a replacement) figuring prominently in their future plans.

My thoughts on their past/present/future on three price points is attached -- it obviously leaves out some odd ducks like the the fishbowls, 28-300L, 70-300L, all the sub-price-points in the 70-200 space, etc. but you get the idea. 

- A


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 15, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Do not expect this lens from Canon for 18-24 months at the earliest, as there’s no pressure to release it, even after Nikon recently announced a VR version of their 24-70 f/2.8</a>.</p>
> ...



Agreed. I know many don't consider non-Canon lenses a real option, but the Tamron SP 24-70mm is fantastic, especially at the price.

And the newer Tamron SP lenses have been _even better_. 24+ months could be enough time for Tamron to consider a version II of their SP 24-70mm, which if performed on par with their SP 15-30mm, would easily compete with L glass image quality.

Completely hypothetical guess, of course, but a Tamron SP 24-70 II (for < $1,500) would have me over a Canon 24-70mm IS (at ~$3,000).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 15, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The lens overdue updating is the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM whilst it still produces great results the chromatic abberations especially at 24mm and 105mm should be able to be bettered today as should the small amount of shading either end.
> ...


I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.



I think a lot of people got emotionally attached to that 24-105L or strongly prefer the added length, even if it limits the IQ somewhat. It's a fine lens and I have nothing against it.

But consider some headwinds that a 24-105 f/4L IS II would face to get made:


 The current 24-105 f/4L is in _spectacular_ supply in the field, and you can't walk two feet on the internet without bumping into a $600 24-105L deal. Sure, a great deal of that is due to resellers prying that lens out of 6D and 5D3 kits to maximize their profits, but the fact they need to resort to such low prices implies that (a) folks already have a standard EF zoom and don't need another, (b) they don't find the 24-105 f/4L IS desirable over alternatives, or (c) they don't find the 24-105 f/4L to be worth it at a higher price. Two out of three of those reasons might scare Canon off from making another.



There is now a better lens sitting in the starter L bucket, the 24-70 f/4L IS. It's shorter, yes, but it's sharper and offers the 0.7x macro. Canon would clearly rather push that lens than the 24-105 f/4L IS: it is now starting to be kitted with FF bodies.



Canon wants FF body owners to buy pricey 70-something L lenses. Overlapping into those FLs might deter people from looking into buying one. (This is a bit of reach of course, but I don't put it past Canon to think this way.)



A 4-5x zoom lens is not for IQ snobbish pros, so this lens needs to be inexpensive. I think that's why they put out the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM -- it's just as sharp at the 24-105 f/4L IS from what I've read, but losing the constant aperture, weather-sealing and USM lets Canon reduce the cost of this lens to something that is right-sized for its slot in the market.

I could be terribly wrong here, and I know (believe me) how many folks strongly prefer a 24-105 or pine for a 24-120, but I just don't see Canon offering an a new L-level offering like that in the future.

- A


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 15, 2015)

docsmith said:


> Nitroman said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105 f4 IS II please ...
> ...


EF 24-135mm f/4L IS would be a great alternative for those that need longer reach in a compact package


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 15, 2015)

rs said:


> joejohnbear said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon's VR was a turd because they rushed it to market, and they further delayed released, so all you people complaining about 18 months for a lens with a 15-30 year cycle are idiots. You should buy the 24-70 VR from Nikon which is available now and is sharper and faster focusing than the non VR lens... Oh wait! It's none of those things!
> ...



..........the Nikon has internal focusing..................


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 15, 2015)

I thought the Nikon VR 24-70 pictures were a joke the first time I saw them. Damn thing is as a big as the 70-200.

And yeah, loads of wishful thinking on a 24-105 II ... but that's isn't going to happen for all the reason earlier stated. Retailers use them as paper weights and door stops.

Plus the 2.8 aperture is a virtual must in that range for full time pros who shoot weddings. It's not just about light gathering and stopping motion, it's also about the DOF difference. That 24-70 gets used a lot at the 70mm end for portrait work, and as a guy that does portrait work, I live between f2 and f4, and rarely into 5.6 and 8. the 2.8 can produce a very different look with loads more bokeh potential than f4.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2015)

plam_1980 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > plam_1980 said:
> ...



Probably because:

1. at the very least that part of the rumor is BS

2. the video/sensor/body division was getting embarrassed by the lens division not holding back enough and milking things and acting like a follower and had upper management force them to join the fold  

3. something was a little lost from A to B to C to D to E to Z by the rumor got here and they more meant that they didn't feel an urgent pressure to rush out some half-baked design just to say they have a 24-70 2.8 with IS and felt they could manage to hold off long enough to get the lens done properly instead of it being some kind of ultra conservative, reactive marketing scheme nonsense


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2015)

Kathode-Ray said:


> I would also rather see an update of the 24-105 instead of this one.



they did, the 24-70 f/4 IS


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.
> ...



exactly

If they made it a true top quality upgrade it might be as big and heavy as the 24-70 f/2.8 II and cost a ton.
Heck look at the Sigma 24-105 OS. The crazy thing isn't even a match for the 24-70 f/4 IS at the wide end or long end (only in the 50mm zone), it's not really all that optically stunning and it's larger and heavier, I believe, than the 24-70 f/2.8 II! And they already discontinued it as a failed lens just like half a year after it came out, I'm pretty sure.

It's hard to make really long focal ranges top quality, even with today's processes, without going pretty large, heavy and expensive. At which point, maybe they are afraid too many would just nab say a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC instead.

I mean who knows, but I tend to agree with ahsanford.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 15, 2015)

One note, regarding adding a BR element. Perhaps they might to bring it to unprecedented levels or to help keep the costs size down a little while retaining solid LoCA performance, but one should keep in mind that the 24-70 II already acts pretty much like it has a BR element, it's very close to APO performance. The 24-70 II fights of LoCA like a beast! Even tough things like branches against clouds under nasty lighting or f/2.8 specular highlights and very nasty boken fringing scenarios it does super well at.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If they made it a true top quality upgrade it might be as big and heavy as the 24-70 f/2.8 II and cost a ton.
> Heck look at the Sigma 24-105 OS. The crazy thing isn't even a match for the 24-70 f/4 IS at the wide end or long end (only in the 50mm zone), it's not really all that optically stunning and it's larger and heavier, I believe, than the 24-70 f/2.8 II! And they already discontinued it as a failed lens just like half a year after it came out, I'm pretty sure.



I think Sigma horrifically mis-stepped with their 24-105. They should not have chased the Art lens brand out to the 4-5x multiple zoom territory. Such lenses are for folks that favor versatility over best possible IQ. 

Trying to make a killer 24-105 lens worthy of the Art name led to a _two pound heavy f/4 standard zoom_ -- that's ridiculous. For those who want a 24-105 f/4L IS II, there you go. Canon probably did the math on what it would take to make that lens and said 'no thank you'.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 15, 2015)

Well canon's focus seems to have shifted to upgrading primes as of late, and that's a great thing. The new 35 will sell very well as would a new 50 I assume that isn't too far behind. If they get to putting the new tech in a MkII weather sealed 135, lots of folks including me would be happy campers. I saw the rumor on the 85 but that lens isn't very old by comparison, and I'm not how many people would upgrade at this point.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Rubbish. f-stop has nothing to do with shutter speed. I can use 1/8000 quite ok with an f/5.6.
> 
> On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.



And that's why Sony is rolling out a new line of f/8 zoom lenses; the camera exposes a shot like it were an f/2.8 lens _and you just push it three stops in post, easy-peasy_. You don't need to chimp because your shots are nearly pitch black and your back pain is solved because the lenses only weigh 100g.

#thankyousony

- A


----------



## denomite (Sep 15, 2015)

Canon, please release your product ASAP. We are tired of waiting and see the competitors getting all the goodies.
I am sure the non IS version will continue to have their market share. But there is also demand on the IS version.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 15, 2015)

"One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"

Urban myth. IS adds very little size/weight to a lens. Just look at Canon 70-200/4 L with and without IS. Hardly any difference in size and weight to talk about. 

24-70 is not a huge focal length range, not even 3x. F/2.8 is not a very fast aperture. We are not talking about a 24-120/1.4 L IS. No reason at all for a 24-70/2.8 L IS to be any bigger than the current non-IS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2015)

dilbert said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...



Yes they do, they don't let you lift exposures more then three stops better than the Sony, but one stop is no issue.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.



Have you ever done a test to measure the actual IQ hit from using the lens corrections button in DPP or LR?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> "One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"
> 
> Urban myth. IS adds very little size/weight to a lens. Just look at Canon 70-200/4 L with and without IS. Hardly any difference in size and weight to talk about.
> 
> 24-70 is not a huge focal length range, not even 3x. F/2.8 is not a very fast aperture. We are not talking about a 24-120/1.4 L IS. No need for a 24-70/2.8 L Is to be any larger than the current non-IS.



Size? No.
Weight? It depends. 

The 70-200 f/2.8 lenses have a good 20% higher weight with IS, but the 70-200 f/4 lenses do not. However, that particular 70-200 f/2.8L IS II was a redesign of a prior IS lens so they possibly beefed up some components that warranted some improvements.

So I think it depends. However, *if* the IS 24-70 f/2.8 was designed at the same time as the non-IS 24-70 f/2.8 -- and I contend Canon did exactly that -- the lenses should be virtually identical internally and I would not expect the weight difference to be large.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.
> ...



I respect the feedback from privatebydesign, but I see this as 'your first L zoom' more than I see it as a top-to-bottom 30 year lens with everyone question answered.

So basic things like build quality, handling, sharpness, AF speed/accuracy, basic features (weather-sealing, IS, etc.) are at the top of my list for a lens like this. However, legit optical concerns like focus-breathing, curvature of the field, CA, transition to defocused areas, etc. are absolutely important _but perhaps they are less important on your first L zoom_. (If those variables really matter to your livelihood, you should reaching for primes or possibly ponying up in the bucks for the 24-70 f/2.8L II.)

So do I worry about the field curvature of the 24-70 f/4L IS? Nope. I just check the lens correction box in ACR and call it good.

- A


----------



## rs (Sep 15, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> "One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"
> 
> Urban myth. IS adds very little size/weight to a lens. Just look at Canon 70-200/4 L with and without IS. Hardly any difference in size and weight to talk about.
> 
> 24-70 is not a huge focal length range, not even 3x. F/2.8 is not a very fast aperture. We are not talking about a 24-120/1.4 L IS. No reason at all for a 24-70/2.8 L IS to be any bigger than the current non-IS.



Where does the IS group sit in a typical lens? Near the rear. What lenses have a natural gap near the rear? Telephoto lenses or retrofocus lenses? Employing IS on a wide angle lens is much less straightforward that a tele lens. Compromises have to be made. Usually size and weight lose out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



That was my point. I am still happily using my MkI 2.8L because it is more than good enough, even when I click the box. In fact when I did blind tests against a MkII at 100% I couldn't reliably choose one over the other.

People talk about this aberration and that lens defect but how much does it actually impact your own output? Generally not visibly.

I hate the current 35 f1.4L and would take my f2 IS over one on every occasion. But does anybody but me and a geek here and there actually notice? Probably not........

In other words, even when we are pretty anal about it clicking the lens corrections option doesn't have a noticeable negative impact on output at most reasonable sizes.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Sep 15, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I think Sigma horrifically mis-stepped with their 24-105. They should not have chased the Art lens brand out to the 4-5x multiple zoom territory. Such lenses are for folks that favor versatility over best possible IQ.
> 
> Trying to make a killer 24-105 lens worthy of the Art name led to a _two pound heavy f/4 standard zoom_ -- that's ridiculous. For those who want a 24-105 f/4L IS II, there you go. Canon probably did the math on what it would take to make that lens and said 'no thank you'.
> 
> - A



It really was - their strength should be hitting Canon where they aren't (35A launching before the 35Lii, 50A launching WAY before a new 50/1.4...), and the 24-105 range was decisively satisfied in the market as mentioned above. If there's a choice between the Sigma or the Canon for a bit more, most will pick the Canon. Heck, the 24-105 was actually _more_ expensive than a new white-box Canon!

I struggled for a while to figure out the reason for the Art designation, by the way, and I think it really comes down to wanting to match the L of the Canon. Nevermind what Sigma said about constant-aperture zoom; they didn't want to send their product into the marketplace with a lower-level badge than the Canon. That's all.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> In other words, even when we are pretty anal about it clicking the lens corrections option doesn't have a noticeable negative impact on output at most reasonable sizes.



Yep. It's only _critical_ for me to hit the LCP when I am correcting lens vignetting on wide-open shooting or if I've got an expectation of a very very straight line in the shot -- architecture, ocean at the horizon, etc.

But not being able to tell the 24-70 f/2.8L I vs. newer glass, I would disagree. I've never shot the 24-70 f/2.8L II, but my 24-70 f/4L IS absolutely outclassed my 24-70 f/2.8L I on a same-aperture tripod test, esp. in the corners. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, even when we are pretty anal about it clicking the lens corrections option doesn't have a noticeable negative impact on output at most reasonable sizes.
> ...



Disagree as much as you like, as always I have comparative images to back up my assertions. But I was only talking about the 24-70 f2.8 MkI and MkII, for instance I owned the 16-35 f4 IS and that was a substantial improvement in IQ over any other ultra wide zoom Canon had made to that point, it blows the various 16-35 f2.8's (and 17-40 f4) out of the water! 

But back to the 24-70 f2.8's, after looking at hundreds of 100% crops like these two I realised the only differences I was seeing in actual real world images were to do with the point of focus, not the lens IQ. I did comparisons at all focal lengths and all apertures, nothing convince me to get a MkII.

Initially the right hand images looks much sharper, but open the file at full size and look at the trunk and the left image is sharper........


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 16, 2015)

rs said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > "One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"
> ...



Yeah it can be trickier to manage for some designs.


----------



## TeT (Sep 16, 2015)

dilbert said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...



not rubbish.. I can use 1/8000 with f/5.6 as well ; what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china.

1/500 at f/4 will be more than just a bit darker than 1/500 at f/2.8.


----------



## sanj (Sep 16, 2015)

dilbert said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...



NOT RUBBISH. Proper exposure has its merits.


----------



## rs (Sep 16, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Rubbish. f-stop has nothing to do with shutter speed. I can use 1/8000 quite ok with an f/5.6.
> 
> On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.


Aperture and shutter speed are two of the three factors that make up exposure. Without stating whether ISO is fixed (and you are exposing correctly for constant lighting), arguing whether aperture and shutter speed are linked or not is pointless. 

But even that isn't as stupid as debating about exposing wrong, just to make a point about inadequacies of any brands sensor. You can much more easily use a higher ISO, an area where Canon typically beats the competition. However, even with the best high ISO or PP push, noise will increase as you do that. 

One fact remains constant - a brighter aperture _with all else being equal_ will allow for faster shutter speeds.


----------



## Maiaibing (Sep 16, 2015)

dilbert said:


> On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.



But then again Canon will let you shoot with AF @f/1.2 which SONY will not...


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 16, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, the 1/500 with a f/4.0 is going to be a bit darker than the 1/500 with f/2.8, but that can be easily taken care of in post. Oh, except Canon's sensors don't let you do that like Sony's do.
> ...



1. definitely NOT with the EF 24-70/2.8 
2. EF 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 also work on Sony cameras. With the right adapter even with AF. 8)


----------



## davidmurray (Sep 16, 2015)

dilbert said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > kraats said:
> ...


Am over the whole Sony-pissing-on-Canon thing by the Sony sensor worshippers!

Please just accept the fact that Canon will almost certainly not use a direct competitor to manufacturer key components such as a sensor in a flagship photography product.

And, in fact f stops have a direct relationship to shutter speed and sensor sensitivity that can easily be taken care of at the time of taking a photograph. Please just accept that photography is about capturing light more than it's about digital post processing if you've got a slow lens then you just have to accept that you won't get brilliant daylight-like pictures on a moonless night!
Yes - I'm exaggerating but I really am sick of the pro Sony anti Canon bigots. If I wanted a Sony camera I would have bought one. As it is I want to hear about the capabilities of Canon gear not the capabilities of Sony gear!

Sorry for the rant. I rarely post, do enjoy reading all the very interesting and knowledgeable posts from the regular contributors here, but really don't care for the Sony worshipping done by some. My 5D3 camera is perfectly fine and I'm sure that whatever Canon does in the future will be fine too.


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 16, 2015)

Could it be possible that since talk about 120MP camera 2 years away, all new top level L grade lenses (starting by 35L Mk. II) actually target that sensor resolution as well? That could explain 18-24 month to release this one with a new formula, not just the current non-IS with IS.


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 16, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > joejohnbear said:
> ...



So does the Canon ...


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 16, 2015)

rs said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > "One of the major reasons an IS version of the lens wasn’t released was the size the lens would be with image stabilization, so Canon released a smaller EF 24-70 f/2.8"
> ...



While I cannot prove it, I am quite confident, that e.g. a Non-IS version of the EF 24-105/4 would be pretty similar in both size and weight. 

I am sick and tired of constantly hearing the myth "that adding IS to an optical formula will make the resulting lens significantly larger and/or heavier". In my mind, it is just a lame excuse for various shortcomings in Canon's and other makers lens lineups, nothing more. If properly designed, IS will add very little in size & weight to any lens. Even in Canon's lens lineup there are multiple examples of lenses with IS and Non-IS versions - with very little differnece in size/weight between them e.g. EF 70-200/4 L or EF-S 18-55 IS and Non-IS versions. 

Most of any increase in size & weight in new IS lenses is attributable to improved optical performance, rather than addition of IS.


----------



## davidmurray (Sep 16, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I'd go along with that, but I'd also suggest that the max speed of the lens - f1.4 - f5.6 - for a given focal length, and metal vs polycarbonate are greater factors in the weight of a lens than whether or not it's got IS.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.
> ...



While your points are plausible, I can make an equally strong argument in favor of a 24-105 II or better yet a 24-120 f4 "L".

The fact that the current version of the 24-105 "L" is readily available and inexpensive doesn't preclude the development of a II version. 

The low cost of the current version was caused directly by Canon choosing to offer it as part of a kit with full frame DSLRs. Canon is therefore completely in control of the cost and availability of new 24-105 lenses. If they switch to the 24-70 f4 for the 5DIV and the 24-105 STM for the 6DII it will eliminate this problem. 

Since the 24-70 actually retails for less than the 24-105, it makes good financial sense for Canon to switch to this lens as the new standard kit for the 5DIV.

The huge supply of 24-105 "L" lenses means an equally huge embedded user base for the focal length. Many of us are loyal fans of the lens. I use mine almost daily for my paid work. I need the flexibility it offers and would never consider a 24-70 as an acceptable substitute. For anything that ends up in print or the internet, the 24-105 is more than adequate. 

Give it two years with the 24-70 and 24-105 STM as the kit lenses, stop flooding the market with cheap white box versions of the 24-105 "L", then announce a 24-105 "L" II or a 24-120 "L" with new IS, new coatings, improved optical formula, weather sealing, etc. -- price it at $1,600-ish and it will sell very well.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Ive opened them and the point of focus looks more forward on the left image than the right image. In the left the leaf on the right is soft so is the grass, on the right their both sharp but the trunk is softer.


----------



## TeT (Sep 16, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> Could it be possible that since talk about 120MP camera 2 years away, all new top level L grade lenses (starting by 35L Mk. II) actually target that sensor resolution as well? That could explain 18-24 month to release this one with a new formula, not just the current non-IS with IS.



Interesting... I have seen images from the 5DS using the 24 105L & the 17 40L that are incredible (so I am not sold on the "your old lens will be obsolete" theory) Better glass will be able to do more (how much more ? I leave for others) on any body.

I think the key is the statement that they have 3 separate prototypes to narrow it down from (or combine from) and that they probably have the R&D mostly done but need testing and cannot even set up production (or get the bits & pieces pre produced) until they know which way to go.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 16, 2015)

You can get excellent images from the 24-105 on the 5DS. Wide open it's soft by comparison to f8, sure, but it's not bad or obsolete by any means. It's not a top level lens and everyone knows this and it's not meant to be. Granted, by comparison to the 24-70 MK II also set wide open... it makes it seem "obsolete" or under-performing, but it's not. My 5DSR makes my 6D look bad, but is the 6D suddenly a bad camera now? Hell no. I still use it and love it. Everything has it's place, and it's important to keep gear in the proper perspective.



TeT said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be possible that since talk about 120MP camera 2 years away, all new top level L grade lenses (starting by 35L Mk. II) actually target that sensor resolution as well? That could explain 18-24 month to release this one with a new formula, not just the current non-IS with IS.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 16, 2015)

TeT said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be possible that since talk about 120MP camera 2 years away, all new top level L grade lenses (starting by 35L Mk. II) actually target that sensor resolution as well? That could explain 18-24 month to release this one with a new formula, not just the current non-IS with IS.
> ...



Yep, this is a common misconception. Virtually _all_ lenses show record higher imatest scores with higher resolving sensors, but you may not get as great an improvement with older/poorer designs, and you may not see those improvements consistently across the frame:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests

So a 50MP (or 120MP) sensor will help just about any lens resolve more detail, but how much more detail you'll see and where in the frame you'll see it will vary. 

Canon will quasi-arbitrarily set an 'minimum lens performance' threshold to go on these larger MP sensors and publish a list of recommended lenses. If your lens isn't on it, that doesn't mean you need to buy a new one. Try that current lens out and see what happens.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 16, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...


I think he meant to say that the 24-70L II extends when zooming:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 16, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



Yep. Not internal focusing -- internal* zooming*. From B&H: “The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR lens has an internal zooming mechanism. So the lens does not change length.”

Oh, good gravy, that Nikon doesn't compact down for packing/travel? We've seen internal zooming on UWA zooms and short teles, but I'm not aware of a 24-70 that internally zooms. All of them shorten, to my knowledge. Wow.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So can you give me an example of an image of yours where auto lens corrections have had a noticeably negative impact at a reasonable output size?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 17, 2015)

dilbert said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > F/2.8 with IS lets you shoot slow shutter speeds indoors to capture images that you would otherwize be flipping to Primes for...
> ...



We've beaten this animal to death. 

TeT is 100% correct that a 2.8 IS will help you get a sharp shot handheld in a dark room. (I don't believe TeT said anything about moving subjects or action, Dilbert). _IS will help in a darker environment compared to another 2.8 lens that doesn't have IS_. I agree 100% with that.

Dilbert is also 100% correct that _IS lets you net more DOF than a non-IS lens and get away with it_ (shutter speed-wise).

You can slice IS many different ways, but any way you slice it, it's USEFUL in a ton of circumstances. Let's assume two lenses could be used -- the 24-70 f/2.8L II or the same lens with a roughly 3-stop IS system. Provided your subject is not moving and a tripod is unavailable (i.e. a common circumstance for many of us), you can:


Use the IS to crank down the ISO by 3 full stops. ISO 8,000 without IS is magically ISO 1,000 with IS. That's massive. 
Whereas the non-IS lens might need to be shot wide open at f/2.8 to net a shot in a darker room, the IS lens can stop down to f/8 and get the same exposure. So in this case, you'll accept equivalent noise to the non-IS lens and you are putting the IS to work to increase the working DOF. Again, it's a win.

You get the idea: IS. Pretty damn useful. 

Non-IS + large aperture lenses certainly have their place, but they can handcuff you in static scenes in low light in that _you have to shoot nearly wide open all the time_. That may not suit what you are trying to shoot.

But yes, if you are shooting a rock concert, IS will not do you any favors in capturing the musicians. That's fast prime + painful ISO territory.

- A


----------



## rs (Sep 17, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Ladislav said:
> ...



Internal zooming? Really?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 17, 2015)

rs said:


> Internal zooming? Really?



Wow. So that B&H quote was 100% wrong. Thanks for linking the shots. That settles that.

And wouldn't you look at that -- it's just like the 24-70 f/2.8L I: _it gets longer on the 24mm end_. I wonder if it has the mondo but idea-for-all-FL hood as well. 

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree I think Canon have every intention of keeping a "L" lens in the 24-105mm range you cannot put the genie back it the bottle and the price for the existing lens has actually gone up since the 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS arrived and many "want" the premium L lenses on full-frame bodies.
> ...





The 24-105mm f/4L is a kit lens. It's *supposed* to be cheap.


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Oct 1, 2015)

As an owner of a 5DSR and A7Rii, I have stopped using any non IS lenses on the 5DSR and I use my fast primes (50L, 85L and 135L) on the Sony.

I use the following lenses on the 5DSR (35F2 IS, 24-105F4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 & F4 IS, 100-400 II IS)

I tried and tried using non IS lenses on the 5DSR but if you really care about tack sharp (i.e. you are using a 5DSR) then you either need a tripod or very fast shutter speeds with non-IS lenses. 

Because of the above, and because I basically wanted a 24-70 F2.8 IS (or a lens as sharp as this lens with IS), I have recently purchased a Sigma 24-105 F4 IS. The Sigma, besides at 35mm, is sharper than the Canon at F4 at every FL - and the zone of sharpness is very good in the middle of the frame. Importantly, unlike the Canon, it is truly an F4 lense at the long end and it is at its sharpest in the portrait FL of 70-105 at F4 - and at F5.6 it is tack, tack sharp - at is almost 1 TStop faster at the long end than the Canon 24-105.

I own most L lenses so I am not a Sigma fanboy - but take a look at the Sigma 24-105 - it is a very good mid range zoom - not light - but from a studio, wedding portrait perspective for a high megapixel camera it is a great choice - I would weld it to the 5DSR and call it a day for that camera if it wasn't for the 100-400II IS which is also incredible - and my current favourite lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 1, 2015)

wallstreetoneil said:


> ..... but if you really care about tack sharp (i.e. you are using a 5DSR) then you either need a tripod on very fast shutter speeds with non-IS lenses.



Or flash.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.



If you use the current 24-105L as a 28-105L it doesn't have noticeable distortions - just what you want ! Sometimes I think this site should be called DD - dilbert's deliberations, or perhaps more accurately, DDDD - damned dilbert's daft deliberations.


----------



## iMagic (Oct 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> wallstreetoneil said:
> 
> 
> > ..... but if you really care about tack sharp (i.e. you are using a 5DSR) then you either need a tripod on very fast shutter speeds with non-IS lenses.
> ...



or monopod with good technique? I am planning to try to use my monopod with my upcoming 5Ds R once it arrives. I would think with good technique it should also work


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 2, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.
> ...



Wahahaha!!! I've got a good laugh with this. +1. The 24-105 don't have that much distortions @ 28mm that I don't bother (or forgot) correcting it most of the time.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 2, 2015)

verysimplejason said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Personally, I don't get trying to correct wide angle distortion. The whole fun of owning a wide angle is the distortion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 2, 2015)

unfocused said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



It depends on if you are talking about projection distortion, which is inherent to the perspective a wide and ultra wide give you, or if you are talking about lens aberrations like pincushion, barrel and mustache distortion. Most would agree the former should be left alone, but there are times the second needs to be corrected. 

However when they do need correcting it really is a simple matter of pushing a button with the slightest of impact on IQ, even quite severe aberration distortions are easily removed and too much is made of them.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 2, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I can show you tens of thousands of images where it does not matter.....

Also, although it is true that pixels are "invented" or "discarded", the image is usually much higher density than the required output image and will be downsampled, making the alleged problem less noticeable.


----------



## Flowerpot (Aug 22, 2016)

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

I know I won't...

I am happy with 24mm-104 f4 is on my 5d 2, and happy to trade a little reach for the extra aperture, but not the stabilisation... I know l won't be happy with the iq of the 24-104 on a higher res sensor.

Hurry up Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2016)

Flowerpot said:


> Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an *IS tele zoom* that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...



Since when is a 24-70mm lens a tele zoom?!?


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 22, 2016)

Flowerpot said:


> Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...


70-200/2.8 II can "feed" a 100+ MPix sensor. 100-400 II dito. 200-500 as well. Where exactly is the problem?


----------



## Flowerpot (Aug 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Flowerpot said:
> 
> 
> > Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an *IS tele zoom* that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...
> ...



Sorry, you are right I meant moderately wide angle to mildly tele zoom.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 22, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Flowerpot said:
> 
> 
> > Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...
> ...



+1. All lenses improve with more pixels -- however, how much it improves and where in the frame it improves varies with the quality of the lens. This should make sense.

I always reference the LensRentals 5DS vs. 5D3 comparison to make this point. The notion that moving to (say) a 5DS means you have to sell all your existing lenses is absurd. 

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 23, 2016)

Flowerpot said:


> Sorry, you are right I meant moderately wide angle to mildly tele zoom.



also called "standard-zoom" ... and in earlier days a "trans-zoom" 

EF 24-70/4 L IS does have IS and can "feed" a 100+ MP sensor just fine. 
But I agree it's a shame Canon has not equipped the 24-70/2.8 L II with IS.


----------



## davidmurray (Aug 23, 2016)

AvTvM said:
 

> Flowerpot said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you are right I meant moderately wide angle to mildly tele zoom.
> ...



I'm not planning to buy a 24-70/4 because I already have a 24-105/4.

I'm waiting for a 24-70/2.8 with IS. When that lens is announced I'll be the first in the line holding my wallet open for Canon to help themselves to as much as they like - so long as its razor sharp all across the frame at 2.8 and all focal lengths.

If Canon plays it's cards right it'll get me buying another 3 zooms - and the only one without IS would be a 16-35.

Looking to eventually get:
16-35/2.8 mk3
24-105/f4 mk2
24-70/2.8 IS

Of course they all need to be sharp across the frame when wide open.

Wanting to finish building my set of zooms before starting to think about getting any primes.

I am not especially concerned about the weight of an individual lens, but do want best sharpness, best bokeh, and the fastest L zooms made by Canon.

Put those on the market and I'd cash in my pension to buy them (so to speak).

I'm happy with my 5D3, for now. New and better lenses come first.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> davidmurray said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



It's usually field curvature that causes soft corners of a frame, not the size of the objective lens. Sure a bigger image circle can help, but it won't if the optical design doesn't present a flat image on the sensor plane.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Whilst Canon have changed the optical formula for the 24-105/f4L II, they haven't changed the size of the front element. I wouldn't bank on it being sharp corner to corner at the wide end. There's a better chance with the 16-35.



Is the front element of the 16-36/2.8 III is bigger than the front element of the 16-35/2.8 II?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> davidmurray said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+1 to Dilbert, the 16-35 has a much better chance than a 4.5x zoom like the 24-105L II.

But demand much, David Murray? Other than vaguely arguably the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, can you name me a single Canon zoom that is razor sharp across the frame when shot wide open at all focal lengths? 

#impossiblestandards

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst Canon have changed the optical formula for the 24-105/f4L II, they haven't changed the size of the front element. I wouldn't bank on it being sharp corner to corner at the wide end. There's a better chance with the 16-35.
> ...



[Zing]

I still think Dilbert's right in direction if not in specifics. A 2.2x FL range zoom has a better change to hit David Murray's 300 yard hole-in-one -- however improbable -- than a 4.5x FL range zoom.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I still think Dilbert's right in direction if not in specifics. A 2.2x FL range zoom has a better change to hit David Murray's 300 yard hole-in-one -- however improbable -- than a 4.5x FL range zoom.



Well, that's far better than the norm... 

I do agree that the 16-35/2.8L III is much more likely to see a significant IQ boost than the 24-105/4L IS II. The latter is intended as a kit lens (albeit an excellent one), the bar for both perfromance and cost will be lower than a specialized fast UWA zoom.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Flowerpot said:
> 
> 
> > Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an *IS tele zoom* that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...
> ...



A telephoto is defined by the length of the lens is shorter than the focal length. So 118mm length, but only 70mm focal length...so no it's NOT a telephoto lens. An 85mm f1.2 L is 84mm in length...so that could just be called a telephoto. Interestingly, the 50mm f1.8II is therefore classed as a Telephoto, but the 50mm f1.4 USM isn't...it's 1/2 mm too long in it's length. Neither is the 50mm f1.2, that's quite a bit too long.


----------



## davidmurray (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I do agree that the 16-35/2.8L III is much more likely to see a significant IQ boost than the 24-105/4L IS II. The latter is intended as a kit lens (albeit an excellent one), the bar for both perfromance and cost will be lower than a specialized fast UWA zoom.



My point is that I want IS in the 24-70/2.8 and will buy other lenses before I'll buy a standard zoom without IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 23, 2016)

davidmurray said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree that the 16-35/2.8L III is much more likely to see a significant IQ boost than the 24-105/4L IS II. The latter is intended as a kit lens (albeit an excellent one), the bar for both perfromance and cost will be lower than a specialized fast UWA zoom.
> ...



Got it. Consider the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, I guess? Uncle Rog says it's no slouch from a resolution perspective:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests/

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2016)

I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.

However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wonderful lens and I'm not standing here saying, "Aw shucks! I wish I had waited." The IS version will have no pull for me.

The great thing is that Canon has been making some extremely good lenses.


----------



## davidmurray (Aug 24, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.
> 
> However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.
> 
> ...



Agreed that there are great lenses coming out - a great time to be establishing a good set of lenses. 

How would you characterize the sharpness of the 24-70/2.8 mk2 in comparison to the sharpness of the 70-200/2.8 mk2?
Equally as sharp or one sharper than the other?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 24, 2016)

davidmurray said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.
> ...



According to Lensrentals, at 70mm the 24-70IIL is shaper. At 24mm it's sharper than the sharpest Canon 24mm prime, the TSe 24IIL. So yes...you could shay that it's sharp. It's probably the sharpest zoom ever made.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> According to Lensrentals, at 70mm the 24-70IIL is shaper. At 24mm it's sharper than the sharpest Canon 24mm prime, the TSe 24IIL. So yes...you could shay that it's sharp. It's probably the sharpest zoom ever made.



..and dethroning the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II in the process. But in fairness, that's like saying your Bugatti is slightly quicker than your Ferrari. Both are stellar instruments.

- A


----------



## davidmurray (Aug 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > According to Lensrentals, at 70mm the 24-70IIL is shaper. At 24mm it's sharper than the sharpest Canon 24mm prime, the TSe 24IIL. So yes...you could shay that it's sharp. It's probably the sharpest zoom ever made.
> ...



So if they can make a 70-200/2.8 IS with such good optical quality then they can make a 24-70/2.8 IS with the same or similar optical quality.

That's what I want. That's what I'm waiting for. I'm prepared to pay a premium for such a lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

davidmurray said:


> So if they can make a 70-200/2.8 IS with such good optical quality then they can make a 24-70/2.8 IS with the same or similar optical quality.



Sure...I mean, it's not like the design parameters and constraints are any different, right?


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 27, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Flowerpot said:
> ...



LOL no...a telephoto lens is simply anything further than 50mm


----------



## midluk (Aug 27, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> LOL no...a telephoto lens is simply anything further than 50mm


https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/who-invented-the-telephoto-lens/


----------



## aa_angus (Aug 27, 2016)

midluk said:


> aa_angus said:
> 
> 
> > LOL no...a telephoto lens is simply anything further than 50mm
> ...



lol no..
That's a croc of shit


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

aa_angus said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > aa_angus said:
> ...



That's an apt description for most statements made by an internet troll, which is what you appear to be.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 28, 2016)

One of the reasons I bought my 24-70 F2.8 Mk2 was the lack of IS. I like the idea of removing superfluous elements from the focal path and I like the fact that all my current (and previous) IS lenses have shown a marked improvement with the IS turned off. What I don't like is the fact that IS was fitted, and charged for, in the first place!

If Canon do introduce a 24-70 F2.8 L IS then I can see my non IS Mk2 staying with me for a very long time! Now when will they make an 800mm F5.6 non IS? I would trade my current 800mm IS in a heartbeat for one of those! Well so long as the cost difference wasn't too silly.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2016)

davidmurray said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.
> ...



David, I'll have to say that I have never made a direct comparison. I believe, though, that the 24-70 gets the edge. I've been laid up for quite awhile now and have not been able to get out and shoot much. That should change in a month or two.

I'm an amateur and was just really starting to learn when I got hurt.

I'm posting a photo from the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II just to illustrate the sharpness. The framing is bad, etc. But the sharpness is unbelievable. I got the 135 f/2L about the same time and was shooting portraits... didn't get around to using the 70-200 that day.

Just to illustrate the sharpness, here it is. Taken with AF:


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> davidmurray said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



I really like that shot. Did you have to pull the shadows a bit? Or did you get your exposure balance correct with the off camera lighting? It's interesting to compare your image with a recent DR "issue" DPR picture.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 1, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > davidmurray said:
> ...



The photo was taken at sunrise and I did use a single Flashpoint Streaklight 360ws with a 72" Westcott umbrella. The flash had the diffusion dome on it, bounced into the umbrella and back out.

I didn't have to pull shadows. I just got lucky as far as I am concerned and I think the light from the Streaklight is very good.

The photo was taken last fall and I have not taken many at all since. I'll be back out shooting soon... and learning. I need to work on being consistent and getting the framing right. My Lightroom and Photoshop skills are extremely weak too.

Thank you very much for the compliment. It means al lot to me.  

Really wish I had a way to get in touch with this guy again. He made a very good subject.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 12, 2016)

"It's interesting to compare your image with a recent DR "issue" DPR picture."   It is an interesting photo for comparison.

Jack


----------

