# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 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/2012/02/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii/"></a></div>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</strong>

The long awaited replacement of the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L has finally shown up in pictures.</p>
<p><strong>Specs</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>82mm Filter Thread</li>
<li>Lighter than version 1</li>
<li>I’ve heard a cost of $1799 – $1899 USD</li>
</ul>
<div id="attachment_8760" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1010931_1328522655.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-8760" title="24-70 II" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1010931_1328522655-575x431.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="431" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</p></div>
<p><strong>Source:</strong> [<a href="http://digicame-info.com/2012/02/ef28mm-f28-is-usmef24mm-f28-is.html">DC</a>] & Submissions (thanks)</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT+%40prettylink%3A++http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F+%28via+%40prettylink%29" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## Tijn (Feb 6, 2012)

As was mentioned elsewhere, it's 82mm diameter and lacks a lens description near the red ring.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 6, 2012)

Tijn said:


> As was mentioned elsewhere, it's 82mm diameter and lacks a lens description near the red ring.



so ... we calling fake on this one?


----------



## KitH (Feb 6, 2012)

Surely a coincidence that Tamron have announced theirs today (with their image stabilisation) 

"Tamron develops full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in image stabilization – SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007)" Tamron press release (source: NR)


----------



## japhoto (Feb 6, 2012)

It might be one of the prototypes though, but it doesn't seem to be a production-ready version.

No IS at least on this version...sigh...


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

No IS?

I would like to consider the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with image stabilization that was announced today. Unless the Canon IQ blows us away...

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/06/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-full-frame-lens-with-mage-stabilization-announced.aspx/


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 6, 2012)

prototype or fake? it's a little strange that there is no writing by the red ring. 
Admin, there is absolutely no info at all you can pass on to us about this lens?


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

Haha. Right. I came here immediately because I heard about the Tamron. And what do I see?... Canon picture. Only thing... no IS. Lame! I will seriously look to the Tamron. Probably save 800 bucks. I loved my 17-50 on my 40D. 



KitH said:


> Surely a coincidence that Tamron have announced theirs today (with their image stabilisation)
> 
> "Tamron develops full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in image stabilization – SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007)" Tamron press release (source: NR)


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

What's the second switch? 

Come-on admin... no info at all on this lens? Like where it came from?


----------



## xROELOFx (Feb 6, 2012)

more information about the tamron 24-70mm is available on this page: http://www.tamron.eu/uk/news/read/data/tamron-develops-full-size-high-speed-standard-zoom-with-built-in-image-stabilization-sp-24-70m.html


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 6, 2012)

Justin said:


> What's the second switch?
> 
> Come-on admin... no info at all on this lens? Like where it came from?


I think it's from
http://digicame-info.com/2012/02/ef28mm-f28-is-usmef24mm-f28-is.html
I posted here first, maybe Admin just saw my post


----------



## mrmarks (Feb 6, 2012)

Tamron certainly did a good job in introducing IS (VC) in their new 24-70. The weight is 825g versus Canon 24-70L's 950g. Hope the IQ is good


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

Thanks! See it all now. 24, 28 and 24-70. Strangest thing a 24 and 28 prime both with IS. And no IS in the 24-70. I don't get it. 



simonxu11 said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > What's the second switch?
> ...


----------



## carlc (Feb 6, 2012)

Canon thinks that IS is important on a new 24mm prime but won't even consider making IS available as an option on the 24-70mm? Please Canon, give us a choice! Wouldn't it be better to take our money rather than seeing it go to Tamron???

The new IS on the 70-200 II rocks. It is very sad that we will not have that option on the new 24-70. I am very dissappointed. VERY!!!!!


----------



## jm345 (Feb 6, 2012)

The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

If that's it, and it doesn't come with IS at that price, I'm very happy that I just bought the current version


----------



## kennykodak (Feb 6, 2012)

as is, i don't believe that this dog is going to hunt.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 6, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> Tamron certainly did a good job in introducing IS (VC) in their new 24-70. The weight is 825g versus Canon 24-70L's 950g. Hope the IQ is good


Maybe Tamron thinks they are unable to deliver the IQ as good as Canon, so they have to add more features to keep them in the competition


----------



## kevl (Feb 6, 2012)

kennykodak said:


> as is, i don't believe that this dog is going to hunt.



Exactly. 

I'm shooting with the Sigma IF EX DG 2.8 24-70 and unless Canon rocks IS on their new 24-70 I can't imagine switching. The Sigma only seems to fall short in that if I point it right at the Sun there are some flares captured. Not really an issue at all, since I know how to avoid the problem. 

Kev


----------



## cps_user (Feb 6, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> If that's it, and it doesn't come with IS at that price, I'm very happy that I just bought the current version



in my opinion, the current version leaves a lot to desire. In particular weak 2.8 sharpness and mediocre mid contrast killed it for me (had one, sold it). If they fix it and we see a similar improvement as the 70-200 did, I'm happy 

Glad they didn't incorporate IS, for me at least. I like it on longer lenses, but I don't think I would use it a lot on this lens, and I'd still pay for it - in hard currency upon purchasing, and after a long day of shooting, in neck and shoulders since it all just adds up to the weight


----------



## dstppy (Feb 6, 2012)

As people point out regularly, Canon has never done IS on any EF lens below 100mm . . . nice as it would be, why the intense surprise?


-> EDIT
Looking back, the two other rumored lenses have IS? So, we either have to believe that canon suddenly is going to go IS on their normal/wide EF lenses . . . and this one won't have it?

Something doesn't add up. Maybe Iran is behind the photos, they like photochop


----------



## pedro (Feb 6, 2012)

It seems like canon are getting ready for whatever body to come out, 1Dx, next 5D, ... I guess I've read some posts refering to this lens in relation to the 1Dx or the next 5D. So as the lenses are coming, new FF bodies can't be that far off from launch 8)


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

jm345 said:


> The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.



I'd think the switches would be together, but who knows. Maybe internal design choices necessitated its separate location. Come on IS! In fact I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's an IS lens. There is another switch. No way it's a focus limiter.


----------



## Mooose (Feb 6, 2012)

Why would the second switch -- whatever it is -- be shorter than the focus switch? It's not just perspective, the 2nd switch doesn't extend as close to the focus ring.


----------



## Steb (Feb 6, 2012)

jm345 said:


> The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.



I don't think there is something like a second switch. If there is, in that position, it would be a zoom lock switch. Nothing IS related for sure.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.

Maybe it's the lack of writing around the red ring. Or, does it look too small to anyone else? (despite the 82mm filter threads (which is also really odd))

The lack of IS doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think Tamron could do anything to temp me to buy their stuff again.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 6, 2012)

Maybe if it has better macro capabilities, it could be a focus limitator or macro work? With no IS, i'll pass and keep my 24-105. With the 16-35 2 being 82mm, i wonder if the 82 is going to be the new 77? Probably a ploy canon has with B&H and Adorama to get people to buy new filters =)


----------



## mkln (Feb 6, 2012)

dstppy said:


> As people point out regularly, Canon has never done IS on any EF lens below 100mm . . . nice as it would be, why the intense surprise?
> 
> 
> -> EDIT
> ...



idk, IS = more weight, and 2.8 is sufficient in most situations.
having IS would of course be really nice. but the 24-70 (used to?) is really large and heavy.
I would sacrifice IS for less weight and overall size.
I mean, it's still a zoom lens, it already has a lot of flexibility.
having a 24-70 that makes the camera more "normal" is great. 

and no name next to the red ring? that doesn't sound like a big deal.there doesn't seem to be space under it anyways?


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

All I know is there's another bump at the top of the image on the barrel. Zoom lock would be highly unusual for this type of lens. No lens creep on L zooms that I know of. 



Steb said:


> jm345 said:
> 
> 
> > The second switch could be a focus limiter (but not necessary on this lens) and therefore most likely and hopefully for IS.
> ...


----------



## Mooose (Feb 6, 2012)

The focus ring is bigger than mk I hence no room for the description - at least where they usually put it.


----------



## PeterNeff (Feb 6, 2012)

Where is the mounting of the lenshood?


----------



## clarkia (Feb 6, 2012)

cps_user said:


> DzPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > If that's it, and it doesn't come with IS at that price, I'm very happy that I just bought the current version
> ...



Agreed. Despite the steep price, i'd certainly pay that much to actually have great 2.8 and improved image quality across the frame (and hopefully without the field curvature). if they can improve IQ similar to the 70-200mm II, i won't ever need another canon lens. Perhaps i just 3 bad versions over the years but i won't buy another normal focal length zoom until they step up their IQ.


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2012)

Justin said:


> All I know is there's another bump at the top of the image on the barrel. Zoom lock would be highly unusual for this type of lens. No lens creep on L zooms that I know of.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am sure the second switch is a lock. My 70-300L has one. Why not the 24-70?


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2012)

PeterNeff said:


> Where is the mounting of the lenshood?




On the front of the lens. Like with the 24-105


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

clarkia said:


> cps_user said:
> 
> 
> > DzPhotography said:
> ...


I don't have any issues with sharpness at 2.8 but I could surely use IS for low light on this zoom range. Now I'm forced to use my 70-200 most of the time in that kind of situations...

Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...




...weathersealing.... good point.
I was hoping they would release the 24-70 with internal zoom like the 70-200 models. But unfortunately not.


----------



## unruled (Feb 6, 2012)

if I'm not mistaken, this Image shows the lens at 24mm without being extended-- unlike the current model. does that mean its internal zoom, or extending at 70 instead?


----------



## DEFILER (Feb 6, 2012)

In my opinion, they've really cheapened the design. The V1 lens hood design was actually innovative and useful, provided good protection, as well as ideal light blockage for the given focal length on the reverse-zoom. The omission of IS, cheap hood attachment, and external zooming will hopefully be overshadowed by the fact that it must surely be capable of shooting of rainbows out of the front element. It needs to be THAT good in order to sell. Surely it has all the latest coatings as well.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...



Well, this one is shortest at 24mm instead of 70mm like the old version so the old hood design would not work. If they changed to a normal zoom motion to increase the optical quality I don't think we should complain about the hood design. The old design was great but the IQ of the old version @ f2.8 is far from outstanding. I'd trade sharpness wide open for a static hood design any day.

Obviously we have no idea why this lens has normal zoom function but I think we can assume there is a reason for it.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> DzPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I find it a bit disturbing that they moved the mounting of the lens hood to the front which moves with the lens while zooming....the current version is fixed, so I predict worse weather sealing after some time of use...
> ...


Correct, it wouldn't. But I really don't have problems with sharpness at f/2.8 ???


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

DEFILER said:


> In my opinion, they've really cheapened the design. The V1 lens hood design was actually innovative and useful, provided good protection, as well as ideal light blockage for the given focal length on the reverse-zoom. The omission of IS, cheap hood attachment, and external zooming will hopefully be overshadowed by the fact that it must surely be capable of shooting of rainbows out of the front element. It needs to be THAT good in order to sell. Surely it has all the latest coatings as well.


My point exactly ;D


----------



## jm345 (Feb 6, 2012)

If Canon can put IS in the excellent 17-55f/2.8 (and 24-105f/4) there is no reason they can't or shouldn't put it in a new 24-70f/2.8. If they don't it will be a huge marketing mistake. I sold my 24-70 because it didn't have IS and I was not really happy with the IQ. I kept the 24-105 because of the IS but I find (with my copies at least) the 17-55 IS is sharper. 

The existing 24-70f/2.8 didn't need a focus limiter switch or a lock to prevent lens creep. Besides I am hoping a new 24-70f/2.8 will be internal focus (no barrel extension). So the if there is a second switch it must be for IS.

So here's to hoping there will be a 24-70 (or 105) f/2.8 IS, internal focus with center and corner IQ as good as the 70-200f/2.8 II IS


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

jm345 said:


> If Canon can put IS in the excellent 17-55f/2.8 (and 24-105f/4) there is no reason they can't or shouldn't put it in a new 24-70f/2.8. If they don't it will be a huge marketing mistake. I sold my 24-70 because it didn't have IS and I was not really happy with the IQ. I kept the 24-105 because of the IS but I find (with my copies at least) the 17-55 IS is sharper.
> 
> The existing 24-70f/2.8 didn't need a focus limiter switch or a lock to prevent lens creep. Besides I am hoping a new 24-70f/2.8 will be internal focus (no barrel extension). So the if there is a second switch it must be for IS.
> 
> So here's to hoping there will be a 24-70 (or 105) f/2.8 IS, internal focus with center and corner IQ as good as the 70-200f/2.8 II IS


Correct. Why a 17-55 for the crop with IS and a 24-70 for FF without IS :-\ doesn't make sense imho. If there's a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS coming out and internal focus, I'm ordering one right away ;D


----------



## torger (Feb 6, 2012)

The Tamron with image stabilization look more interesting I think. The Canon will more than likely have better image quality, but when I need resolution (i e tripod-mounted photography) I go for primes anyway in this focal length range. This would for me be an all-around lens for hand-held causal shooting and as such image stabilization is more valuable than high resolving power and other optical qualities (as long as they don't suck too bad).


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > DzPhotography said:
> ...



Fair enough, but a lot of people do have a problem with it. Me included.

The IQ is perfectly ok. But it's nothing to write home about and I don't think it's any better than a Non-L lens.


----------



## DEFILER (Feb 6, 2012)

Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

DEFILER said:


> Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.


I don't agree. Looks like a pretty straight forward moving barrel to me


----------



## scubasteve03 (Feb 6, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> DEFILER said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the picture of the new lens, it *could very well be internal zooming. Guessing at the barrel design and internals it doesn't have much clearance for an inner barrel to move in and out...makes one think....The design may yet redeem itself.
> ...



How so?


----------



## thewallbanger (Feb 6, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.
> 
> Maybe it's the lack of writing around the red ring. Or, does it look too small to anyone else? (despite the 82mm filter threads (which is also really odd))



I thought something looked wrong too. The font used for the labeling (24-70 Ultrasonic) is the same as a traditional EF lens, rather than L lenses. Also missing is the red lettering indicating mm near the focus/distance window. 

If you hold your hand over the red ring, this lens looks more like a standard EF than an L.


----------



## jm345 (Feb 6, 2012)

If Canon doesn't include IS in a new 24-70f/2.8 I might be buying my first Tamron - if the IQ is good enough.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371808-264/tamrons-24-70mm-lens-takes-image-stabilization-lead/?tag=txt;title


----------



## dryanparker (Feb 6, 2012)

Provided this is real, it's obviously a new design. At 24mm, the current model is fully extended...


----------



## gene_can_sing (Feb 6, 2012)

Why no IS? That's really lame.

Also, why an 82mm filter size? At that size, or once you go past 77mm, filters take a huge leap in cost. Also, many people I know use a step up ring to 77mm to have a unified filtered system (including myself). So if I were to go to 82mm, I would have to buy all new filters including a Fader ND for video, which at 82mm, would be hard to find and really, really expensive.

They have IS in 17 to 55mm EF-S, so why not add it to 24-70, especially when it's the MOST REQUESTED feature by nearly everyone.


----------



## AJ (Feb 6, 2012)

Suppose Canon is all set to announce a non-IS lens tomorrow, and Tamron beats them to the punch with a VC lens...

If so there would be some very interesting last-minute discussions between Canon's marketing and R&D folks.

Interesting times, for sure!


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

scubasteve03 said:


> DzPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > DEFILER said:
> ...


take a look at the gap just behind the lens hood mount.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

AJ said:


> Suppose Canon is all set to announce a non-IS lens tomorrow, and Tamron beats them to the punch with a VC lens...
> 
> If so there would be some very interesting last-minute discussions between Canon's marketing and R&D folks.
> 
> Interesting times, for sure!



Like! ;D


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

I can't belive it! ... maybe I will not desert to the "dark side" anymore.
I had no "first love" for my Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L ... not even a "second one".
But no IS? Why? Even Canon EF 24 and 28 have IS. Strange.

Now, if the Canon 5D Mark (III)(X) will have a higher DR and no pattern noise, I will be very, very, very happy.


----------



## DEFILER (Feb 6, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> scubasteve03 said:
> 
> 
> > DzPhotography said:
> ...



True, but the focus ring and its associated mechanics are also in the way. Does not seem to leave much room for an inner barrel at that location unless its focus-by-wire a-la 85L II....which would not help this lens' cause any further...


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 6, 2012)

"Lighter than version I" = no IS??? 

Can't wait to see the reviews on Tamron with IS.


----------



## DEFILER (Feb 6, 2012)

...and on the other hand, comparing to my 16-35L II (which does not extend on zoom) is completely flush towards the end of the barrel without the gap so I suppose many will be a bit disappointed. Does look a lot shorter as well so no way it's internal zooming. Just wishful thinking.

I realize it seems frivolous to look at things such as internal zooming and fixed lens hoods but to me form and ergonomics are as big a factor as function in lens design. The 70-200 IS II is a great example of near-perfection in my book.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 6, 2012)

thewallbanger said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.
> ...



Compair it to the 100mm L macro released recently rather than L lenses from several years ago and it looks very similar in design to me.


----------



## Orion (Feb 6, 2012)

The current version is tack sharp . . . a great lens, and a top seller. IF there is NO IS on this newer version, then why the switch? You can bet the farm (maybe) that this lens will have IS. Otherwise it's Tamron . . or stick with what you got. Having NO IS on the mkII is probably good for business IF you want BOTH models to keep selling. . . . kinda odd to think in those terms, though.


----------



## thewallbanger (Feb 6, 2012)

Orion said:


> The current version is tack sharp . . . a great lens, and a top seller. IF there is NO IS on this newer version, then why the switch? You can bet the farm (maybe) that this lens will have IS. Otherwise it's Tamron . . or stick with what you got. Having NO IS on the mkII is probably good for business IF you want BOTH models to keep selling. . . . kinda odd to think in those terms, though.



The current lens can be quite sharp during it's first few years, but as the following LensRentals analysis points out, plastic collars in the zoom mechanism would wear out prematurely and cause great variation in image quality among various zoom lengths. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

Here's hoping the newer version upgrades to metal collars, in addition to any new glass coatings usually found in a model refresh.


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

I had the Tamron 28-75 2.8, sold it and buyed Canon 24-70 2,8. I almost regreted.
Tamron 28-75 was a very sharp lens, even in the corners (Much sharper then my new Canon 24-70). The problem with Tamron 28-75 was the AF. It was very very slow.
Canon 24-70 has an incredible AF. Very fast. The downside with Canon 24-70 ... it wasn't sharp in the corners; not even at f8 and after service calibration the problem persist.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 6, 2012)

I believe the rumors to be true that there will be no IS. Then the question becomes why? Well, I dare say that If Canon ventures to come with a version two of this legendary lens without it, it is to show that they can and that it will set the standard for everyone else. They have too much to loose with the non-wildlife/landscape shooters if they don't. Pretty much every presspeople I know shoot with the version one. 

As for 82mm, well does that not mean more glass, more fun?


----------



## ssrdd (Feb 6, 2012)

why canon? why? 24-70mm!!!!!? its not wide or tele. not good enough for any thing.
then u call it an update without even IS. i am already curios how u gonna react to ur dumb c300 over nikon D4.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

Orion said:


> The current version is tack sharp . . . a great lens, and a top seller. IF there is NO IS on this newer version, then why the switch? You can bet the farm (maybe) that this lens will have IS. Otherwise it's Tamron . . or stick with what you got. Having NO IS on the mkII is probably good for business IF you want BOTH models to keep selling. . . . kinda odd to think in those terms, though.



It's tack sharp stopped down, not wide open.


----------



## ecka (Feb 6, 2012)

It looks like this 24-70L II was engineered in Adobe Photoshop CS3, they just forgot to add the IS


----------



## Justin (Feb 6, 2012)

This has to be a photoshop prototype. I just think it is missing too much writing on the lens to be anything else. 



ecka said:


> It looks like this 24-70L II was engineered in Adobe Photoshop CS3, they just forgot to add the IS


----------



## Steb (Feb 6, 2012)

jm345 said:


> If Canon can put IS in the excellent 17-55f/2.8 (and 24-105f/4) there is no reason they can't or shouldn't put it in a new 24-70f/2.8.



There is a good reason for that. The 24-70 is a fast fullframe lens. In combination with IS that means moveable lens elements with big diameter. It's hard to integrate that inside a reasonable sized barrel. I am curious about the wideangle performance of the new Tamron... I assume that they had to do some tradeoffs, but we will see.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

ssrdd said:


> why canon? why? 24-70mm!!!!!? its not wide or tele. not good enough for any thing.
> then u call it an update without even IS. i am already curios how u gonna react to ur dumb c300 over nikon D4.



:

It's an extremely useful range. But, I see no reason to explain why to you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.



Agreed. Not quite ready to call it a fake, but I'm bothered by the lack of any IR focus markings (although the 100L Macro doesn't have one), and also by the lack of a lens identifier near the end of the barrel. Could it be on the other side? Yes, but that would not be consistent with other lenses. Could it be inside the filter ring? Maybe, opposite the 82mm marking, but I doubt it, because we'd see part of that writing (usually it's three sections at the points of an inscribed triangle - filter diameter, 'Canon EF Lens', and the lens ID). There's plenty of room to print the name distal to the red ring...

The size of the filter ring diameter relative to the lens mount does look appropriate, though. Agree that the other switch would seem to be a zoom lock. 

Judging by the distance markings, the lens will have a very short focus throw, much less than the current 24-70mm, might make MF more challenging.


----------



## surfjungle (Feb 6, 2012)

Just to recap what we know and add a bit, if any... On what we can see of that lens in the image:
- We cannot see any image stabilisation markings like in previous Canon lenses.
- There's a bump which is probably a switch. Apart from the autofocus, switches are used for turning image stabilisation on and off, controlling the image stabiliation axis, focus limiter, zoom creep lock.
- There are no markings on the edge of the barrel.
- There are no additional markings where the filter thread of 82mm is specified on the front of the lens barrel.

The image could be:
- A mockup by Canon which is missing the markings
- A new design which breaks from some of the more classic aspects we've come to expect.
- A fake (probably unlikely)

What I'd like to know, why is that bump on the other side of the lens - most buttons are grouped together and their seems to be nothing like that near the AF on/off switch - it's not like there's 5 switches on the lens and they ran out of room on one side. Take the 24-105 - the focus and IS buttons are side by side.

Thoughts?


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

thewallbanger said:


> The current lens can be quite sharp during it's first few years, but as the following LensRentals analysis points out, plastic collars in the zoom mechanism would wear out prematurely and cause great variation in image quality among various zoom lengths.
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation
> 
> Here's hoping the newer version upgrades to metal collars, in addition to any new glass coatings usually found in a model refresh.



Very interesting! Thank You for the link.
By the last service of my Canon 24-70, they had changed the collars, too.


----------



## DEFILER (Feb 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.
> ...



...And no hyperfocal scale either....  
The photo of this lens shows a few inconsistencies for sure. Another one I noticed is the barrel material. Haven't Canon gone to the new "Engineering plastic" a-la 100L Macro?


----------



## lennywood (Feb 6, 2012)

this looks a lot like the 16-35 II, which is also a 82mm front. i don't know enough to say if this picture is real or not, but if it is, i am sure this is an internal zooming lens, which would be reason enough for me to buy. and it they make the image at 2.8 sharp, like it is in the 70-200 II, because i pretty much only shoot wide open aperture, i am convinced. and, if they make this lens parafocal (focus stays as you zoom in and out), i will love you Canon. because i use my lenses for filming mostly, especially now that i added the C300 to my stable.


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

I notice something interesting (maybe it is not new, I don't know).

Contrary to the 24-70 I, the zoom from the II extend -> in the 70mm direction (if no internal zoom). At 24 mm is closed.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Feb 6, 2012)

Will this new Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II produce images noticeably superior to my present Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L ? I would like to see comparison images.


----------



## Michael7 (Feb 6, 2012)

Ouch. No IS, not interested. 

*turns gaze towards the IS Tamron*


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

marius said:


> I notice something interesting (maybe it is not new, I don't know).
> 
> Contrary to the 24-70 I, the zoom from the II extend -> in the 70mm direction (if no internal zoom). At 24 mm is closed.


oh really? :


----------



## RedEye (Feb 6, 2012)

Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun. I bet IQ is phenom.


----------



## DEFILER (Feb 6, 2012)

RedEye said:


> Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun. I bet IQ is phenom.



I concur on that front.


----------



## markko (Feb 6, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.



I have the same feeling; I don't trust the red color of the 'red ring'. It seems a bit too orange for me, but it could be white-balance of the image of course.


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

Somebody says this is a fake. 

I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.

The only thing that looks strange for me is the font family used for this lens (look at 24-70mm inscription). It seems to be a new one and not the same like for Canon 24-105, 24 f1,4 and of course 24-70.
Maybe it is nothing ...


----------



## Z (Feb 6, 2012)

marius said:


> I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.


Maybe someone just got bored of waiting for the 24-70 II, so they made their own.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

marius said:


> Somebody says this is a fake.
> 
> I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.
> 
> ...



If it is a prototype, then I can understand Canon not wanting to print the version info at the end of the barrel...


----------



## candyman (Feb 6, 2012)

markko said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.
> ...




Just checked some older L-lenses. attached the 135L
Looks to me same color "red" or "orange"


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 6, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers? Do any of you use photoshop? That is a rubbish PS image there are so many reasons why the is fake it is comical.
> 
> First on my list would be when did Canon change their lens coatings to amber paint that spills over onto the barrel? But the list is so long and extensive it really is a joke that anybody, let alone keen photographers, could give this a second look.


yer that amber coating is really fishy, come to think of it


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers?



Yes.



privatebydesign said:


> Do any of you use photoshop?



I don't.



privatebydesign said:


> First on my list would be when did Canon change their lens coatings to amber paint that spills over onto the barrel? But the list is so long and extensive it really is a joke that anybody, let alone keen photographers, could give this a second look.



Please, do tell. If you have photoshop proof we all would like to see it.


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

K-amps said:


> marius said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody says this is a fake.
> ...



This could be.


----------



## Steb (Feb 6, 2012)

RedEye said:


> Happy to see the 82mm, more light more fun. I bet IQ is phenom.


I think the 82mm have not helped that much on the 16-35mm mkII.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

marius said:


> Somebody says this is a fake.
> 
> I looked at the picture in PS and if this is a fake, then it is a very very good one.
> 
> ...



True the font is different. Also, neither my 24-70 nor the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II have "Ultrasonic" written below the focal range by the distance window...

Oh, scratch that, the 8-15mm has it. Could be a new thing.


----------



## Steb (Feb 6, 2012)

lennywood said:


> this looks a lot like the 16-35 II, which is also a 82mm front.


Looks similar but definitly is not. The 16-35 does not extend when zooming and it does not have that gap visible in the picture where the inner barrel comes out...


----------



## photogaz (Feb 6, 2012)

To me what seems off about it is that it looks cheap and tacky! No L lens does!

Also why would Canon take a photo of a prototype lens?


----------



## gferdinandsen (Feb 6, 2012)

thewallbanger said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.
> ...




The red numbering on the scale is for IR. This is not such an issue with digital as it was with film (when you just put in a new roll of film versus now having to send the entire camera out to have the IR block filter removed). So Im not that surprised to see the lack of IR focal indicators on any new lens.


----------



## kozakm (Feb 6, 2012)

thewallbanger said:


> I thought something looked wrong too. The font used for the labeling (24-70 Ultrasonic) is the same as a traditional EF lens, rather than L lenses. Also missing is the red lettering indicating mm near the focus/distance window.
> 
> If you hold your hand over the red ring, this lens looks more like a standard EF than an L.



Maybe Canon changed it's default font, 'cause EF 8-15/fL fisheye also uses different one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2012)

gferdinandsen said:


> The red numbering on the scale is for IR. This is not such an issue with digital as it was with film (when you just put in a new roll of film versus now having to send the entire camera out to have the IR block filter removed). So Im not that surprised to see the lack of IR focal indicators on any new lens.



But...the two newest zoom lenses - EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS - both have IR focusing marks on the distance windows.


----------



## Z (Feb 6, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Are any of you guys (and girls) actually photographers? Do any of you use photoshop? That is a rubbish PS image there are so many reasons why the is fake it is comical.


Your observations may be correct, but you've jumped straight to the conclusion that errors in the image = a fake picture.

Let's say the lens is real, a prototype; whatever. Don't you think Canon alter their product shots in photoshop? Are they not capable of post-production errors? I'm not trying to call you out here or to question your expertise, but perhaps turn your critical eye to official Canon product photos from the past, I'd be curious to know if there's any bad masking etc. in those.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 6, 2012)

I believe these are digital renderings. If you open these images in Photoshop and click on the "Paths" Pallet, you can see some leftover masks. There is one on the 24-70 f2.8II image, and 2 on the 24mm f2.8IS image.


----------



## kozakm (Feb 6, 2012)

Top switch looks exactly the same as the one on 8-15/4L fisheye - focal lenght limiter.


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> I believe these are digital renderings. If you open these images in Photoshop and click on the "Paths" Pallet, you can see some leftover masks. There is one on the 24-70 f2.8II image, and 2 on the 24mm f2.8IS image.



Well, this is a strong argument. The path schould not be there, unless the canon photoshoped the image itself 
Hmm, this will be interesting.


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 6, 2012)

Will people feel better if they remember a CR2 couple weeks ago suggested that "_...There has been an IS version that was *bigger and a lot heavier*, as well as an internal zoom model, both of which were deemed *too big and/or heavy*..._"?

Will people consider the possibility that Canon's design choice is different to Tamron's, and the possibility that this Mark II is primarily an optical upgrade (after all, the current version is already 10 years old) more than anything else (like 70-200 f/2.8 IS II to its original version)?

And as far as the print of labels goes, would it look weird just because it's still a prototype (_...the *suspected final prototype* is in the hands of the select few for testing..._)?


----------



## kozakm (Feb 6, 2012)

marius said:


> Well, this is a strong argument. The path schould not be there.
> Hmm, this will me interesting.



This could be a residue of som Photoshop retouching - adding more saturation to the front lens or so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2012)

OMG - I just checked the EXIF. This image was shot at ISO 12800 on a 36 MP Nikon D800!!!









Made ya look...


----------



## K-amps (Feb 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> OMG - I just checked the EXIF. This image was shot at ISO 12800 on a 36 MP Nikon D800!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Narcolepsy (Feb 6, 2012)

For what its worth - here are the results of image analysis in www.pskiller.com
I much prefer errorlevelanalysis.com for judging if images are composite, but it is down at the moment


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> OMG - I just checked the EXIF. This image was shot at ISO 12800 on a 36 MP Nikon D800!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No ya didn't


----------



## kozakm (Feb 6, 2012)

Front lens element looks weird - it's all yelow and ugly, compared to product images of other Canon lenses...


----------



## Tiosabas (Feb 6, 2012)

Looks to be a very bulbous element inside the front element that doesn't look right on the 24-70. Also the two primes have silver rings indicating ef-s?


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

Tiosabas said:


> Looks to be a very bulbous element inside the front element that doesn't look right on the 24-70. Also the two primes have silver rings indicating ef-s?



The current 24-70's front element has significant curve to it.

No, the pictures show the red EF mount marking. The EF-S marking is white.


----------



## marius (Feb 6, 2012)

I looked to the File information in PS and I saw that this image was modified many times in:
- June 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011

If this image is a fake, then why appeared this fake not earlier in net?!
Spent somebody really a half of a year for this project?! ... the poor man


----------



## JR (Feb 6, 2012)

Real or not, this image makes me want this lens even more    ... and it would be lighter then the older model on top! Cool!


----------



## jbooba (Feb 6, 2012)

hey guys,
as i posted http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3208.msg67356.html#msg67356 ... 24+28 looks to me like fakes. most likely this 24-70 is also not real.

JB


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 6, 2012)

I suspect payoffs from the filter manufacturers. 82mm?


----------



## Gcon (Feb 6, 2012)

candyman said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> > All I know is there's another bump at the top of the image on the barrel. Zoom lock would be highly unusual for this type of lens. No lens creep on L zooms that I know of.
> ...




*nods* It's in the same area as the lock switch on my 70-300mm f/4-5.6L.

I agree with earlier posters about mid-tones being flat and lacking contrast, and a lack of sharpness at f/2.8.

It's all about what you get used to. I thought the 24-70 was good until I got the 100mm L macro, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II, and the 8-15mm f/4L fisheye - especially the fisheye. Those lenses really punch out the color and contrast, and now the 24-70mm looks decidedly dull by comparison.

They need to improve the glass resolving ability, but huge improvements will come from improved coatings, and rounded aperture blades will help with creamier bokeh. New Canon lens designs from about 2005 have all come with the rounded aperture blades.

So it'll come with no IS, 82mm thread (at least matching the 16-35mm...makes sense), improved design, improved glass elements, improved coatings, improved electronics and improved (rounded) aperture blades. WIN!


----------



## Ryusui (Feb 6, 2012)

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I feel the most interesting feature of this new image is the fact that it's retracted at 24 as opposed to 70; which has been brought up at least three times before in this thread.

The coloring, extra switch area, fonts...that seems kind of dull in comparisson...


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 6, 2012)

whether the photo was photoshopped or not, you dont think CANON out of all companies, would post or leak photos out on the web without sending it to their marketing and graphic dept do ya?


----------



## LostArk (Feb 6, 2012)

Proof the image is fake:

The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 6, 2012)

LostArk said:


> Proof the image is fake:
> 
> The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.



I don't see why thats "proof", the previous Canon lens retracted at 70mm but other similar designs from Sigma and Tamron havent.


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 6, 2012)

Or it could be an internal zoom like the 16-35mm...


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 6, 2012)

LostArk said:


> Proof the image is fake:
> 
> The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.



Not all Canon zooms are extend at the wide end. In fact, the old 28-70 and the current 24-70 are the only ones that do. All the other Canon lenses extend when zoomed.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 6, 2012)

Missing the infrared focus markings? (sorry if it has been mentioned before - have not read all the previous posts)

*looks at neuro for "yes there were two cameras in the safari" remark*


----------



## mathino (Feb 6, 2012)

So we have 3 lenses as stated in 5D Mk III/5D-X post. Now we are eagerly waiting for a new body ( sarcasm off ). Looks like info about those 3 lenses to be announced became reality. Fingers crossed !


----------



## KitH (Feb 6, 2012)

I liked the "reverse zoom" design on mid-range zooms. It means the same lens hood can work at its best at both wide and tele ends of the range, because at 24mm the lens has extended inside the hood and at 70mm the hood is effectively narrower because the lens is retracted deeper inside it. Sensible design that give maximum shading. 

Good lens hood design is worth a lot for contrast and colour in the real world. In my view, abandoning the reverse design for mid-range zoom is a bad idea, it's not so important for tele zooms because the maximum and minimum angles of view is much narrower anyway so it doesn't make as much difference. Using a lens shade that doesn't vignette at 24mm on a 70mm is almost as good as useless anyway and I don't see anyone linking a lens shade motor to the zoom ring anytime soon. One reason I like prime lenses is you can put a good shade on that's optimized for each lens. 

They'd better have something seriously good going on to compensate for this.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 6, 2012)

mathino said:


> So we have 3 lenses as stated in 5D Mk III/5D-X post. Now we are eagerly waiting for a new body ( sarcasm off ). Looks like info about those 3 lenses to be announced became reality. Fingers crossed !



Count me in for 24-70mm f2.8 IS - if not, I'll stay with my 24-105


----------



## mathino (Feb 6, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Count me in for 24-70mm f2.8 IS - if not, I'll stay with my 24-105



Well I'm not in the market for 24-70 (at least for now) - I prefer primes. I'm holding back for FF and some decent wide prime like 24 f/2.8 IS USM - should be great for video and night shots.

I'm currently very pleased to see these news/new lenses - just one lens I'm missing - updated 50 f/1.4 and I'll be really really happy. But we'll see when those "three new toys" get officialy announced. Then I'll look at some tests (but I'm not a "test chart person", lab is far from real life) - maybe I'll change my mind in case of one walkaround zoom lens 

May the light be with you !


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Feb 6, 2012)

I had the first version of this lens, hated it, sold it (Zoom extends the lens from the barrel, less than desired IQ etc...)! As a professional, I expect more from my investment in equipment. This new version doesn't look to be much of an improvement. As someone mentioned Canon has never included IS on lenses below 100mm, but that is no excuse for not innovating. Perhaps the technology to do it didn't exist before; I'm not a lens designer or engineer, so I wouldn't know. Since Tamron has just introduced their new lens with IS, we know the technology exists to do it today and for the people complaining about weight, it seems from the specs that the Tamron is lighter. Not having done it before is just no excuse for not doing it now and frankly I welcome anything that can help improve IQ and low light image capture thus improving the usability and flexibility of this lens. 


It just seems to me that Canon is not a company about taking chances and/or innovating. They seem to always play it safe and just add or improve basic features rather than trying to blow their competition out of the water. No XQD or f/8 AF on the 1DX. As I mentioned in a post before, they could have also added the new Thunderbolt I/O on the 1DX as well and since most of the tech is in the cables, it would have been totally possible without adding to the bulk of the camera. I would like to see Canon show some sign that they are innovating rather than copying or playing it safe. Canon grow a pair! You certainly have the ability.


----------



## mathino (Feb 6, 2012)

Well I looked at EF 8-15 f/4L pics and the switch on new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II looks simillar to the LIMIT switch of fisheye. Maybe it is some sort of switch to lock on 24, 28, 35, 50 and 70 mm position - that's just my guess. I doubt it's IS on/off switch - it's usually below AF/MF switch.

What do you think ?


----------



## april (Feb 6, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Something about this lens is odd... It just doesn't look right for some reason. I can't exactly put my finger on it but something seems off.
> 
> Maybe it's the lack of writing around the red ring. Or, does it look too small to anyone else? (despite the 82mm filter threads (which is also really odd))
> 
> The lack of IS doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think Tamron could do anything to temp me to buy their stuff again.



yeah something really is odd as i also noticed the ultrasonic motor written is so plain and different... all my L lenses have a logo for the ultrasonic motor & is red in color


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Feb 6, 2012)

> *nods* It's in the same area as the lock switch on my 70-300mm f/4-5.6L.
> 
> I agree with earlier posters about mid-tones being flat and lacking contrast, and a lack of sharpness at f/2.8.
> 
> ...





IMO a win over a previous lackluster Canon lens is not a win. I'm looking for a win over competing brands to get my hard earned dollars (yen). If Tamron or Sigma can make a better lens for less money, they win! My mentor still uses a Canon 40D and shoots with Sigma lenses and yet he's one the best photographers I ever seen. He's shot Miles Davis, Stevie Wonder, James Brown, B.B. King (and too many more artists to mention) all with supposedly inferior Sigma lenses. Canon needs to step up their game. That Red Ring needs to stand for more than just higher cost.


----------



## Burndav (Feb 7, 2012)

april said:


> yeah something really is odd as i also noticed the ultrasonic motor written is so plain and different... all my L lenses have a logo for the ultrasonic motor & is red in color



All recent USM lenses (for instance : 100 f/2.8 L, 70-300 L, 8-15 L fisheye...) have the same "ultrasonic" printing instead of the "classic" USM logo. 
The oddest part IMHO, is the lack of any description above the red ring, so that there is no L appearing on the lens.


----------



## Positron (Feb 7, 2012)

My vote is also that it's probably just a mock-up by Canon. IS or no IS, I'm super excited about the prospect of a new 24-70, seeing as the current one is coming up on a decade old and Canon's recent lenses have been really impressive.

As for the lens being retracted at 24mm, it doesn't bother me personally that much since I do so much more wide shooting than tele, but I suppose we could always hope for a zooming lens hood!


----------



## Isurus (Feb 7, 2012)

LostArk said:


> Proof the image is fake:
> 
> The lens is set at 24mm and is fully retracted. Canon lenses extend when they get wider, and retract when zoomed.



My 17-55mm is disagreeing with you.


----------



## willrobb (Feb 7, 2012)

I would be semi-happy with those specs, lack of IS doesn't bother me (not having it keeps weight and size down), being lighter makes me happy but the 82mm filters is a pain as I don't have anything over 77.

I'm happy with my current 24-70 and I amnot yet hearing anything to make me think "I wish I could get one of the new ones." I'm sure it will be a good lens, just not something I will be needing anytime soon (I hope, as needing it would mean my current one is bust).


----------



## Radiating (Feb 7, 2012)

mathino said:


> Well I looked at EF 8-15 f/4L pics and the switch on new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II looks simillar to the LIMIT switch of fisheye. Maybe it is some sort of switch to lock on 24, 28, 35, 50 and 70 mm position - that's just my guess. I doubt it's IS on/off switch - it's usually below AF/MF switch.
> 
> What do you think ?



Honestly it just looks like someone took a photo of that lens and photoshopped it. In fact that's exactaly what happened.


----------



## Gollum (Feb 7, 2012)

Back to the point I think. 

As Tamron have just released their 24-70 with IS, Canon may be seen as not having the best product. We don’t know about the IQ on the Tamron, but we do know that Tamron are getting better. The Tamron 70-300 has a much better IQ and is cheaper than the Canon (non-L), this in my opinion was what forced Canon to respond with an L version.

Will be interesting to see the IQ of the Tamron and If Canon respond with an IS version of this lens.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 7, 2012)

If I wanted to trade my good and sharp copy of the 24-105 for a good and sharp copy of the current 24-70 would I be better of to do this now or will the market be swamped once the upgrade (might) be released bringing used prices down? Assuming of course the "upgrade" doesn't turn out to be a complete dud which is always possible.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> OMG - I just checked the EXIF. This image was shot at ISO 12800 on a 36 MP Nikon D800!!!
> 
> ZOMG!!11elevenoneone The D800 has **no** noise at ISO 12800!!11elevenoneone It's like ISO 100 without the banding on my 5D!!!111eleventyhundredone I'm dumping Kwannon now for great justice!1one ;D  8)
> 
> ...


----------



## mkln (Feb 7, 2012)

and it's official!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Feb 7, 2012)

Quite odd that the primes are the ones with IS...I guess I'll (eventually) take one of them instead, just not sure which.

I'll be watching out for news of the Tamron zoom's performance as well. It looks markedly bigger though (but less than a kilogram isn't really that much - maybe for a day's shooting).


----------



## niwad25 (Feb 7, 2012)

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm


----------



## niwad25 (Feb 7, 2012)

Press Release: http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e


----------



## marius (Feb 7, 2012)

Maybe not the best Jpeg but no fake, though.
As I said:


marius said:


> I looked to the File information in PS and I saw that this image was modified many times in:
> - June 2011
> - October 2011
> - November 2011
> If this image is a fake, then why appeared this fake not earlier in net?!



Anyway ... no IS. Very strange, Canon.


----------



## Waterdonkey (Feb 7, 2012)

Planet 5d blog has the announcement. And the bump is a zoom lock. So its official then? :-\


----------



## Tijn (Feb 7, 2012)

From Canon's release, the differences between version II and I of the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L :

- Reduced CA at wide angle edges/corners
- High resolution and contrast in images, crisp clear edges around subjects (may or may not be an upgrade)
- Optimized lens coatings: color balance improvement, less ghosting, less spherical aberration.
- Circular nine-blade diaphragm (instead of 8-blade; probably rounded aperture blades as well)
- Improved build quality (more durable, better weathersealing)
- Smaller / less heavy
- 82mm filter (instead of 77mm)


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 7, 2012)

$2300 and no IS...interesting.


----------



## marius (Feb 7, 2012)

I looks that the II vers. is much sharper in the corners as the I vers.
I will be interesting how the new Tamron will perform. Is there a MTF Chart from the new Tamron around?

Canon 24-70 II on the left - Canon 24-70 I on the right:


----------



## Positron (Feb 7, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> $2300 and no IS...interesting.



I don't see any price listed in their press release or on their website. Can you link the source?


----------



## moreorless (Feb 7, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Honestly it just looks like someone took a photo of that lens and photoshopped it. In fact that's exactaly what happened.



Oops, I believe its time for you to go away now.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 7, 2012)

Positron said:


> bigblue1ca said:
> 
> 
> > $2300 and no IS...interesting.
> ...



http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e

After the 4th paragraph:

"The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens is expected to be available in April for an approximate retail price of $2,299.00."


----------



## Positron (Feb 7, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> Positron said:
> 
> 
> > bigblue1ca said:
> ...



Yikes.


----------



## ferdi (Feb 7, 2012)

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

About 150g less heavy? That's not too bad, I wonder if they left out the front element again.
I think I'll start saving up for this lens (or just sell my 7D and 17-55), especially if they also fixed (or reduced) the field curvature. But I will wait for the some proper reviews first, and by that time the price might also have dropped a little.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 7, 2012)

You can assume that the street price will be much less than the rrp. I would guess about $1800 at most on the street


----------



## sanj (Feb 7, 2012)

Disappointed!!
Doubt if Tamron will have same IQ at 2.8 where it matters.
Guess I will stick to my 24-105.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 7, 2012)

marius said:


> I looks that the II vers. is much sharper in the corners as the I vers.
> I will be interesting how the new Tamron will perform. Is there a MTF Chart from the new Tamron around?
> 
> Canon 24-70 II on the left - Canon 24-70 I on the right:



Yes the performance appears as if it may be truly stunning. For an even bigger shock compare it to lenses such as the 24 2.8 IS, 24 1.4L II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 70-300L IS and yikes but it pretty much appears to match or beat them all! Crazy.


----------



## Gcon (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm super excited about this lens! I'll buy it for whatever $ tag they put on it!

I've been studying MFTs and wow - great stuff! I have the new 8-15mm fisheye and the color, sharpness and punch blew me away when I took test shots. Simply stunning! After I took the shots I learned how to read MFT and yep - it's way up there. This new lens has similar MFTs so I know what to expect now, which is why i'm so pumped!

Edge/corner sharpness. The release says "crisp clear edges around the subject". Woohoo! - finally Canon are doing something about this horrible issue! I so hope they update their f/2.8 and f/4 wide angle zooms to improve edge-to-edge sharpness like the new 24-70 and new fisheye. The signs are there.

So they've updated the 70-200mm f/2.8 (I bought it) and it's sensational (in hindsight a 82mm would've been good!). Now they have updated the standard f/2.8 zoom. Next on the hitlist - Canon get your act together and bring out a decent f/2.8 wide angle zoom! (one that has a filter thread please!). It surely has to be in development!

PS. I was right about my earlier post about the switch being a zoom lock 

PPS. I'm putting my 24-70, 24-105 and 100L macro on ebay as soon as I get this new lens.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

Meh. I'll probably gonna buy it anyway, sooner or later...


----------



## cps_user (Feb 7, 2012)

An interesting observation from DPreview: 

"Ultimately, the most interesting thing about these launches is the fact that Canon feels the need to update various full-frame lenses, almost as if something likely to test the quality of its existing versions was in the offing."


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 7, 2012)

2300 dollars.... pretty harsh. I was expecting/hoping for more like 1800/1900 and be able to buy for 1500 or 1600 eventually... looks like 1800 will end up being the discounted price. One of the major reasons for me to favor Canon over Nikon was their reasonable lens prices... With this one, i'm not feeling too thrilled about that anymore.
I'm hoping the 5DX comes in at 2500 dollars or less!


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 7, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> marius said:
> 
> 
> > I looks that the II vers. is much sharper in the corners as the I vers.
> ...



Exactly! At corner when wide open and at 70mm end, this 24-70 II seems to have both better contrast and resolving power than that of 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which is arguably the best Canon zoom lens ever made.

http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/Lenses_2010/EF70-200mm/profile/ef70-200lisiiu_wide_mtf.gif:


----------



## KitH (Feb 7, 2012)

Canon site: "The lens also features a zoom lock lever to secure the zoom position for safe transport" 

so is it only there to secure the lens at it's shortest length whilst travelling, rather than being a lock to keep the lens at any focal length?


----------



## cps_user (Feb 7, 2012)

guess you can use it for both? You should be able, for 2300 big ones


----------



## candyman (Feb 7, 2012)

waving_odd said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > marius said:
> ...




If Canon is able to create a lens that performs so well, who knows we may see updates of other lenses soon? 
Still, I love to see reviews and sample images based on real use of this lens.


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Feb 7, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> $2300 and no IS...interesting.




Yeah, it looks like someone at Canon has a sense of humor or are just out of touch with the economic times. Nowadays customers expect more for less, not less for more.


----------



## noodles (Feb 7, 2012)

I am sure prices will drop
The current 24-70 started with a price in Europe around 1400 euro. Later prices went down to around 1000 / 1100 euro


----------



## Musicjohn (Feb 7, 2012)

In my opinion, regardless of image quality, this is the biggest mistake in the entire history of Canon. Yes, we make a 24mm WITH I.S. and we make a 28mm WITH I.S. but NO !!! We don't listen to the wishes of professional Canon shooters and we make a 24-70mm WITHOUT I.S.

Canon, who's stupid idea was this?

I will be waiting for the first lab tests of the annouced Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 WITH I.S. and probably run to the first dealer that shocks this lens. Anything will be better than my curent Canon 24-70mm f/2.8


----------



## japhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm really happy that the long wait is over and the damn lens is finally out!

The thing I'm happy about is that Canon is moving along and getting something done. This makes me feel better about my investment in the system itself.

Sadly the lack of IS is the thing I'm not happy about. I simply can't put this much money into a lens which is only usable (for me that is) on a tripod.

Hopefully they'll upgrade the 24-105 soon so that I can get rid of the 24-70 I have now. Don't know if it's my lack of skills, the unforgiving nature of the 7Ds sensor or that the lens has issues, but my keeper rate with the MkI hand-held is nowhere near what its supposed to be.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 7, 2012)

I will probably get this lens some years later. Im sure the images are much sharper, and I like the build quality of the L lens. Sadly, without the IS, canon isn't getting me to part with my cash to buy a new one. I'll wait for a used on on ebay in a year's time. SHAME ON YOU CANON!


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

With No IS and the price tag on this lens, I am going to give a serious consideration to Tamron 24-70. Hope there will be some test results out soon...


----------



## moreorless (Feb 7, 2012)

I wouldnt get your hopes up for the Tamron given the negative effect IS had on the 17-50's image quality.

Personally I'd definately give up IS for IQ and size with a lens like this.


----------



## Aaron78 (Feb 7, 2012)

C'mon, stay positive. Maybe IS and internal focusing will be offered as a firmware update.....

P.S.


----------



## papa-razzi (Feb 7, 2012)

So, why no IS?
- If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light. Otherwise, you would purchase the 24-105 f/4 IS.
- If you hand-hold, then you need to bump up the shutter speed to compensate, and thereby negate some of the "low light" advantage of the fast aperture.
- This is not a sports lens due to the focal length, (for the most par) - where IS isn't really needed.
- The focal range is in the general purpose/walk-around range.

So, a general purpose, low light lens, not for sports, and used with a tripod?

Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.

Am I missing something?


----------



## darklord (Feb 7, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.
> 
> Am I missing something?


The V2 has "Inner-focusing with USM" similar to the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I guess that's what makes it more expensive.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 7, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> So, why no IS?
> - If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light. Otherwise, you would purchase the 24-105 f/4 IS.
> - If you hand-hold, then you need to bump up the shutter speed to compensate, and thereby negate some of the "low light" advantage of the fast aperture.
> - This is not a sports lens due to the focal length, (for the most par) - where IS isn't really needed.
> ...



It depends what your taking pics of I spose, the shutter speed to stop most movement will generally be faster than the shutter speed to prevent camera shake so IS wouldnt improve its low light ability for such subjects.

For landscapes I'd guess Canon's feeling is that less serious users will probabley go with the 24-105 IS while more serious ones will be happy to use a tripod when needed to really exploit the sharpness to the full.

Compaired to the 17-55 the 24-70 isnt as long when you take the crop into account which cuts down the need for IS a bit and its also a good deal heavier/longer. Maybe not so much of a problem on a 1D but this new version looks like it will balance much better on a 5D to me with both being around the same weight.


----------



## TOshooter (Feb 7, 2012)

Is Canon on cheap drugs??? No IS and a ridiculous price increase? I damaged my current 24-70 and was holding out to get this but now I am looking at the Tamron.


----------



## steven63 (Feb 7, 2012)

$2300.00. Plus tax and shipping. HA! I know the U.S. $ is inflating itself to oblivion but NO WAY I'm plunking down that kinda cash for this lense. NO WAY.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 7, 2012)

TOshooter said:


> Is Canon on cheap drugs??? No IS and a ridiculous price increase? I damaged my current 24-70 and was holding out to get this but now I am looking at the Tamron.



The only reasonable explanation for that crazy price tag is it must see through time. Way to raise the bar Canon!


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

I am not in line to get this lens as I said before and will be looking at how Tamron is. Correct that their 17-55 VC is not as sharp as the non VC version but one can only hope that they have seen the issue...

Just another consideration; not that it justifies the price but anyway, I recall reading in several reviews that 7D was outresolving many lenses. Can this be a lens meant for a high mp camera to appear later this year? If 7d is already outresolving lenses, then what would be the point of a equally or more pixel dense sensor?..


----------



## skitron (Feb 7, 2012)

$2300???

LOL, so which body does it come with for this price???


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> If 7d is already outresolving lenses, then what would be the point of a equally or more pixel dense sensor?..



that there are enough noobs out there with more money then brain?


----------



## 00Q (Feb 7, 2012)

skitron said:


> $2300???
> 
> LOL, so which body does it come with for this price???



This is incredibly disappointing. I have been waiting for a few months for this lens, and this is what canon came up with. Not only without IS but at this price, I might as well buy a second hand 5D MKII and keep my current MKI. SHAME ON YOU CANON. I love it how tamron jizzed all over canon with the announcement of their own 24-70mm with IS.


----------



## photogaz (Feb 7, 2012)

TOshooter said:


> Is Canon on cheap drugs??? No IS and a ridiculous price increase? I damaged my current 24-70 and was holding out to get this but now I am looking at the Tamron.



Why is it that everyone says about the Tamron but never gave the Sigma 24-70 HSM the light of day.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 7, 2012)

photogaz said:


> Why is it that everyone says about the Tamron but never gave the Sigma 24-70 HSM the light of day.



i don´t want to buy 5 to get one good one. 

been through this before with sigma....


----------



## Gravitom (Feb 7, 2012)

It doesn't matter if you need IS or if it makes a big difference. It matters that people WANT IS in the 24-70. People were willing to shell out cash to upgrade and many people were sitting on the fence to get there first one. Not giving consumers what they want is the mistake here.

So what are our next lens predictions? A new 50mm f/1.8 co-branded with Versace for $600.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 7, 2012)

Gravitom said:


> It doesn't matter if you need IS or if it makes a big difference. It matters that people WANT IS in the 24-70. People were willing to shell out cash to upgrade and many people were sitting on the fence to get there first one. Not giving consumers what they want is the mistake here.
> 
> So what are our next lens predictions? A new 50mm f/1.8 co-branded with Versace for $600.



more like a 50mm f/*2.8* ... that costs $800


----------



## K-amps (Feb 7, 2012)

I was was hoping to upgrade my 24-105 F4 IS with a faster lens, hopefully priced in the $1400 - 1600 range. 

This offering fall short on IS and falls short on price. It's close in price to the 70-200 f2.8mk.II. which has IS.

It's like Honda saying next year's model will cost 50% more and won't have bluetooth that you have been waiting for.

I am sure this will be a very nice lens, but I think the price is excessive.


----------



## leonbones (Feb 7, 2012)

I am with everyone else who is disgusted with the price. I sell this equipment for a living and I actually feel horrible now for the cost of this lens. All I can say is Tamron better thank Canon for causing so many people buying their new 24-70. And bravo on the image stabilization. I am not saying it needed it, but people wanted it, and you need to at least take that into consideration. Man 2300 is awful!


----------



## SpareImp (Feb 7, 2012)

According to the Norwegian press release, the recommended price for this lens is $3 438 in Norway (19 990 NOK). That’s a $1 139 difference for the same lens – which is out of my reach, so I’ll be looking at the old version or the Tamron. I can’t wait for the reviews of this thing. It’s going to be an interesting year for eye shopping.


----------



## evenfy (Feb 7, 2012)

SpareImp said:


> According to the Norwegian press release, the recommended price for this lens is $3 438 in Norway (19 990 NOK). That’s a $1 139 difference for the same lens – which is out of my reach, so I’ll be looking at the old version or the Tamron. I can’t wait for the reviews of this thing. It’s going to be an interesting year for eye shopping.



Haha, I am also from Norway, and was planning on the 5D mark III/X and the 24-70 II as a "finished-my-university-degree-present" to myself this summer. Seems like that was more of an economic long-shot than I had imagined


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 7, 2012)

I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that. 

Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

evenfy said:


> SpareImp said:
> 
> 
> > According to the Norwegian press release, the recommended price for this lens is $3 438 in Norway (19 990 NOK). That’s a $1 139 difference for the same lens – which is out of my reach, so I’ll be looking at the old version or the Tamron. I can’t wait for the reviews of this thing. It’s going to be an interesting year for eye shopping.
> ...


Euro equivalence should be around 17500 NOK if I am not mistaken. With that price, you might be able to go to Germany and come back with the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II 

Joke aside, gear prices are really  in Scandinavia...


----------



## JR (Feb 7, 2012)

I dont like the retail price on the new 24-70 II like many of us, however if the MTF chart are an indication of its performance and if Canon was able to create another 70-200 2.8IS II type quality zoom, then maybe it will be money well spent?


----------



## Kliphten (Feb 7, 2012)

I think Canon did a crappy or a great thing depending on who's perspective. They've upped the IQ (according to the MTF) but they've left out the IS (crappy for the consumer). What's this mean? Well, if IQ is really good, what will they do for the next upgrade? Add IS, great for the company because they get people to upgrade to Mark II and then to Mark III when that comes out.

Personally, I think it is crap what I believe them to be doing. Nikon comes out with a monstrous camera and price it way below what I was expecting. Canon keeps dragging it's feet on the 5D (or whatever is next) and they come out with a few new lenses recently that are waaayy overpriced (according to the consensus on this forum).

I am now highly considering switching over to Nikon. I'll wait for the next body announcement and if it doesn't blow the socks off my feet (meaning great features, great price), then hello Nikon.


----------



## steven63 (Feb 7, 2012)

, but not surprised at this. There is going to be alot more of this type of sticker shock and not only in the Camera world. Fast as the Federal Reserve is printing $, won't be long till you have to have a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy something.


----------



## KyleSTL (Feb 7, 2012)

Going to throw out a prediction -

The next 70-200mm f/2.8 will have an 82mm filter (not that I think it is or should be anytime soon).

Evidence:
72mm - 20-35mm f/2.8L USM (1989), 28-80mm F/2.8-4L USM (1989), 80-200mm f/2.8L (1989)
77mm - 17-35mm f/2.8L USM (1996), 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (2001), 28-70mm f/2.8L USM (1993), 24-70mm f/2.8L (2002), 
70-200mm f/2.8L (1995, 2001 - IS, 2010 - IS II)
82mm - 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II (2006), 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II (2012)


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 7, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that.
> 
> Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.


really? i was somewhat disappointed with the MTF charts. for that money i was expecting better


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 7, 2012)

No one expected Canon to give this lens away and I'm pretty sure everyone was being realistic with what they thought they were going to pay for this lens. Without IS, it should not break the $2000 price point, period. The only people I see buying this right away are maybe high end wedding photogs. I won't be surprised to see this price change soon. They sh*t the bed with this price tag.

Unless of course I'm correct with this lens being able to see through time......


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 7, 2012)

I think the people that keep talking about not needing IS is based on the idea that it wouldn't actually kick in for most uses. It's really helpful for long primes/zooms, but you naturally gather a lot of light at the wide end and it wouldn't be engaged below 1/100 or so. 

Someone else said it better in a previous post, but there are so many it's hard to keep up! 8)


----------



## Cetalis (Feb 8, 2012)

Either I missed something or Canon hasn't announced it, but on http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm at the bottom of the page it says "FASC" among the rest of the alphabet soup. Anyone know what it means?


----------



## gmrza (Feb 8, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I gotta say, the MTF charts are A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I really doubt that the Tamron will even come close to that.
> 
> Now will people please stop telling me that I don't need IS? Please? As if I'm somehow not macho or a bad photographer because I want it? Thank you.



I believe that Canon probably is targeting mainly event photographers and photojournalists with this lens. - In both of these areas, you have to freeze some degree of motion of people - which means generally shooting at shutter speeds which do not require IS. Hence why wedding photographers and PJs don't really care about IS on this lens. They are probably also Canon's main target market for this lens. Canon's reasoning is probably that you would still only get 1 stop advantage over the 24-105 f/4L IS USM, so they will rather direct users who require IS to that lens - which they probably regard as more of a general purpose lens.

This is not what everyone wants to hear, but I suspect that is most likely the rationale on Canon's part.


----------



## wtf1234567 (Feb 8, 2012)

Could weight be the main issue of not adding the IS to the lens? U and i know its (the mark I) already heavy...whats the weaight of mkII?


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 8, 2012)

wtf1234567 said:


> Could weight be the main issue of not adding the IS to the lens? U and i know its (the mark I) already heavy...whats the weaight of mkII?



Ver I 950g - Ver II 805g

I don't think weight was the concern. I don't even think the weight is an issue with the version I. Get a good strap and weight will no longer be an issue.


----------



## Kahuna (Feb 8, 2012)

sorry. way late to the conversation. Sticker shock to say the least.....


----------



## K-amps (Feb 8, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Going to throw out a prediction -
> 
> The next 70-200mm f/2.8 will have an 82mm filter (not that I think it is or should be anytime soon).
> 
> ...



+1 Good, but dire analysis for people with 77mm accessories.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 8, 2012)

I know many folks are disappointed at the 24-70 II which does not have IS... but got me thinking.

This is a beast of a lens... and looking at the MTF graphs... looks to be a huge performer.

Does the lens come before the cart so to speak...

Would make sense to me, especially if Canon has a beast of a MP body on the forefront that there will need to be better glass to really take advantage of a more dense sensor. 

So maybe the 24-70, and especially the larger filter size in the front has a lot more to do with a more complete higher performing package down the line.

And while some of the other lens releases have many shaking their heads, maybe Canon saw something with the old versions on their development bodies that required improvement.

When I start seeing the revamping of lenses going on, especially when some of them seem "lateral" in nature (i.e. no major improvement in speed of glass), it makes me think that Canon is paying attention to IQ and that they saw holes in their lens performance with the larger resolution that they wanted to correct up front.

It also may explain why many have commented that the High ISO images on the D800 seem noisy or unimpressive. 

Larger resolution without a doubt will show some flaws in lenses that might have otherwise been less apparent, just the same as why some lenses that have flaws on a FF often perform better on a crop (like soft outsides, vignetting, etc.)

Something tells me Canon is fine with what is going on and a flanking maneuver may be under foot


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 8, 2012)

I like the specs, but, I don't like the filter diameter. I have three lenses, all at 77mm and have been preparing to grab more filters (graduated ND, nd's, maybe some others). So to upgrade to this, I would also need to collect a new set of filters (and then a step up ring????) Ugggg...

http://chuckalaimo.com/


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 8, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> I know many folks are disappointed at the 24-70 II which does not have IS... but got me thinking.
> 
> This is a beast of a lens... and looking at the MTF graphs... looks to be a huge performer.
> 
> ...



+1
That's my take too. Photokina will show...


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 8, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> I know many folks are disappointed at the 24-70 II which does not have IS... but got me thinking.
> 
> This is a beast of a lens... and looking at the MTF graphs... looks to be a huge performer.
> 
> ...



When you consider the 24 and 28 that just came out, I think this is sound logic. 

Let's think of it a different way--how many of you pros out there are going to make MORE money because you have the mk II of this lens? (This is an honest question, not rhetorical.) I think iff the answer is "not very many" that leads credence to the argument that there is a body coming that can better use the capabilities of the new lens(es).


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 8, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> So, why no IS?
> - If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light.
> Am I missing something?



"than you are most likely shooting in low light" - there are a large number of people that use fast lens for shallow DOF rather than low light - studio shooters, portraits, weddings, (daylight) street

It is a bit like saying that flash is only used in low light situations 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2012)

Canon has officially gone completely mental!!!

The new 24-70 II is 3 5 0 0 usd in Norway and the UK, that is TWICE what the old one is, wtf Canon???

But it doesn't matter, the last 6 lenses Canon released is clearly not going to be sold, we've been waiting a year for them. The 1d X is nowhere to be seen, except for some frikkin sucky promo pictures...

Getting pretty tired of Canon releasing stuff that we never see in actual real life....


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 8, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Canon has officially gone completely mental!!!
> 
> The new 24-70 II is 3 5 0 0 usd in Norway and the UK, that is TWICE what the old one is, wtf Canon???
> 
> ...



Is that twice the mrsp or the street vs mrsp??


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has officially gone completely mental!!!
> ...



New, in store as of now, mk1 = 1735 usd

Available in april price tag mkII= 3500 usd


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 8, 2012)

Viggo said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



So look to a buy price of about 2500 then ....


----------



## iTasneem (Feb 8, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> Going to throw out a prediction -
> 
> The next 70-200mm f/2.8 will have an 82mm filter (not that I think it is or should be anytime soon).
> 
> ...



Sound logical
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Say what? a thousand dollars down? Neh, I don't think so, the 70-200 II is still at the suggested retail (3200 usd)


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 8, 2012)

The more I look at those MTF charts, the more I'm amazed by them. My initial response was exactly WTF?!?!? But seriously, look at those charts. It's better all across the way, but at the edges the improvements are monstrous. I'm guessing this will outperform practically every prime that exists. If you're stopping down your 1.xx primes to over 2, you might just be way way better off with this lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 8, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Say what? a thousand dollars down? Neh, I don't think so, the 70-200 II is still at the suggested retail (3200 usd)



Perhaps a holiday in the UK then? - 70-200II is only 1869 gbp here
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-70-200mm-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-lens/p1518838

Current 24-70 is only 995 gbp
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-l-usm-lens/p12835

I would estimate the new 24-70 to be about the same as the 70-200II - about 1600-1800 gbp

Brian


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 8, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> The more I look at those MTF charts, the more I'm amazed by them. My initial response was exactly WTF?!?!? But seriously, look at those charts. It's better all across the way, but at the edges the improvements are monstrous. I'm guessing this will outperform practically every prime that exists. If you're stopping down your 1.xx primes to over 2, you might just be way way better off with this lens.



Really?
the 24 f1.4 II
the 35 f1.4
the 50 f1.2

i dunno its hard to make comparisons from charts but it will be interesting to see the pics when they hit the street. Might make me reconsider it as an option if it really is that good. I was never impressed with the original so there was alot of room for improvement


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Say what? a thousand dollars down? Neh, I don't think so, the 70-200 II is still at the suggested retail (3200 usd)
> ...



Hopefully , you're right:

http://www.parkcameras.com/23301/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2-8L-II-USM.html?referrer=Froogle+&utm_source=google&utm_medium=froogle&utm_campaign=pid23301


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2012)

Anyone else seen that the 24-70 II has 9 aperture blades? Maybe it will have both sharper focused parts and better smoother bokeh. 

No doubt it will be wonderful, but the loss of the wonderful zoom design with effective lens hood all across , and MUCH less protection of the barrel with the new one and no IS and very expensive 82mm filters (which I certainly do not own already) and this price makes it harder to sell... IF they can make IS in the wide primes, why not in the most popular standard zoom?


----------



## psolberg (Feb 8, 2012)

I don't think this lens needs IS at all. But it is a given that Nikon and others are going to put similar technology in their refresh of their lenses which are much closer to reality than the markIII of this lens..... Canon may be stuck without IS on this lens for quite a long time...


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > The more I look at those MTF charts... If you're stopping down your 1.xx primes to over 2, you might just be way way better off with this lens.
> ...



It really is hard to make comparisons based on charts, Wombat, but the MTFs on the 24-70 are way better than each of those lenses. Here's there 35/1.4. The others aren't that much different.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 9, 2012)

true, I am looking forward to testing it out and seeing how it stacks up i've been seriously considering the 24 f1.4 II for a while I think i'll see how these 2 go head to head


----------



## Viggo (Feb 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> true, I am looking forward to testing it out and seeing how it stacks up i've been seriously considering the 24 f1.4 II for a while I think i'll see how these 2 go head to head



I think I can tell you now that the 24 will let in a tad more light and perhaps some decrease in depth ;D


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 9, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Anyone else seen that the 24-70 II has 9 aperture blades? Maybe it will have both sharper focused parts and better smoother bokeh.
> 
> No doubt it will be wonderful, but the loss of the wonderful zoom design with effective lens hood all across , and MUCH less protection of the barrel with the new one and no IS and very expensive 82mm filters (which I certainly do not own already) and this price makes it harder to sell... IF they can make IS in the wide primes, why not in the most popular standard zoom?



Anyone have any ideas why it no longer reverse zooms? Why wouldn't they keep that part...

=/ 

I'm not very strong on the technical side, so I'll need help with explanations...



(Also, with a reverse zoom couldn't you technically encase the whole thing in an extended barrel, and "turn" it into an internal zooming lens? no doubt a very long, and heavy one, but still.... again, not technically strong =P)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 9, 2012)

Think about it? How many L series lenses actually have IS? The mkI 24-70 was my first piece of L glass, and before buying it I went back and forth between the 24-105 and the 24-70, debating whether I wanted 2.8 or IS. When it came down to it, I decided to just turn off the IS on the kit lens and see what happened. No IS wasn't a real problem until I got real low in SS. It got me to thinking, really, when am I going to be shooting people, or really anything at all under 1/10th of a second without a tripod? So I went with the 24-70 and haven't missed IS one bit. I became confident enough without IS that i also bought a 10-22 no IS, and the 70-200 2.8 no IS (and mind you, I'm shooting on a 7D, so the 70-200 is effectively a 110-320mm)...

So in short, the only short-coming I can see with the mk11 is the change in filter thread size which puts someone with 2 other lenses at 77mm thread in a pickle for filter investment (maybe I need to get a step up ring, and make the investment in 82mm filters?).


----------



## kubelik (Feb 9, 2012)

I've got to say, looking at the MTF charts and the weight reduction, I don't think I'd mind selling my 24-70 L I and trading up to the II. I'd say IS or no, it's worth a significant price difference. as long as performance is strong that's all I'm concerned about in this type of glass. I'm more fired up about the price on the prime lenses, but I'm hoping that if/when they update the 50 f/1.4, 35 f/2 and 28 f/1.8 they won't include IS on those lenses, so they can come in at the same price or slightly less than the f/2.8 IS ones just announced.


----------



## liberace (Feb 9, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Think about it? How many L series lenses actually have IS? The mkI 24-70 was my first piece of L glass, and before buying it I went back and forth between the 24-105 and the 24-70, debating whether I wanted 2.8 or IS. When it came down to it, I decided to just turn off the IS on the kit lens and see what happened. No IS wasn't a real problem until I got real low in SS. It got me to thinking, really, when am I going to be shooting people, or really anything at all under 1/10th of a second without a tripod? So I went with the 24-70 and haven't missed IS one bit. I became confident enough without IS that i also bought a 10-22 no IS, and the 70-200 2.8 no IS (and mind you, I'm shooting on a 7D, so the 70-200 is effectively a 110-320mm)...
> 
> So in short, the only short-coming I can see with the mk11 is the change in filter thread size which puts someone with 2 other lenses at 77mm thread in a pickle for filter investment (maybe I need to get a step up ring, and make the investment in 82mm filters?).



6 Zooms and 11 Primes. Not a small number. Secondly IS isn't just for shorter exposure times. It works fantastically to reduce up/down movements when taking panning shots at any focal length.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM 
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro
Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM Lens
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 L IS II USM
Canon EF 500mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS II USM
Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 9, 2012)

liberace said:


> 6 Zooms and 11 Primes. Not a small number. Secondly IS isn't just for shorter exposure times. It works fantastically to reduce up/down movements when taking panning shots at any focal length.
> 
> Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
> Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM
> ...



How many of those lens have a FOCAL LENGTH BELOW 70? 2. 

How many of those lenses have a total FOCAL LENGTH Below 70? 0

In fact with the exception of the 24-105, the MAJORITY of the lenses have the MAJORITY of their focal length ABOVE 100.

100% of the lenses above have focal lengths that exceed 100mm, and 70mm for that fact. 

In fact only 2 out of the 17 lenses you list have focal lengths under 200mm. 12 of the lenses have focal lengths of 300mm or greater.

So what conclusions can be drawn. Looks like IS tends to be found on:

-- Longer lenses (200mm and above)
-- Slower lenses (F/4 and above)

Not to say that IS has not crept into some lenses, but not one lens in the list of L lenses from Canon that has IS does not extend greater than 100mm by some degree, and the majority start at 200 or more.

Not one L lens currently has its entire focal length below 100mm for that matter, and in fact, it seems that 100mm seems to be the magic number for when Canon feels IS matters. 

Any surprise why the new 24-70 does not have IS? looking at it is 2.8 and does not extend 100mm or greater, looks like it is normal for Canon to not introduce IS to the lens


----------



## skitron (Feb 9, 2012)

liberace said:


> 6 Zooms and 11 Primes.



You forgot 28-135 IS


----------



## Abraxx (Feb 9, 2012)

Wait, and see...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2012)

skitron said:


> liberace said:
> 
> 
> > 6 Zooms and 11 Primes.
> ...



Did you make one into an L-series lens by placing a red rubber band around the end of the barrel?  The count was for L lenses...


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did you make one into an L-series lens by placing a red rubber band around the end of the barrel?  The count was for L lenses...




;D


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > liberace said:
> ...



Darn - I was going to make a killing by painting a red light round my 18-55 IS : : :


----------



## kubelik (Feb 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > skitron said:
> ...



marekjoz just posted this in the forums: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3314.0/topicseen.html which seems particularly pertinent here ...


----------



## iaind (Feb 9, 2012)

kubelik said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




Refer to topic 


How to increase the performance of your Canon lens [humor]


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > liberace said:
> ...



Could be a lens bracelet user.... =P
Or who was it that painted his 50mm 1.8 white, with a red ring? ;D

Thing is though: yes, very few lenses below 100mm have IS, but would it be so wrong to put it on? two versions maybe? 
But again, that brings back the argument that it becomes a competitor to the 24-105mm IS....


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 10, 2012)

> 6 Zooms and 11 Primes. Not a small number. Secondly IS isn't just for shorter exposure times. It works fantastically to reduce up/down movements when taking panning shots at any focal length.
> 
> Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
> Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM
> ...



thank you both of you for proving my point!


----------



## Fandongo (Feb 10, 2012)

Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
hence the several hundred dollars in 77mm filters I've dumped.

24-70 version I FTW.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 10, 2012)

Fandongo said:


> Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
> hence the several hundred dollars in 77mm filters I've dumped.
> 
> 24-70 version I FTW.



Lee or Cokin 100mm is the cheap way to go on filters except for large whites when of course they use the same drop in


----------



## ions (Feb 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Fandongo said:
> 
> 
> > Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
> ...



I've been debating between investing in the Lee system or getting a few screw-in filters and this announcement confirmed that Lee is going to be the way to go for me.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 10, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > The more I look at those MTF charts, the more I'm amazed by them. My initial response was exactly WTF?!?!? But seriously, look at those charts. It's better all across the way, but at the edges the improvements are monstrous. I'm guessing this will outperform practically every prime that exists. If you're stopping down your 1.xx primes to over 2, you might just be way way better off with this lens.
> ...



What is the price of those 3 prime lenses? $4500. And yes they are all 1.4 or faster versus 2.8, but the majority of the MTF chart I see for this lens is much improved. Are each of these primes superior in their respective range? Likely, but if the images from this lens perform like the chart suggests, It looks to me like many people may pay a little more than they would like, but have a lens that COMES CLOSE to each of these primes, and has the advantage of not having to buy 3, swap 3 all the time and also maybe not need the 85, so closer to getting 4 solid primes in 1 zoom. 

May not have IS, but with this 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70 - 200 F/2.8 IS II a lot of photographers could cover MOST of the range they need with TWO LENSES and you pretty much would have to spend 5X as much in primes to better them across the range. 

Time will tell, but I am definitely thinking that swapping out my 50 f/1.4, 85 F/1.8 and 24-105 F/4 and going with the 24-70 F/2.8 II and my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II not only is less to carry, but should even be better performing, and winds up being only about a $500 upgrade.

Granted, having speeds below F/2.8 is nice and can be a necessity, but what I see from Canon with these two lenses is a real solid covering of both range and performance


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

Fandongo said:


> Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
> hence the several hundred dollars in 77mm filters I've dumped.



OTOH, I have the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, both of which use 82mm filters, so I already have an 82mm B+W Käsemann CPL and an 82mm Schneider Optics 10-stop ND (in addition to 77mm versions of them for most of my other L lenses, and a 72mm 3-stop ND for the holy trinity primes).


----------



## kubelik (Feb 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fandongo said:
> 
> 
> > Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
> ...



yeah, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was already my largest-common-denominator, so to speak. other than a Circ Pol, everything for me is Singh-ray glass plates, so 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm are all the same to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

kubelik said:


> yeah, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was already my largest-common-denominator, so to speak. other than a Circ Pol, everything for me is *Singh-ray glass plates*, so 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm are all the same to me.



Just to pick a nit, I believe that while Singh-Ray's screw-in filters are glass, their rectangular filters are all resin, not glass... AFAIK, the only optical glass rectangular filters (grads, ND grads, etc.) are made by B+W's parent company, Schneider Optics.


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 10, 2012)

More images (1-5 out of 10) of 24-70 f/2.8L II from CP+...


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 10, 2012)

More images (6-10 out of 10) of 24-70 f/2.8L II from CP+...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

Notice anything different between the first published photo and these current ones?











Here's a hint:



neuroanatomist said:


> ...I'm bothered by the lack of any IR focus markings...


----------



## K-amps (Feb 10, 2012)

Where's the guys that said it's bad photoshopping?


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 10, 2012)

Is it just me or does the lens look really really small =/


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 10, 2012)

Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII



I just hope Canon doesn't miss the opportunity for this to happen because people get tired of waiting and move to "the dark side".


----------



## K-amps (Feb 10, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> "Where's the guy who said it was bad photoshop?"
> 
> I'm here, it was, the bright orange coating has gone now. But I freely admitted I was wrong immediately it was released,



+1: We all make mistakes, I agree with your frustrations on the 24-70 though. I really wanted IS myself.


----------



## JR (Feb 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII



+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII



Compared to 'the Canon new line up' would be nice...but currently, that consists of the 1D X, and only the 1D X. That should really be compared to the D4, leaving us to compare the D800 to the Canon EOS..... Oh, wait, there's just the 1D X. 

C'mon, Canon...make with the announcements! Please, give us a camera that will allow us to speculate on whether or not it will outresolve these new lenses...a camera the EF mount lenses will actually mount onto, I mean...


----------



## K-amps (Feb 10, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> but the focus of the development seems to have been diverted to video. The C300 and the four $40,000 CN-E lenses are where that lead went.
> 
> I didn't want a 35mp 5D MkIII I wanted a 500 mm f4 I could actually afford, nice upgrade but horrid price. Lastly, I personally, don't want any R&D going on a video orientated EOS, at least until that two generation DSLR lead is back.
> 
> No, sorry, Canon is running off the stills rails, just look at any CPS emailed product survey, it is so slanted it just asks questions in a way to get the answers they want to hear.



I agree with you on many of these fronts, I feel your pain, and that of every member here who has been waiting for an update especially a 5D update. Personally video to me is a gimmick, not the reason I buy DSLR's.... Canon should not forsake it's core support base, if it is focussing so much on Video. (I am happy for the video guys though).

Also, why is it a Taboo on this board to provide healthy criticism so that Canon can make a better product, you almost always get smitten for it... The guys that tell it like it is get hazed... sometimes I feel we have zealots lurking here, practising behaviour modification with their applaud/smite cattle prods.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 10, 2012)

K-amps said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > but the focus of the development seems to have been diverted to video. The C300 and the four $40,000 CN-E lenses are where that lead went.
> ...



Well said. You sir get an applaud for this one.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII
> ...



Patience is a virtue that sometimes has a large payback. Unless one is losing money then there is no benefit in getting stressed over comparisons of a product that has not been tested and a product that hasn't been announced.

Let us wait until we see the tested line up. Certainly no point in jumping ship and losing money on existing kit only to find the new Canon means the Nikon kit is inferior - and then what do you do?jump back again and lose another bunch of money? or suffer with inferior kit for another 2 or 3 years.

I suggest relaxing for 2 months with the existing kit, getting the best you can from it. When the new kit has been test then make a new long term plan.

Neither the 5DII nor the 1Ds3 can be considered poor.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 10, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> "Neither the 5DII nor the 1Ds3 can be considered poor."
> 
> The 5D MkII is an embarrassing joke when compared to the D800, it is a poor stills performer when compared to the D700 unless you need the MP, and lets be honest most people don't most of the time. AF, response, customization, flash capability etc are all better on the D700, if you need your DSLR primarily for stills and web output or 14"x21" prints or smaller the 5D MkII offers nothing over the D700.



I think you have missed the point here - I said that neither the 5DII nor the 1Ds3 can be considered poor

The IQ they produce is excellent - way beyond the needs of all but a few.

Now you are trying to compare them with a D800 - a body that has not had a review yet - although already we are getting reports of unacceptable noise from the samples released.

The advantages that you list for the D700 are quite frankly nothing more than you expect from newer techology, although flash control? (that sounds dubious as it does everything that any EOS does - unless you mean a built in controller) and response?? what is that? AF we have discussed to death - most 5DII users seem to find it OK - it works happily in most situations and is still the best in class in low light (for the centre point). Seems to me that the 5DII weaknesses keep getting trotted out and every iteration makes its minor limitations sound more like a major flaw. 

'unless you need the MP, and lets be honest most people don't most of the time' - have you evidence of this? I certainly use the MP - for composition onto different media sizes for example

I am suggesting relaxing for a couple of months to see what comes along from Canon - as everyone knows it will - and come to your conclusion after seeing comparative reviews.


----------



## kapanak (Feb 11, 2012)

Field testing, anyone?


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 11, 2012)

kapanak said:


> Field testing, anyone?



Is that you? If so, we want details!


----------



## kapanak (Feb 11, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> kapanak said:
> 
> 
> > Field testing, anyone?
> ...



It belongs to my dear friend.

What would you like to know?

Initial impressions: Almost all the issues the mark I had is gone. 
Quite a bit of the heft is gone. Still feels solid.
Focuses ... I could say ... faster than my 70-200 II. 
Very, very sharp at all focal lengths.


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 11, 2012)

kapanak said:


> Initial impressions: _*Almost all the issues the mark I had is gone*_.
> Quite a bit of the _*heft is gone*_. Still feels _*solid*_.
> Focuses ... I could say ... _*faster than my 70-200 II*_.
> _*Very, very sharp at all focal lengths*_.



Sounds as good as it gets!

Any high res samples you can share?


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 11, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Maybe Canon has become a virtual company?
> 
> All I see are things being released that looks awesome, but can't be bought in the _*first year after release*_...



At least not the case for this 24-70 2.8 II that is available for pre-order at many places (B&H even shows estimated availability on Apr 17)...


----------



## photogaz (Feb 11, 2012)

kapanak said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > kapanak said:
> ...



I want one. How did your friend get it so early?

How sharp is it compared to the 70-200 Mark II? Same?

Any idea why the lens specs aren't printed on the ring?


----------



## Mooose (Feb 11, 2012)

photogaz said:


> Any idea why the lens specs aren't printed on the ring?



They had no other use for the 5mm of real estate they added to the filter ring.


----------



## JR (Feb 11, 2012)

Lucky you kapanak! I dont supposed you have high res file to share? This new lens does seem to get more interesting every day!


----------



## troy19 (Feb 11, 2012)

photogaz said:


> Any idea why the lens specs aren't printed on the ring?



And how about reflections caused by the specs when used with a filter? Not that I know that there will be refections. Just wondering if there could be!


----------



## mememe (Feb 11, 2012)

Does it change lenght when zooming? It would suck if the sunshade moves back and forward...
Field curvature gone?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> Does it change lenght when zooming? It would suck if the sunshade moves back and forward...
> Field curvature gone?



Yes, it extends out to 70mm and the hood goes along, just like the 24-105mm and other typical zooms. Means the MkI's hood effectiveness at all focal lengths is gone with the MkII. 

I do hope the field curvature is one of the things they fixed!


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 11, 2012)

Sounds like from the initial impressions it is a solid lens.

-- Sharp at all focal lengths
-- faster focus than 70-200 II

That is pretty fast. I will take faster focus over IS


----------



## clicstudio (Feb 11, 2012)

*Any extended pictures?*

I am curious as what it looks like extended. I hate the new hood, looks like the 24-105 and it leaks light like crazy. 
Also the current hood doesn't let you see the extended lens, which looks horrible...

Already preordered mine from adorama!
Cheers
Patrick


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 11, 2012)

*Re: Any extended pictures?*



clicstudio said:


> I am curious as what it looks like extended. I hate the new hood, looks like the 24-105 and it leaks light like crazy.
> Also the current hood doesn't let you see the extended lens, which looks horrible...
> 
> Already preordered mine from adorama!
> ...


Here's the photo


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 11, 2012)

I can imagine myself buying the new 24-70 lens, but it's not top of my lens list.

Yes, I'm a little disappointed at the lack of IS, but just now I thought to myself, well I've never bitched to myself at the lack of IS on my 85/1.8 lens, which is longer (albeit faster too). I'll be able to live with the lack of IS given that the 5D3 will have way better low-light noise performance than my 7D. 

Plus, this new 24-70 will be insanely sharp; of that we can be sure.

So: I've already got the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, and if I get the new 24-70 and a 2X extender, that combination of 3 lenses will cover basically every walk-around requirement, and give outstanding image quality across the range.

But I think I'll still get the 85/1.2L II first. Just because I want it!


----------



## LukieLauXD (Feb 11, 2012)

Price-wise, does it make sense? I just got a 5D Mark II in January, and it's the first time I've went full frame, my dad gave me his 40D to use for the last year or so. Other than a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8, I want a lens that I can walk around with and not have to back up for group pictures, so I'm considering this one or 70-200 II.

I really didn't expect this to cost $2300 though when rumors started about it x-x

Any advice?


----------



## liberace (Feb 11, 2012)

I don't know why, but I find the lack of model name and features around the front rim unsettling.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 11, 2012)

LukieLauXD said:


> I want a lens that I can walk around with and *not have to back up* for group pictures, so I'm considering...*70-200 II.*


Those two don't mesh...at all. The 70-200 is basically as wide as the longest lens you already have; it's not gonna help you for group portraits unless you are stitching photos together.

If you've already got a 50 and 85 prime, why not get something like the 24mm f/1.4 L II prime and complete the set. The 24-105 would be a potential solution, but, if you do a lot of portrait/people work, you'll find the DOF lacking.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 11, 2012)

*Re: Any extended pictures?*



simonxu11 said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious as what it looks like extended. I hate the new hood, looks like the 24-105 and it leaks light like crazy.
> ...



Damn that looks like a much more reasonable size than the Mk1, could be the fact that the lens hood isn't on it though. Thanks for sharing the pics and thoughts!


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 11, 2012)

liberace said:


> I don't know why, but I find the lack of model name and features around the front rim unsettling.



What are you talking about? It has "24-70 f/2.8L II" on the front and the side it looks like....

Edit: Oh I think you mean around the ring, I gotcha. It seems kinda redundant now that I think about it.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Feb 11, 2012)

i miss the large hood of the mark i.. :'(


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> _"Any advice?"_
> 
> Get the 24-105, a vastly better walk around lens with longer focal length, and very useful for walk around IS. f4 is rarely a factor given the iso capabilities of the 5D MkII sensor.



24-105L has kinda stinky image quality though as my cheap $300 Tamron 28-75 2.8 did better on FF (other than a little bit worse contrast). 24mm on the 24-105L looks nasty on my 5D2 near the edges even at f/10 and a ton of distortion too. I will give you it is super convenient, great range, IS, fast focusing, but the price just seems way steep for the merely alright image quality IMO.

(f/4 vs f/2.8 is about more than ISO though, it's about DOF too, so for some that might matter too)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2012)

kapanak said:


> Field testing, anyone?



Wow how did he get one before general release?
Any full samples at 24mm?


----------



## photogaz (Feb 11, 2012)

I have a feeling this guy won't respond now it's been posted on the front page :-(

Please dude!


----------



## mememe (Feb 11, 2012)

I will never buy this... its really poor how the sunshade is implemented...

The old one is also sharp at any focal length... Field curvature was the only "problem" (not really as bad as with other lenses)


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 11, 2012)

mememe said:


> I will never buy this... its really poor how the sunshade is implemented...
> 
> The old one is also sharp at any focal length... Field curvature was the only "problem" (not really as bad as with other lenses)



Not sure if that's the best way to decide on buying a lens. I'm crazy, but I usually look at image quality. And, the Mark I was NOT sharp at any focal length for the vast majority of lens copies. Maybe you had a good one, but it wasn't the case for most other users. 

Bottom line, this is a very significant improvement, given the charts and the user's first impression here. Canon is going to make you pay for that improvement. 

Not liking the price doesn't mean that we have to not like the lens, especially because "it doesn't have IS". The IQ and focus speed appear to be leaps and bounds better. Just wait a few months for the retail price to come down or for used copies to hit eBay.


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 11, 2012)

*Re: Any extended pictures?*



Axilrod said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...



More pics here.


----------



## kapanak (Feb 11, 2012)

Sorry folks. Not allowed to post full size samples. 

All I can tell you is that a quite a few of these are out there for "extended trials" testing. 

The lens was final back in autumn. So none of the ones out there are 'prototypes' per say.


----------



## photogaz (Feb 11, 2012)

kapanak said:


> Sorry folks. Not allowed to post full size samples.
> All I can tell you is that a few hundreds of these are out there for "extended trials" testing.



Can you answer questions though? 

I'd love to know just how sharp it is? Would you say at f2.8 it's as sharp as the 70-200 f2.8 II?


----------



## friedmud (Feb 11, 2012)

It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8. Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2012)

friedmud said:


> It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8. Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.





friedmud said:


> It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8. Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.



The design is still a good deal different than that of the 17-55, that said it is a much, MUCH closer design to that of the 17-55 than to the old 24-70 (I suppose it had to be just for the fact that it extends when going to longer focal lengths like the 17-55 and unlike the 24-70, although even taking that into account it still seems a touch closer.) and it does more similar on the outside too.

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l-ii/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ef-s/ef-s17-55-f28/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l/spec.html


----------



## adamfilip (Feb 11, 2012)

LukieLauXD said:


> Price-wise, does it make sense? I just got a 5D Mark II in January, and it's the first time I've went full frame, my dad gave me his 40D to use for the last year or so. Other than a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8, I want a lens that I can walk around with and not have to back up for group pictures, so I'm considering this one or 70-200 II.
> 
> I really didn't expect this to cost $2300 though when rumors started about it x-x
> 
> Any advice?



advice? Save your pennies and get one.


----------



## kapanak (Feb 11, 2012)

photogaz said:


> kapanak said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry folks. Not allowed to post full size samples.
> ...



At 70mm f2.8, the 70-200 II is comparable to this. I'd say the 70-200 is sharper. 
However, at all other stops, the 24-70 appears sharper. 
The 24-70 focuses faster. Not by much, but the difference is noticeable. 
My usage is limited to when the actual "tester" is present and available. 
Tried and shot with on the 1D IV and 5D II.
I am willing to answer questions. No samples allowed yet, however.


----------



## photogaz (Feb 11, 2012)

kapanak said:


> photogaz said:
> 
> 
> > kapanak said:
> ...



Thank you  How does the flare hold up?


----------



## Fandongo (Feb 11, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> i miss the large hood of the mark i.. :'(



Haha yeah, petal hoods are the stupidest thing in the world.

Here, let me set this lens down while I swa...woops it's broken.


----------



## JakiChan (Feb 12, 2012)

It does sound nice...I just dunno if I can justify the upgrade price. I think if you take the time to get the lens dialed in the Mk. I is pretty sharp. 

And I wonder - once we've got a few thousand copies out there I bet we'll still have folks saying "it's not sharp". Also, no sharing filters with my other glass is a bummer, unless I get that 16-35...


----------



## coltsfreak18 (Feb 12, 2012)

JakiChan said:


> It does sound nice...I just dunno if I can justify the upgrade price. I think if you take the time to get the lens dialed in the Mk. I is pretty sharp.
> 
> And I wonder - once we've got a few thousand copies out there I bet we'll still have folks saying "it's not sharp". Also, no sharing filters with my other glass is a bummer, unless I get that 16-35...


Well, I think the 16-35 was one of the main reasons they made the 27-70 have an 82mm filter threading. Many people buy the "trifecta" of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200; so Canon makes some redundancy for this common combination. And then they assume if you have all three, then you'll have 77mm as well as 82mm filters.


----------



## Gcon (Feb 12, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The design is still a good deal different than that of the 17-55, that said it is a much, MUCH closer design to that of the 17-55 than to the old 24-70 (I suppose it had to be just for the fact that it extends when going to longer focal lengths like the 17-55 and unlike the 24-70, although even taking that into account it still seems a touch closer.) and it does more similar on the outside too.
> 
> http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l-ii/spec.html
> http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ef-s/ef-s17-55-f28/spec.html
> http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l/spec.html



To me this lens looks like the love child of the 24-105 and 17-55. Both of those have IS! To me this is a very smart move by Canon. They will sell hundreds of thousands of these lenses worldwide. Then if and when Nikon bring out their 24-70 VR version, Canon will release an IS version of this lens, and sell lots more lenses! This lens, and a future IS version, are going to be major cash cows for Canon.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 12, 2012)

friedmud said:


> It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8. Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.


Is the 17-55 f/2.8 as good as I heard it to be?


----------



## shermanstank (Feb 12, 2012)

This new Mark II version is very intriguing. BUT as a prime lens shooter myself, I would not trade the unique look arising from the 1.2 and 1.4 lens. 

The price point of the new 24-70 f/2.8L II is ridiculous. If and when the price goes down to let's say $1800, then I could somehow justify the purchase of this lens. BUT THEN when I think about it, I could cover the 24-70 range with a 50mm f/1.2L ( zooming with my feet). In the end, paying $2300 for a newer version of a 24-70 f/2.8 , knowing that I have a 50L/35L doesn't make financial sense.  I rather use the money to purchase a used CONTAX 645 with a ZEISS 80mm f/2.0. 

What if a new 50mm f/1.2L II comes out in a year or two? Would you still buy the 24-70 f/2.8 II?-----> I know I wouldn't. ;D  


Cheers!

Sherwin


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Feb 12, 2012)

KitH said:


> Surely a coincidence that Tamron have announced theirs today (with their image stabilisation)
> 
> "Tamron develops full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in image stabilization – SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007)" Tamron press release (source: NR)




Visited the Tamron booth at CP+ yesterday, they neither have a working version nor do they have a time schedule of when this lens will actually be available for sale. They had a mock up lens on display in a glass case that we weren't allowed to hold or touch, so I don't think I'll be holding my breath for this Tamron any time soon.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 12, 2012)

DarkKnightNine said:


> KitH said:
> 
> 
> > Surely a coincidence that Tamron have announced theirs today (with their image stabilisation)
> ...


but at least they're developing one :


----------



## zzxx (Feb 12, 2012)

Hi kapanak,

How about the Vignetting? I'd love to know some more details about it cause some examples displayed a pretty hefty edge shading.

F2.8


----------



## zzxx (Feb 12, 2012)

F5.6


----------



## zzxx (Feb 12, 2012)

even at F8, it's still noticeable.
How about your current experience?


----------



## Miky (Feb 12, 2012)

Hello, Congratulations for your purchase and for the first photo, very nice photo.
You can post large files to evaluate the lens?

Thank you

Miky


----------



## zzxx (Feb 12, 2012)

Link from Canon Korea, the only full size sample found

http://www.canon-ci.co.kr/actions/ProductMainAction?cmd=view&product_code=NPAB797090


----------



## mrmarks (Feb 12, 2012)

zzxx said:


> Hi kapanak,
> 
> How about the Vignetting? I'd love to know some more details about it cause some examples displayed a pretty hefty edge shading.
> 
> F2.8



Where did you get these images from?


----------



## zzxx (Feb 12, 2012)

You have never visited the Canon website of other countries, have you

http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/standardzoom/ef2470f28lii/sample.html


----------



## samueljay (Feb 12, 2012)

This might sound like a silly question, but does an improvement of vignetting mean less of it? Personally, I love the look of it, and think it gives photos a very filmic look, is it just personal taste? Do most people not like vignetting? Just curious


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 12, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was already my largest-common-denominator, so to speak. other than a Circ Pol, everything for me is *Singh-ray glass plates*, so 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm are all the same to me.
> ...



Sorry if this is answered elsewhere, but Lee do a couple of all-glass filters, I have their ND-9 which is all glass...


----------



## zzxx (Feb 12, 2012)

samueljay said:


> This might sound like a silly question, but does an improvement of vignetting mean less of it? Personally, I love the look of it, and think it gives photos a very filmic look, is it just personal taste? Do most people not like vignetting? Just curious



Well, honestly I don't like it. Maybe I will try to create some vignetting by photoshop for a certain atmosphere, but I don't want it to be created by the lens itself, in other words, not always be there. So personally, the less the better.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 12, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> _" AF we have discussed to death - most 5DII users seem to find it OK - it works happily in most situations and is still the best in class in low light "_
> 
> Well that is a ringing endorsement, most find it OK! And they are the owners, not the most unbiased of respondents, the 5D was constantly criticized for its AF performance, everybody took a deep breath when the MkII was announced with a slightly improved version, people have just got used to how bad it is when compared to regular use with a much better system. As for best in class, that is a claim that could only be supported by people who don't use the 5D MkII and the D700, it is just not true in real world use. Wait a bit longer? For three full years, over 36 months, prosumers have had a vastly better option for AF than the 5D MkII.
> 
> ...


Not true, when a reasonable percentage of sensors used by Nikon are created by Sony. And that is a significant part of how Nikon got back in the game. And absolutely, Canon users are benefiting from it no longer being a 1 horse race. Similarly, anyone who has a computer benefits from AMD still snapping at Intel (albeit at a reasonable distance), and Apple users have benefited from all the economies of scale that PC users gave them...

Whereas I agree that Canon need to be kept on their toes, and they do appear to have got lazy - whether we like it or not, we need to wait for 2012 to expire before we can conclude whether Nikon / Sony has kept their lead over Canon or not at a technology level. For most people, printing A3, then I think any of the current or previous generation(s) still suffice. My friend still shoots with his 5D and still hones his photographic technique irrespective of the underlying tech. People he sells to don't care if he used a pin-hole 

I however, gave up with the 5D MK II, grabbed a couple of second hand 1Ds and am happy with that decision (but not the bank balance). Yes the 1Ds focusing is much better, and yes I am sure the D700 is pretty damned close also - so given the chance then swapping to Nikon may have been better in hindsight. Like many here, it's the investment in glass which makes me pause...

Having said that, I now face the prospect of upgrading all my lenses (over time) if I want to consider then next 2+ generations of camera tech and so I would not rule out a swap to Nikon, leaving my Canon paired with the 500mm until such time as the dollar and yen rates allow me to replace it also. But that's a decision which I will not conclude until the Autumn when I see what Canon have released.

Finally, and of less immediate consideration, but as the camera market continues to get squeezed, it is easy to see why manufacturers look to other revenue streams. Nikon is in someways lucky, as it does not sell camcorders and so can develop that in their camera. Sony and Canon do. However, with the volume-end of the market being aggressively attacked by smartphones and those manufacturers happy to put APS-C or 4/3 sensors in compact bodies, then I would not wish to be in Nikon's shoes, I would want other revenue streams outside their core business. Sony and Canon have this to fall back on. Oh for a crystal ball to see who will be around in a decade....


----------



## alfeel (Feb 12, 2012)

here it's a full size sample: 
EOS 5D Mark Ⅱ, 70 mm, 1/12 sec, F/5.7, ISO 100

full size: http://222.231.45.110/pds/product/1328593964570_RqerJXCcYz.JPG






I don't know u guys but i think it's pretty soft for stopped down aperture!

here it's a sample of the brand new 24/2.8 IS, and it's way sharper! 
EOS 5D Mark Ⅱ, 24 mm, 1.61 sec (yep, this IS works well), F/11, ISO 100

full size: http://222.231.45.110/pds/product/1328593926898_6K1V2i8nVF.JPG


----------



## marius (Feb 12, 2012)

It's a back (bad) focus. The focus is not on the flower in the middle (it's behind it).
Strange for a sample, though.




alfeel said:


> here it's a full size sample:
> EOS 5D Mark Ⅱ, 70 mm, 1/12 sec, F/5.7, ISO 100
> 
> full size:
> ...


----------



## jordanbstead (Feb 12, 2012)

marius said:


> It's a back (bad) focus. The focus is not on the flower in the middle (it's behind it).
> Strange for a sample, though.
> 
> 
> ...




Note the image was shot at 1/12th of a sec. Hardly a good test if not shot on a tripod with a shutter release and mirror lockup engaged...


----------



## RedEye (Feb 12, 2012)

If you don't mind, where was see side photo withe Church in the background taken?

Thanks,
Red


----------



## alfeel (Feb 12, 2012)

RedEye said:


> If you don't mind, where was see side photo withe Church in the background taken?
> 
> Thanks,
> Red



I'm sorry but I don't know, i took that sample on the canon korea website!


----------



## waving_odd (Feb 13, 2012)

alfeel said:


> here it's a full size sample:
> EOS 5D Mark Ⅱ, 70 mm, 1/12 sec, _*F/5.7*_, ISO 100
> 
> I don't know u guys but i think it's pretty soft for stopped down aperture!
> ...



You're comparing sharpness of f/5.7 (and sort of close-up focused) to f/11 (focused to infinity for landscape)? ???


----------



## robbysalz (Feb 13, 2012)

Suddenly I'm not too worried about their announced price for the II. How long before we start seeing prices drop on the lens after it's released?


----------



## sheedoe (Feb 13, 2012)

^ I don't know where amazon gets their "list price" from, but I'm guessing its not from this planet. I would not make any predictions on prices based on amazon's list price.


----------



## scubasteve03 (Feb 13, 2012)

sheedoe said:


> ^ I don't know where amazon gets their "list price" from, but I'm guessing its not from this planet. I would not make any predictions on prices based on amazon's list price.



It comes from canon. Thats the actual price set by canon for it's MSRP. Just like the 24-70 posted above. The MSRP for both 24-70s are within $100 of each other. The 24-70 is very old ad that's why the prices are down so low. The same thing with the 70-200 mk ii. That's what canon gives as the MSRP.


----------



## sheedoe (Feb 13, 2012)

scubasteve03 said:


> sheedoe said:
> 
> 
> > ^ I don't know where amazon gets their "list price" from, but I'm guessing its not from this planet. I would not make any predictions on prices based on amazon's list price.
> ...



Where are you getting this information from? You can check Canon's website for their MSRP. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 13, 2012)

According to dpreview.com's press release from September 24, 2002, the original 24-70 was $2100 at launch:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/9/29/canonef2470l

Taking inflation and currency valuations into account, that's not so bad. Unfortunately early adopters take a bath for MSRP - just ask any 70-200 2.8 IS II or 24mm 1.4 II buyers out there...


----------



## sheedoe (Feb 13, 2012)

So how many of you paid $4000 (amazon's list price) for the 70-200mm II?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 14, 2012)

robbysalz said:


> Suddenly I'm not too worried about their announced price for the II. How long before we start seeing prices drop on the lens after it's released?



My guess would be we'll see various incentives throughout the year. $50 rebate here, $100 rebate there, buy it with ______ and get both for XX% off. I'm betting there's several benchmarks for sales, once they start hitting those marks, that means they've paid off the R&D and new item production costs, and they won't need as much profit per individual sale. 

http://chuckalaimo.com/


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Feb 16, 2012)

sheedoe said:


> So how many of you paid $4000 (amazon's list price) for the 70-200mm II?


I paid $3000 for mine (which i sorta had to haggle for since the store i bought it from were selling it for like $3200 pr something, too long ago i cant remember) pretty much right at the end of 2010, but then again I didn't buy it from amazon nor do I live in the US. That's why I hate the retail price, in like 12 months it'll be a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, it's not fair!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> sheedoe said:
> 
> 
> > So how many of you paid $4000 (amazon's list price) for the 70-200mm II?
> ...



yeah mate we take it in the butt from canon here in oz


----------



## birdman (Mar 3, 2012)

Have you guys seen the MTF charts on this baby? Jeez....it looks incredible. 

I actually think that R & D considered IS for this lens, but decided it would degrade IQ just a smidgeon.

And let's face it: this thing will be on a tripod for many pros anyway. If i actually needed that FL it would be on my short list. I would probably even part with my 35L to get it....if I needed the 24-70. It looks to be THAT GOOD!!


----------



## MikeHunt (Mar 3, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > sheedoe said:
> ...



What about the incredibly strong Aussie Dollar right now, especially at a new high vis-a-vis the Yen??

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02/aussie-touches-nine-month-high-versus-yen-as-rba-seen-to-hold-rates-steady.html



birdman said:


> Have you guys seen the MTF charts on this baby? Jeez....it looks incredible.



Perhaps its the best L lens yet produced, but the price is £2,299 (US$3,600), that's even more incredible 

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm-lens/p1529492?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=canon%20EF%2024-70mm%20f/2.8%20l%20II&utm_campaign=Lenses%20/%20Canon&cm_mmc=google%20Warehouse%20Cameras%20And%20Lenses-_-Lenses%20/%20Canon-_-Lenses%20/%20Canon%20EF%2024-70mm%20f2.8%20L%20II%20USM%20Lens%20-%20Phrase-_-canon%20EF%2024-70mm%20f/2.8%20l%20II

This new lens in Europe costs more than the new 5D Mark III in America ???


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 3, 2012)

MikeHunt said:


> Perhaps its the best L lens yet produced, but the price is £2,299 (US$3,600), that's even more incredible



I suspect the 200 f/2 will keep its best L lens for a little while yet 

The 24-70II is new to market - so the prices will be at msrp for a couple of months before it drops to the the same as the 70-200 f/2.8 II - about £1800


----------



## rwmson (Mar 4, 2012)

I am severly considering this lens to go along with the 5d3 I pre-ordered. I'm a little annoyed that it will require purchasing another set of filters to fit the 82mm threads.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 27, 2012)

coltsfreak18 said:


> Well, I think the 16-35 was one of the main reasons they made the 27-70 have an 82mm filter threading. Many people buy the "trifecta" of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200; so Canon makes some redundancy for this common combination. And then they assume if you have all three, then you'll have 77mm as well as 82mm filters.



No way 16-35 II belongs in the same "trifecta" with 70-200 II (24-70 II remains to be seen), not even close IME. The rumored Canon version of 14-22mm would make up that trifecta, and judging by the new 24mm samples, I have high hope Canon has finally refined their wide angle formula..


----------



## Viggo (Jan 17, 2013)

Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 17, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?



I tried two copies from Crutchfield, Reikan FoCal showed 990ish in sharpness @ f2.8. Both copies were from 1st patch.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 17, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?
> ...



Nice, thanks for the input, then I know what numbers to look for also.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jan 19, 2013)

Anyone knows where i can download a lens correction profile for Adobe Camera Raw for this lens?
I've been searching but the only only one i found from Adobe's database doesn't work...
Doesn't anyone do correction for this lens?


----------



## yablonsky (Jan 19, 2013)

The recent update Adobe Camera Raw 7.3 has the correction profile for this lens. Works fine.


----------



## EvilTed (Jan 19, 2013)

The 24-70 II and 70-200 II are the only lenses I currently own in Canon L with my 5D MK3.
I sold my 16-35 F/2.8 II, 50 F/1.2 because they are soft and not what I expect from a modern Canon lens (and the AF is sup-par compared with the newer designs) and the 24 F/1.4L II because it is soft a [email protected] in the corners @ F/1.4 and only sharpens up by F/2.8, where as the 24-70 II is better at F/2.8.

The 24-70 II is the lens that changed my mind from selling all my Canon gear and moving back to Nikon (D800E) - it is that good!

ET


----------



## Chris Burch (Jan 24, 2013)

Occassionally while processing my photos I'll get all gitty about when I come across an exceptionally sharp and crisp image. That only used to happen with my 70-200 f/2.8 and of course the 85 f/1.2, but that's to be expected. Now that I have the v2 of the 70-200, it happens even more. I've never once had that feeling with my most used lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 until I invested in the new version. As far as I'm concerned...worth every damn cent. Here's a shot from an inaugural ball of the incomparable Audra McDonald. Shot at 1/125 f5.6 ISO2500 with a tiny bit of sharpening in LR. I included a 100% crop of the face. The best part is that I have about 300 shots of performances that night, all of which were this sharp.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2013)

man, I remember seeing Audra McDonald in the original run of Ragtime. mind-blowing. Brian Stokes Mitchell also has the perfect voice to compliment hers. the recorded version is also excellent and very much worth getting.

wonderful shot, Chris!


----------



## e-d0uble (Mar 1, 2013)

I'll quickly chime in here regarding this lens. I've had it for two days, and I'm not terribly impressed so far. I was excited to get this sucker, as I'm looking to consolidate my collection of glass and this lens could replace several other lenses if it were good enough. 

This is certainly a good modern lens: all the positive reviews can't be wrong or outright lies, can they?.. The samples I've seen posted all over the place look mostly good.. However, for $2049 and after reading all the over-the-top reviews I was expecting a bit more. That being said, I have in the past disliked certain lenses at first, only to learn their quirks and produce acceptable results after time.

I did not own the mark I version of this lens, but I have lots of others (albeit primes, different zoom ranges, IS included, larger apertures, tilt-shifts, etc.) to compare it to. Now, I'm not using Imatest like the lensrental.com guys, but my eyesight is quite good and I know how to use my 5dMkII and MkIII just fine  I'm fully aware that I'm not performing scientific tests here, and that the comparisons are in many cases completely unfair. Hopefully, I'm not flamed to Hell for this.

First off: aside from corner performance (where the 24-70 is quite good), the 24-105 f/4 IS seems nearly as good @f/4 all the way from 24-70. That in itself is bad news for such a new and pricey lens, and I was completely shocked. I tried hand held with IS on, and tripod mounted (IS off) shots and the results were fairly similar. The 24-70 did have better contrast than the 24-105. Perhaps my 24-105 is a real gem but something tells me it's as average as everyone else's. Next up, I compared a few quick landscape shots taken with it (at 24mm f/3.5) to the 24mm f/3.5 TS-E II. I felt the TS-E was clearly better. Again I was shocked, as the lensrentals.com guys said this lens bested the TS-E... perhaps only on paper. The next comparison wasn't exactly fair or balanced (lol) but I did it anyway.. I took a few quick shots of my wife (head and shoulders) with the 85mm f/1.2 II (@f/1.2) and compared to similar (yeah, I know.. it's pineapples vs. peaches) shots @70mm f/2.8 with the zoom. The in-focus areas produced by the 85 seemed sharper to me. Yes, it's a prime vs a zoom, yes it's 85mm.. yes it's f/1.2 vs f/2.8, but I was still expecting better from this new pricey beast. Lastly, I snapped on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which I consider to be the best zoom lens I've ever owned. @70mm, f/2.8 (IS on or off) the 70-200 is again better than the 24-70II (@70mm f/2.8 ). I'm going to shoot with this sucker for a few days straight to see if I can get better results, but so far I consider this lens somewhat of a letdown.
In closing: I believe that most of the "bad copy" scuttlebutt I hear about certain lenses is nonsense (or at least the differences in resolution copy-to-copy are next to undetectable by the human eye), so if I find this lens to be a dud I'm not sure I'd exchange it for another... We'll see..


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 1, 2013)

I think I had a good v1; and now a good v2.
At 24mm at 2,8 I noticed higher sharpness, contrast.
At 70mm the new one is a bit better.
Was it worth the money?
For me at using f2,8 yes; f4 and narrower too less difference.

I liked the tulip-sized lenshood from the v1. It was very protective.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 1, 2013)

e-d0uble said:


> I'll quickly chime in here regarding this lens. I've had it for two days, and I'm not terribly impressed so far. I was excited to get this sucker, as I'm looking to consolidate my collection of glass and this lens could replace several other lenses if it were good enough.
> 
> This is certainly a good modern lens: all the positive reviews can't be wrong or outright lies, can they?.. The samples I've seen posted all over the place look mostly good.. However, for $2049 and after reading all the over-the-top reviews I was expecting a bit more. That being said, I have in the past disliked certain lenses at first, only to learn their quirks and produce acceptable results after time.
> 
> ...



Well, I also have the Canon 24mm TS-E II, 85L II, 70-200 II, along with 35L, etc, which is why I have not and will not buy the 24-70 II. I had the Canon 28-70 as well as 24-70 MkI, and the lenses above were simply much better, and $2299 (before rebate) is simply not worth it for me for the 24-70 II.


----------



## iso79 (Mar 1, 2013)

The Mark II is totally worth it. Ridiculously sharp. Sold my Mark I to help pay for it. Ended up only paying $1200 for the Mark II.


----------



## e-d0uble (Mar 2, 2013)

Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality. Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses. Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test. The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything. I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 2, 2013)

Still these sample variations? That's useless, but not uncommon unfortunatly.

My 70-200 f2.8 mk2 has been for repair over a month now. They have changed TWO IS-units, recalibrated AF, also twice. They have ordered parts 5(!!) times. They have adjusted the glass itself and had all kinds of problems with it. It's all under warranty and the lens haven't been subjected to any impact, so it just seems like it was put together on an early monday by blind drunk no-handed lazy people...

So when THAT lens passes QC I'm not surprised to hear about "only ok" 24-70's, I mean, my lens is much worse than a 55-250 ef-s in all aspects, IQ AF, non-working IS etc...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Mar 6, 2013)

drjlo said:


> coltsfreak18 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I think the 16-35 was one of the main reasons they made the 27-70 have an 82mm filter threading. Many people buy the "trifecta" of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200; so Canon makes some redundancy for this common combination. And then they assume if you have all three, then you'll have 77mm as well as 82mm filters.
> ...



If your a working photograher, you can't have a non-existent lens in your bag though! I get that you don't dig the 16-35, but, there is no 14-24 (and i guess now that may be a 12-24????). If you want a zoom lens that can cover wide to go along with the other zooms, what are you gonna use?


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 7, 2013)

I sent back two copies of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and kept the 24-70 F/2.8II because at F/2.8 it is sharper (at least my copy is) and it focusses a lot faster and more accurately.

I have to say, my 24-70 is the only lens I've had on my Canon 5D MK3 that I've liked and not sold (apart from the 70-200 F/2.8 II).

I've tried or owned a lot of L lenses (50 F/1,2, 24 F/1.4 II, 16-35 F/2.8II), Zeiss lenses and even the new Sigma's and Canon IS primes but nothing pleases me as much as the 24-70, and I'm more of a prime guy that a zoom guy.
Go figure...

ET


----------



## Viggo (Mar 7, 2013)

EvilTed said:


> I sent back two copies of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and kept the 24-70 F/2.8II because at F/2.8 it is sharper (at least my copy is) and it focusses a lot faster and more accurately.
> 
> I have to say, my 24-70 is the only lens I've had on my Canon 5D MK3 that I've liked and not sold (apart from the 70-200 F/2.8 II).
> 
> ...



Don't you miss that crazy 3D feeling the 24 gives @1.4? I've been going going back and forth between keeping or selling the 24 and swapping for the 24-70, but every time I try the 24 @ 2.8 to see what I would actually have with the 24-70 I don't like the look. I hardly ever use it any smaller than f2. and doesn't the 24 have much less distortion? But I guess it comes down to what you shoot..

I'm really keen on the 24-70 for shots with my Quadra light though, the difference in perspective (and smaller apertures anyway) makes it very high on my list...


btw, as I mentioned my 70-200 that was for service. They replaced two IS-units, the AF-unit, some ring internally in front, adjusted the glass, calibrated AF and two other parts. It still sucked at 200mm and not awesome for the rest, seems decentered also, so I had a guy try it and he loved it so I gave him the servicereport and a good price and bought myself a new one, will hopefully arrive tomorrow. Let's hope I just got a bad one and that the new one is as good as the very first copy I had a while back. ;D


----------



## e-d0uble (Apr 14, 2013)

I felt that I should post somewhat of a follow-up to what I wrote regarding this lens sometime ago. I returned the "copy" I had written about, and finally got around to shooting a bunch with its replacement this weekend (after I adjusted it slightly with reikan focal). In short, the lens is quite good throughout the focal range wide open; and at f/4 through f/8 or so it's excellent. The bad news is despite what many see "on paper" this lens really isn't that much better (at f/4 and beyond, obviously) than the 24-105, except in the corners where it trounces it. That being said, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is what I'd grab if I absolutely needed perfection at 24mm. But I digress. The 24-70 II definably also handles chromatic aberrations better than almost anything else I've ever used, and it focuses very very quickly. Problem is, I feel this lens is still way overpriced (yeah, I too paid for it).. 

So, where I'm at.. I'm a sucker for both fast glass and for image stabilization, so I'm still torn as to which to lose. Chances are I'll sell the 24-105, but I'll be pissed that I shelled out so much for the new guy. Meanwhile, here's a snap from today... very good for wide open and brightly back-lit.. (50mm, 1/100th, ISO200). Cheers.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 15, 2013)

e-d0uble said:


> Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality. Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses. Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
> I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test. The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything. I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.



I'd try another copy, when Lensrentals did the tests there was quite a bit of variance, but even the worst Mark II was better than the best Mark 1.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 15, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Don't you miss that crazy 3D feeling the 24 gives @1.4? I've been going going back and forth between keeping or selling the 24 and swapping for the 24-70, but every time I try the 24 @ 2.8 to see what I would actually have with the 24-70 I don't like the look. I hardly ever use it any smaller than f2. and doesn't the 24 have much less distortion? But I guess it comes down to what you shoot..
> 
> I'm really keen on the 24-70 for shots with my Quadra light though, the difference in perspective (and smaller apertures anyway) makes it very high on my list...



That's a tough one, the 24L is an amazing lens and I think it really comes down to flexibility and convenience. I compared the 24L to [email protected] and the 24-70mm was definitely sharper but the 24L had much less distortion and slightly better color.


----------



## e-d0uble (Apr 17, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> e-d0uble said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality. Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses. Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
> ...



I did try another copy. See above post including shot of nice looking female. ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 26, 2013)

I haven't shot with mine enough to say how much of an improvement it is over my very good copy of the Mk I, but I *LOVE* the ergonomics of the new lens. I know it's not much smaller in reality, but the MUCH smaller hood and body have me in love. With the Mk I, I kind of groaned every time I would take it with me because I took up so much room in my bag and just felt ugly and awkward on my camera. It took great and profitable shots, but was just a beast. The Mk II just feels so much better.


----------



## Chris Burch (Jun 26, 2013)

Has anyone else had an issue with the rubber grip on the zoom ring? Mine is now stretched out some how and there is a raised portion that is no longer snug against the lens.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 26, 2013)

Chris Burch said:



> Has anyone else had an issue with the rubber grip on the zoom ring? Mine is now stretched out some how and there is a raised portion that is no longer snug against the lens.



No stretchy here. It still tight and firm - just like the 1st day ;D

Got it from very 1st patch


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2013)

Chris Burch said:


> Has anyone else had an issue with the rubber grip on the zoom ring? Mine is now stretched out some how and there is a raised portion that is no longer snug against the lens.



No stretching on either ring for me... I'd call Canon.


----------



## lastcoyote (Jun 27, 2013)

just thought i'd mention that i've noticed significant copy variance. i went through 4 copies due to unfortunate problems (never had issues like this with any other lens purchase). first copy i had seemed fine and sharp however after a big outdoor session with it i felt it had the dreaded decentering issue as the right edge was always rather soft. returned it and then had a strange clicky zoom ring noise issue with the replacement as mentioned on these forums. someone else has had this too. seems to be a problem with a batch of the newly made copies. shame as it was lovely and sharp. so back it went for another. the third copy was a lemon. after proper testing i found it incredibly soft wide open (compared to previous copies) and it didn't improve much stopping down. especially at the tele end. no amount of AFMA helped. it wasn't down to a focus issue. went back for a fourth copy. first shot i could tell straight off that it was an absolute beauty. sharp as a razor across the frame. even wide open. both wide and tele end. finally got a keeper. yay! ;D it was from last octobers manufacturing line (with old style lens cap). obviously i'm really pleased but the reason why I say all this is that it may explain why some are raving about the lens and other not so impressed. i believe like the mark I version there are indeed some copy to copy variances. to be fair i mostly read great things about this lens so thankfully it seems there are more great copies than poor/average copies.


----------



## bobby samat (Jul 6, 2013)

for a long time, my two main use lenses were the 16-35L and the 70-200L.

a friend of mine got a brand new 24-70 mark 1 for a very good price when the mark 2 was announced. when he got it, i used it and got very inconsistent results. some were kind of sharp, some were a little soft. wondering what was going on with my camera, i put on the 16-35L instead and everything looked nice and sharp. put the 24-70 back on and began having issues again. 

very disappointing considering i liked using a medium range zoom. it covered the ground that my 16-35 and 70-200 didn't.

once i started learning how the lens had changed with the mark 2 and that people were getting good images, i bit the bullet and got the mark 2.

holy cow 8)

ive had this lens since early november and i've noticed it rarely gets unmounted from my camera. so sharp. so easy to use. 

i wish the front didn't extend when zoomed. it just creates another area for dust/moisture to gather and work its way into the lens. this being said, dirt hasn't been a problem - even in the desert. 

the only time i have problems autofocusing with the lens is if it's way too dark, or I'm trying to shoot too much into the sun.

if you started using the mark 2 and are getting soft images in multiple circumstances, i would definitely send the lens in.


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 7, 2013)

I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.


----------



## bobby samat (Jul 9, 2013)

what specifically did you find boring about the 24-70 2?

TS lenses aside, could you suggest an exciting dslr lens to look up?


----------



## bholliman (Jul 9, 2013)

Smurf1811 said:


> I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.



Not sure I understand what makes a lens boring... You admitted the 24-70 2.8 II is very sharp. It has excellent bokeh and color rendition. It's excellent mechanically. About the only things most people don't like about it are the price and lack of IS. What specifically don't you like about it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2013)

One of our cars is a Subaru. It's not glamorous, in fact, as cars go, it's 'boring'. But...it gets where we need it to go, through the worst New England has to offer. Deep puddles after a torrential thunderstorm? I've sluiced through them at 35 mph, sending sprays of water 20' in the air...no hydroplaning, no mushy steering, just drove through. Snowdrift in the driveway higher than the hood of the car, and the plow service hasn't come yet? Just drove through it, and out onto the 10" of snow on the road, then kept going to my destination. Boring...but it gets the job done. 

If the 24-70/2.8L II is 'boring' like that, it's fine by me...


----------



## tron (Jul 9, 2013)

Smurf1811 said:


> I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.


Very interesting!
Maybe every lens bores you! Or maybe just zoom lenses.

In the latter case may I suggest a therapy cocktail consisting of some of the following lenses:

14L II, 17TSE, 24TSE II, 35 1.4L, 85 1.2L II, 135L

If your boredom is still not cured I suggest a last step: a 500mm f/4L IS II.

Now if even then you feel bored then the solution is to pick ... another hobby 

P.S Make sure you use the lenses twice a day (Use before or after breakfast/lunch/dinner is irrelevant)


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 9, 2013)

Smurf1811 said:


> I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.



I actually understand your statement. At 2.8 it a workhorse with outstanding IQ, but limiting on creative stuff. I have the same relation to my 24-105, and have more fun lurking around with my 135/2 or 50/1.4 or my 35/1.4.


----------



## Zv (Jul 9, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Smurf1811 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.
> ...



What happens if you shoot something interesting with it? Is it still boring?


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 9, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Smurf1811 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.
> ...



The look of the Pictures....for me there is no wow-Feeling. When i look at the Pictures, that came out of my 24 1.4, my 85 1.2 or my 200 2.0, i have the wow-Feeling. I know these are Primes and on the other hand there is a Zoom-lens....maybe beside the 70-200 is II the best Zoom-Lens on the market, but i don't like it. The 70-200 is great


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 9, 2013)

bobby samat said:


> what specifically did you find boring about the 24-70 2?
> 
> TS lenses aside, could you suggest an exciting dslr lens to look up?



Sure...24 1.4 and the 200 2.0


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 9, 2013)

tron said:


> Smurf1811 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.
> ...




....o.k., truth be told :"i don't like zoom lenses"...except the 16-35 and the 70-200 ;D


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 9, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Smurf1811 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring  but has a better Zoom range.
> ...



+1


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 9, 2013)

Zv said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > Smurf1811 said:
> ...



The Lens ?.....yes it is


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 9, 2013)

So the only way to be creative is shoot wider than 2.8? Hmm, interesting.


----------



## Smurf1811 (Jul 9, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> So the only way to be creative is shoot wider than 2.8? Hmm, interesting.



That's not the point. In the range from 24-85mm i like to shoot with apertures from 1.2/1.4 to 2.0. But that's just me. I'm not speeking for everyone else .


----------



## Zv (Jul 9, 2013)

Smurf1811 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > So the only way to be creative is shoot wider than 2.8? Hmm, interesting.
> ...



If all your shots are of shallow dof stuff and offer little much else in variety - isn't that boring, to some people?? A lens is a creative tool, it is our job as photographers to capture interesting subject matter with it. F/2.8 is only a limit to your own imagination. If you can't create something visually appealing with that lens I think you might want to rethink your game.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2013)

I have to throw out the "horses for courses" line. I have the 16-35 II, 24-70 II, and 70-200 II, but I also have the 24 1.4 II, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 II, and 135. I LOVE my primes and when I'm just walking around or shooting portraits, they are what I use. When I'm shooting commercial work or carrying my gear on my back for long distances, I take the zooms. There are plenty of situations where shallow DOF isn't needed or desired and many times when you can't "zoom with your feet" because you are stuck in one place and can't get closer or further back -- or you get eaten -- see shot below of a 10'+ alligator using the original 24-70 at, you guessed it 70mm, from around 20ft away. If I'd had my 24 or 50 on, I wouldn't have been able to get close enough and I _wanted_ good DOF for this shot.

You choose the best gear you have for a given shoot and hope you have the right lens on your camera at the right time.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jul 9, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> There are plenty of situations where shallow DOF isn't needed or desired and many times when you can't "zoom with your feet" because you are stuck in one place and can't get closer or further back -- or you get eaten -- see shot below of a 10'+ alligator using the original 24-70 at, you guessed it 70mm, from around 20ft away. If I'd had my 24 or 50 on, I wouldn't have been able to get close enough and I _wanted_ good DOF for this shot.



Fun shot! But if you were at 20' to that monster, you're a whole lot braver (or is it more foolish?  ) than I.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2013)

thepancakeman said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of situations where shallow DOF isn't needed or desired and many times when you can't "zoom with your feet" because you are stuck in one place and can't get closer or further back -- or you get eaten -- see shot below of a 10'+ alligator using the original 24-70 at, you guessed it 70mm, from around 20ft away. If I'd had my 24 or 50 on, I wouldn't have been able to get close enough and I _wanted_ good DOF for this shot.
> ...



I was within a couple of feet of my car door and he didn't even give me a sideways glance, but yes, probably not the world's smartest thing I've done.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 9, 2013)

When I first wanted a 2470 again, I was worried it would seem boring, compared to the 24 L, 35 L and 50 L. I shot my primes at 2.8 a lot to get a feel for what I would get, and I didn't like it, I wanted to go back to 1.4 and f2. But I got myself a dirt-cheap 2470 mk1 and started using it a lot and I liked it more than I would have though, specifically the ability to shoot very wide dramatic shots, and then close in for a portrait, wonderful. However, the 2470 mk1 is really poor in the corners wide open, so using the out of center focusing points was always disappointing, so I wanted to check out the mk2.

Eventually bought it, and what I thought would be boring dof, turned into overjoy with that EPIC AF! I even enabled the non-crosstype points I turned off the first week of having the 1dX, with the 2470 mk2 I can use them as any of the others. And the fun of being able to compose how I like, simply by choosing ANY point and track a subject with it AND to have the sharpness better than the center of the mk1 is juuuuust amazing.

So I sold my 24 L, and I'm thinking of selling the two others as well, they simply haven't been used since I got the 2470 mk2.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 10, 2013)

mackguyver said:


>




I'd be needing something with IS on it if that thing strolled past me.


----------



## Click (Jul 10, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> I'd be needing something with IS on it if that thing strolled past me.



Ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D


----------



## rlarsen (Jul 10, 2013)

I see that the price of the Canon 24-70 2.8L ll has recently gone up so I want to take the opportunity again to thank BuyDig.com and Canon Rumors for their recent promotion that saved me several hundred dollars on my purchase, and included a quality 82mm UV filter and fast, next-day shipping.

Thanks !


----------



## lastcoyote (Jul 14, 2013)

Hi guys, just wondering how many of you use a circular polariser on your copy of the 24-70 f/2.8L II?
I haven't got a CP yet but considering maybe that I should have one for use with this lens.
If you do use one how often is it on the lens? Is it only for the odd occassion or more?
Also any recommendations on filter purchase? All my screw on filters are B+W and am looking at maybe the B+W MRC Nano XS-Pro. Expensive but maybe worth it. Especially as it's slim mount with front threads.
Suggestions welcome..


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 16, 2013)

lastcoyote said:


> Hi guys, just wondering how many of you use a circular polariser on your copy of the 24-70 f/2.8L II?
> I haven't got a CP yet but considering maybe that I should have one for use with this lens.
> If you do use one how often is it on the lens? Is it only for the odd occassion or more?
> Also any recommendations on filter purchase? All my screw on filters are B+W and am looking at maybe the B+W MRC Nano XS-Pro. Expensive but maybe worth it. Especially as it's slim mount with front threads.
> Suggestions welcome..


I splurged on the 82mm B+W MRC Nano XS-Pro and it is a beautiful filter but I can't tell much of a difference between it and my Hoya 77mm Circular Polarizing HD filter. The construction is a bit better, but Hoya sent me a brand new one when I foolishly separated mine while under warranty. I use a polarizer a lot in Florida for water and foliage and if you follow B+W & other's recommendations not to shoot under 28mm, it works great, although, I've shot plenty at 24mm. It works fine if I'm careful about the "effect".

As for frequent vs. occasional use, that's up to you. If you need one or use one already, it may be worth it, but if you mostly shoot people and don't get around the water, wet landscapes, foliage in the sun, big windows, etc. your better off spending your money elsewhere.

Also, using my polarizer leads me to my one gripe about the Mark II - plastic filter threads. For $2k+, that seems ridiculous!


----------



## lastcoyote (Jul 16, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> lastcoyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys, just wondering how many of you use a circular polariser on your copy of the 24-70 f/2.8L II?
> ...



thanks for the reply mackguyver. yeah I think it'll be something that's nice to have in the bag when I need it rather than something that i can't live without. however I often come across articles that say it's the most important filter you can have. maybe I'll just wait till money is flowing a bit more freely than it is now and get one then.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 16, 2013)

lastcoyote said:


> thanks for the reply mackguyver. yeah I think it'll be something that's nice to have in the bag when I need it rather than something that i can't live without. however I often come across articles that say it's the most important filter you can have. maybe I'll just wait till money is flowing a bit more freely than it is now and get one then.


No problem, lastcoyote, and it and the ND filters are really about the only two common filters you can't replicate in Photoshop. Here's a great site with more information on when & how to use them that might help you decide if you'll need or want one. 
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/polarizing-filters.htm
Just remember that they aren't great for true portraits, but I use them for shots of people at the beach (action shots) and as long as you're not using it at full strength, they can turn out well.


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 16, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I have to throw out the "horses for courses" line. I have the 16-35 II, 24-70 II, and 70-200 II, but I also have the 24 1.4 II, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 II, and 135. I LOVE my primes and when I'm just walking around or shooting portraits, they are what I use. When I'm shooting commercial work or carrying my gear on my back for long distances, I take the zooms. There are plenty of situations where shallow DOF isn't needed or desired and many times when you can't "zoom with your feet" because you are stuck in one place and can't get closer or further back -- or you get eaten -- see shot below of a 10'+ alligator using the original 24-70 at, you guessed it 70mm, from around 20ft away. If I'd had my 24 or 50 on, I wouldn't have been able to get close enough and I _wanted_ good DOF for this shot.
> 
> You choose the best gear you have for a given shoot and hope you have the right lens on your camera at the right time.



Nice! Where's this?


----------



## bobby samat (Jul 16, 2013)

i have the b+w 82mm circular polarizer slim mrc. i've always been happy with the images when i'm using it. cuts right through humidity and haze. i use it on the 24-70 II. if it does vignette at all, i haven't noticed.

as for the plastic filter threads . . 

metal expands when exposed to sun/heat. i was using the 24-70 along with the polarizer and a ND filter in the hawaiian sunshine. the polarizer and ND expanded and stuck together, but came right off of the plastic threads of the lens.

the two filters wouldn't come apart until 11pm that night once they had cooled back down.

when i first got the lens i wasn't super happy about the plastic screws. now i could care less. the plastic threads aren't flimsy feeling. i change filters all the time and i never worry about it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2013)

bobby samat said:


> metal expands when exposed to sun/heat. i was using the 24-70 along with the polarizer and a ND filter in the hawaiian sunshine. the polarizer and ND expanded and stuck together, but came right off of the plastic threads of the lens.
> 
> the two filters wouldn't come apart until 11pm that night once they had cooled back down



It doesn't even take Hawaiian sunshine. Late afternoon in Boston today (85°) was enough to stick my 82mm 10-stop and Slim Käsemann CPL together, given the very thin ring to turn on the CPL. Adorama has Polaroid filter wrenches ($5/set) that work for 82mm filters. I just keep a set in every bag - which was good today, because after the combo stuck together on my TS-E 24L II, I wanted to use just the CPL on the 24-70L II.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 17, 2013)

bobby samat said:


> i have the b+w 82mm circular polarizer slim mrc. i've always been happy with the images when i'm using it. cuts right through humidity and haze. i use it on the 24-70 II. if it does vignette at all, i haven't noticed.
> 
> as for the plastic filter threads . .
> 
> ...


Hadn't thought about that and it gets pretty hot here in Florida, too! Glad to hear they're robust, too.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 17, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


It's St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge on the Gulf of Mexico near Tallahassee, FL.


----------



## a-hopps (Jul 20, 2013)

Just picked one of these up as a refurb from Canon. Can't wait for it to arrive!


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 20, 2013)

a-hopps said:


> Just picked one of these up as a refurb from Canon. Can't wait for it to arrive!


Congratulations!


----------



## climber (Dec 27, 2013)

Hi. Is possible to use with this lens a B+W UV filter model XS pro MRC nano, wich is thinner than regular filters, but thicker than slim version. Its thickness is 3.4 mm. I'm asking because that lens has slightly curved front element and the thinner ring could caused scratching a front glass. As seen here --> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters

Thanks


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

climber said:


> Hi. Is possible to use with this lens a B+W UV filter model XS pro MRC nano, wich is thinner than regular filters, but thicker than slim version. Its thickness is 3.4 mm. I'm asking because that lens has slightly curved front element and the thinner ring could caused scratching a front glass. As seen here --> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters
> 
> Thanks


I have that exact filter (010M) on my lens - no issues. If you read the article closely, you'll see that Roger says that brand name filters are okay. 


> I will add that I’ve put another dozen brand name filters (Heliopan, B&W, etc.) on this lens with absolutely no problem and no sign of glass-to-glass contact.



P.S. Thanks for making me check my Amazon order to see how much I _overpaid _for my lens & filter compared to today's prices :'(


----------



## tron (Dec 28, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > Hi. Is possible to use with this lens a B+W UV filter model XS pro MRC nano, wich is thinner than regular filters, but thicker than slim version. Its thickness is 3.4 mm. I'm asking because that lens has slightly curved front element and the thinner ring could caused scratching a front glass. As seen here --> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters
> ...


I see that nobody mentioned Hoya either for good or bad. Any info on their HD2 series regarding this issue?


----------



## Invertalon (Jan 2, 2014)

I use Hoya HD clear filters on all my lenses, including the 24-70 II... No issues what-so-ever and by far my favorite filter to use. Thin framed, still threaded, easy as can be to clean (even better than the high end B+W's I have used) and no IQ loss at all to my eye.

But yeah, no rubbing on the front element.


----------



## tron (Jan 2, 2014)

Invertalon said:


> I use Hoya HD clear filters on all my lenses, including the 24-70 II... No issues what-so-ever and by far my favorite filter to use. Thin framed, still threaded, easy as can be to clean (even better than the high end B+W's I have used) and no IQ loss at all to my eye.
> 
> But yeah, no rubbing on the front element.


Thanks for the information. I guess the HD2 will be no different than HD in that matter.


----------



## Buschtrommel (Jan 3, 2014)

I have never used any filters on my lenses, since I`m shooting digital (2009). In analog times I uses filters, but in my whole fotografic life, I`ve never crashed a filter or a lense. So I don`t think that they are necessary - I think they damage the IQ of the lense.


----------

