# 1Ds Mark IV & 24-70 II in 2 Weeks?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 16, 2011)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; margin: 70px 0 0 0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/1ds-mark-iv-24-70-ii-in-2-weeks/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 -50px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/1ds-mark-iv-24-70-ii-in-2-weeks/" 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;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/08/1ds-mark-iv-24-70-ii-in-2-weeks/"></a></div>
<strong>New Stuff?</strong>

I received a couple of emails today saying both the 1Ds Mark IV and 24-70 would be arriving in two weeks. This will be before the IFA event in Berlin.</p>
<p><strong>1Ds Mark IV

</strong>The 1Ds Mark IV briefly appeared on Canonâ€™s official web site. You can check that out at <a href="http://www.photographybay.com/2011/08/16/canon-1ds-mark-iv-listing-pops-up-on-official-canon-site/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PhotographyBay+%28Photography+Bay%29">Photography Bay</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Still Quiet

</strong>I have to admit, all is still pretty quiet on the rumor front. One person has suggested we may get up to 3 different announcement dates in 2011. One for PowerShot, one for a flagship DSLR Ã‚ and another lens announcement.</p>
<p>There has been absolutely nothing saying a 5D Mark III would be announced in 2011. Still a 2012 Q1 product in a lot of peoples eyes.</p>
<p><strong>Quiet at CR

</strong>Iâ€™ve been away for a few days making sure my marriage remains intact. :)</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 16, 2011)

1Ds4 vs D4 should be interesting.... 24-70 II is long overdue.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 16, 2011)

FWIW, look at the prices of the extended warranties for the 1Ds4 on Photography Bay. They're the same as for the 1D3 and 1D4 and about 75% of the prices for the 1Ds3.


----------



## Chewy734 (Aug 17, 2011)

I think he forgot to mention a rating of [CR0] in the title.


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 17, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> FWIW, look at the prices of the extended warranties for the 1Ds4 on Photography Bay. They're the same as for the 1D3 and 1D4 and about 75% of the prices for the 1Ds3.



i'm guessing that older cameras are harder to source parts for?


----------



## Eagle Eye (Aug 17, 2011)

That Canon page is still up:

http://www.canon.co.id/personal/web/buying/warranty/extended


----------



## jeremymerriam (Aug 17, 2011)

Bokehmon said:


> 1Ds4 vs D4 should be interesting.... 24-70 II is long overdue.



why is a second addition lens long overdue? I remember there use to be a time when people would buy a lens and never dream on needing an "updated" version. Don't you think this might just be consumerism and something that really is not needed. The only reason why I am on the bandwagon on waiting for an "updated" camera is because current dSLRs still lack the quality of film. They are getting close and on that day it is comparable, I think I will just have to run that camera into the ground.

I guess my point of what I am saying is I have known quite a few successful photographers who just shoot with one lens or just one old shitty camera and still produce great results or have a incredible style. I guess I am just having a tough time understanding the importance an extra little gidget or gadget will make over the long run ;o)


----------



## hambergler (Aug 17, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> Bokehmon said:
> 
> 
> > 1Ds4 vs D4 should be interesting.... 24-70 II is long overdue.
> ...



I am hoping for an iteration with IS which would certainly justify an update IMO


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 17, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> Bokehmon said:
> 
> 
> > 1Ds4 vs D4 should be interesting.... 24-70 II is long overdue.
> ...



Not saying that the lens really NEEDED an update, but the fact that competition drives innovation means that a new one is needed for Canon to maintain their #1 mentality.

If the Sony and Nikon didn't release new pro versions of this lens, then this lens wouldn't need to be replaced. But demand and competition but pressure on Canon to stay on top.


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 17, 2011)

hambergler said:


> jeremymerriam said:
> 
> 
> > Bokehmon said:
> ...



Can't imagine how large the IS version would be 

The lens would certainly have a couple extra elements and a price tag to match :S


----------



## JasonM (Aug 17, 2011)

As I understand it, modern lens design using new materials and CAD ray tracing techniques allows lens designers to achieve much greater resolving power, lower CA, better performance throughout a zoom range, etc. and in most cases the Mark II designs have shown significant improvements. It's not only about releasing a Mark II for marketing or competitive purposes, the new versions are typically much better and often add IS.

I've read posts from others on this site that Canon has a stated goal of improving lens resolution to resolve at least 40MP to keep up with DSLR resolutions. The resolution of FF sensors has now already exceeded that of film and the earlier generations of lenses just can not resolve the detail that the latest sensors are capable of. I know, I'm starting a film vs digital debate!


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 17, 2011)

JasonM said:


> As I understand it, modern lens design using new materials and CAD ray tracing techniques allows lens designers to achieve much greater resolving power, lower CA, better performance throughout a zoom range, etc. and in most cases the Mark II designs have shown significant improvements. It's not only about releasing a Mark II for marketing or competitive purposes, the new versions are typically much better and often add IS.
> 
> I've read posts from others on this site that Canon has a stated goal of improving lens resolution to resolve at least 40MP to keep up with DSLR resolutions. The resolution of FF sensors has now already exceeded that of film and the earlier generations of lenses just can not resolve the detail that the latest sensors are capable of. I know, I'm starting a film vs digital debate!



Mark IIs are definitely worth it! Picked up a 70-200 II 3 months ago and never looked back!


----------



## KWSW (Aug 17, 2011)

hmmm... so no 1D5? but definitely interested to see how the 24-70 mkII performs


----------



## pwp (Aug 17, 2011)

Quote: "why is a second edition lens long overdue? I remember there use to be a time when people would buy a lens and never dream on needing an "updated" version." 

The reason there are a lot of photographers waiting impatiently for a new 24-70 f/2.8 is that an alarmingly high percentage of users have found this lens to be a dog. I wouldn't be the only one to go through a number of copies in the hope of scoring one of the "sweet" copies which I'm told do actually exist. Plenty of photographers I know have the 24-70 f/2.8 but use it only as a lens of last resort. People tolerate them more than love them. If you've got a good one _keep it_!

I gave up after my third clunker and got a nice sharp 24-105 f/4is which is adequate for a lot of jobs but has it's own particular set of shortcomings which have been adequately discussed elsewhere. It may flare, distort, vignette, lack a little contrast and be an f/4 but at least it's sharp! Most of the flaws are dealt with automatically in Lightroom.

When the new lens is officially announced I'll join the long line of photographers who'll drop the Visa card on one at the earliest opportunity.

Paul Wright


----------



## macfly (Aug 17, 2011)

Let it be true, finally!

My current 24-70 is very soft at the edges below f11, and in general a really crappy lens, I just keep it because it is such a convenient range, but if it was perfect i'd use it for 80% of everything I do. However I don't see the use of IS on a short lens, just hold your camera steady!


----------



## pedro (Aug 17, 2011)

He better maintains close contact to the "homefront" than spend too much time at guessing what type of CR-rating this latest rumor should get ;-) we'll know it anyway, two weeks down the road.

If an 1Ds IV is imminent, there won't be any 5Diii till Q1 2012. So it won't cut into 1Ds IV sales. The pro and the enthusiasts will be extremely happy and everyone else will get a "post-christmas" gift by February. Or could the wait extend even until June? 

So 2012 could be a great year too: 5Diii in February, 7Dii in fall (?) And: 1D 5 in early 2013 (?)

There is joy in the waiting. Cheers.


----------



## Ivar (Aug 17, 2011)

pedro said:


> If an 1Ds IV is imminent, there won't be any 5Diii till Q1 2012. So it won't cut into 1Ds IV sales. The pro and the enthusiasts will be extremely happy and everyone else will get a "post-christmas" gift by February. Or could the wait extend even until June?
> 
> So 2012 could be a great year too: 5Diii in February, 7Dii in fall (?) And: 1D 5 in early 2013 (?)



All the guestimates seem to be reasonable except the 1D5 IMHO. If Nikon releases the D4 anytime soon, the 1D5 will follow. The 1D4 is not even now a clear leader in the competition. Hopefully the follow up is not about the last minut expanded software choices but real hardware capabilities, this time.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Aug 17, 2011)

14 II released with the 1ds3 if I recall. Hope they follow in the same footprints and release something similar like a 14-24 instead of a 24-70!


----------



## pedro (Aug 17, 2011)

A 12-24 f/2.8 or f/4 would be a nice addition to the current line up. Waiting on a 5Diii to go FF while saving up, I'll go for the Sigma 12-24 instead of a Canon 17-40 due to the slightly wider angle. Surely at the cost of range compared to the 17-40 and aperture value as well, but as I do nightscapes most of the time while using a tripode, it won't be the badest decision...although nightscapes and fast lenses are another point as well...Maybe I'll wait to save up for a 16-35 f/2.8 II then... Any advice?


----------



## motorhead (Aug 17, 2011)

A shiny new 1Ds would be very welcome, but I believe that Canon must be bringing a new 1D along. Waiting till next year will force many heading to cover the Olympics to switch to "The Dark Side", which is hardly in Canons best interests long term. 

No, given how close we are to the 2012 games, the 1D has to be the top priority for Canon. Yes, I'll agree that they have made a rod for their own back by not updating some of the other bodies more regularly, but hindsight is always perfect, I imagine they had what seemed good reasons at the time. Experience is a wonderful thing and maybe in future they will manage it better?


----------



## Ghostdive (Aug 17, 2011)

Let's see what we get the next weeks. The guys on nikonrumors, also don't know what will be showed on 24th. 

If the price for the new 1D or 1Ds is ok, I maybe skip the 5DIII. We have a lot of rumors, but nothing real, so we can only wait.
Lets see what happens next week


----------



## pedro (Aug 17, 2011)

motorhead said:


> A shiny new 1Ds would be very welcome, but I believe that Canon must be bringing a new 1D along. Waiting till next year will force many heading to cover the Olympics to switch to "The Dark Side", which is hardly in Canons best interests long term.
> 
> No, given how close we are to the 2012 games, the 1D has to be the top priority for Canon. Yes, I'll agree that they have made a rod for their own back by not updating some of the other bodies more regularly, but hindsight is always perfect, I imagine they had what seemed good reasons at the time. Experience is a wonderful thing and maybe in future they will manage it better?



What if ... they came out with a shiny 1 Ds IV this fall, announcing an 1D V in February (due to the upcoming sports events) and postpone the 5Diii for Q3 2012? Anyone? The new 7D would get an early 2013 time frame along with a rebel or whatever.


----------



## J. McCabe (Aug 17, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> Why is a second edition lens long overdue? I remember there use to be a time when people would buy a lens and never dream on needing an "updated" version. Don't you think this might just be consumerism and something that really is not needed. The only reason why I am on the bandwagon on waiting for an "updated" camera is because current dSLRs still lack the quality of film. They are getting close and on that day it is comparable, I think I will just have to run that camera into the ground.
> 
> I guess my point of what I am saying is I have known quite a few successful photographers who just shoot with one lens or just one old S___ty camera and still produce great results or have a incredible style. I guess I am just having a tough time understanding the importance an extra little gidget or gadget will make over the long run ;o)



I think consumerism plays a part here, but ...

Note Canon has very few lenses which are mk3, from the top of my head only the 75-300mm which was last updated in film days.

My impression is that the benefit from today's computer power drives much of the upgrade to mk2 lenses:

* Electronics have progressed, allowing for faster USM, improving IS, etc. This is no different than the upgrades Canon made in the transition from FD to EF, such as autofocus and allowing the camera to control the aperture.

* Ray tracing allows to create improved optics.

* Digital makes it easier to fix things which couldn't be fixed in film, making a different set of trade-offs in lens design more attractive. As example, it's easy to fix distortions (barrel, pincushion, etc, all up to a point) with a computer, so making a lens with less chromatic aberation and more distortions makes sense.

The ability to improve lenses raises expectations, and this is natural, just as in other areas of life (need examples ? I'll be happy to produce a few).


----------



## Flake (Aug 17, 2011)

A 24 - 70mm f/2.8 MkII released without IS would be as much use to me as a paperweight! Shooting at the weekend I was between something which resembled a cave and brilliant sunshine. no IS would have meant unrealistic lenses swapping every 5 minutes. The Image quality of a lens with camera shake will never be as good as one without regardless of the optical quality.

Nikon have given the signal of where they are going in the 16 - 35mm f/4 VR and they will almost certainly include it in their replacement for the 24 - 70mm f/2.8 Canon could really mess this lens up if it is a non IS version, it would rule me out as a buyer, and plenty of other users like me.


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 17, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> 14 II released with the 1ds3 if I recall. Hope they follow in the same footprints and release something similar like a 14-24 instead of a 24-70!



nikon released the 14-24, 24-70 and their D3 at the same time, lets hope it goes that way!


----------



## Danack (Aug 17, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> * Digital makes it easier to fix things which couldn't be fixed in film, making a different set of trade-offs in lens design more attractive. As example, it's easy to fix distortions (barrel, pincushion, etc, all up to a point) with a computer, so making a lens with less chromatic aberation and more distortions makes sense.



Chromatic aberration is also relatively easy to fix. As is vignetting. Really the priority of lenses now is a flat field and as sharp as possible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2011)

Danack said:


> Chromatic aberration is also relatively easy to fix. As is vignetting. Really the priority of lenses now is a flat field and as sharp as possible.



Lateral CA, yes. Axial, not so much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2011)

Flake said:


> A 24 - 70mm f/2.8 MkII released without IS would be as much use to me as a paperweight! Shooting at the weekend I was between something which resembled a cave and brilliant sunshine. no IS would have meant unrealistic lenses swapping every 5 minutes. The Image quality of a lens with camera shake will never be as good as one without regardless of the optical quality.



You shooting art painted on the walls of that cave, or people? IS would sure help with cave art...but being able to handhold at 1/10 s doesn't really help shoot people.

Not disagreeing, I absolutely want IS in the next 24-70mm L. Juist pointing out that IS has it's limitations, and sometimes you just need more light (or clean higher ISOs).


----------



## Flake (Aug 17, 2011)

Shooting people & it wasn't a cave, just resembled one! Using flash which wouldn't reach far enough, and then I got the dreaded non functioning main selector dial, which locks the camera, and won't allow adjustment of shutter speed in Manual mode, aperture in Av, Iso or anything else the wheel controls. It's caused by the second control dial on the battery grip getting stuck between notches (though I didn't know that at the time) you can replicate this if you try. The camera was locked at 1/60th in manual and f/5.6 in Av. It freed itself after about 20 minutes much to my relief, if anyone else gets this, you now know what it is!


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 17, 2011)

Flake said:


> Shooting people & it wasn't a cave, just resembled one! Using flash which wouldn't reach far enough, and then I got the dreaded non functioning main selector dial, which locks the camera, and won't allow adjustment of shutter speed in Manual mode, aperture in Av, Iso or anything else the wheel controls. It's caused by the second control dial on the battery grip getting stuck between notches (though I didn't know that at the time) you can replicate this if you try. The camera was locked at 1/60th in manual and f/5.6 in Av. It freed itself after about 20 minutes much to my relief, if anyone else gets this, you now know what it is!



tripod buddy, the solution to all your problems


----------



## svetljo (Aug 17, 2011)

Bokehmon said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting people & it wasn't a cave, just resembled one! Using flash which wouldn't reach far enough, and then I got the dreaded non functioning main selector dial, which locks the camera, and won't allow adjustment of shutter speed in Manual mode, aperture in Av, Iso or anything else the wheel controls. It's caused by the second control dial on the battery grip getting stuck between notches (though I didn't know that at the time) you can replicate this if you try. The camera was locked at 1/60th in manual and f/5.6 in Av. It freed itself after about 20 minutes much to my relief, if anyone else gets this, you now know what it is!
> ...



tripods are forbidden here and there, and not always available
thats one of the reasons i picked 24-105 f4 IS over 24-70 (no IS)


----------



## Tarrum (Aug 17, 2011)

I've been to places where you can't use a flash. Never got told I mustn't bring a tripod lol 

Anyways, I think it's safe to assume that the 1Ds Mark IV is coming soon and Nikon's rumors say two models will be coming. Judging by the past when we got D300 and D3 on the same day in August, I think we're getting a D4 with D400, and of course Canon has to announce a competitor to the D4 sooner or later. Maybe we'll get both, 1D Mark V and 1Ds Mark IV, because the 7D Mark II that could compete with the D400 is really to early to be released.

And 24-70mm seems like an excellent lens to announce with a high body. Can't wait, just a few more days/weeks and we'll see new stuff. My bet is late August (such as 22nd, 23th) and September (around 15th).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2011)

Tarrum said:


> I've been to places where you can't use a flash. Never got told I mustn't bring a tripod lol



Museums, concerts, etc... Lots of places forbid tripods - it's a liability thing, the legs stick out, and another patron could trip and sue the venue.


----------



## DJL329 (Aug 17, 2011)

Just remember, folks, that there are no EF lenses (not EF-S!) with IS that don't reach _at least_ 100mm. So for the EF 24-70mm Mark II, don't get your hopes up *too* high.

(Of course, now that I've mentioned that, who knows...  )


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> Just remember, folks, that there are no EF lenses (not EF-S!) with IS that don't reach _at least_ 100mm. So for the EF 24-70mm Mark II, don't get your hopes up *too* high.



But there's at least one Nikon FX lens that has VR and doesn't come anywhere close to 100mm. Gotta keep up with the Jonses...


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 17, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> Just remember, folks, that there are no EF lenses (not EF-S!) with IS that don't reach _at least_ 100mm. So for the EF 24-70mm Mark II, don't get your hopes up *too* high.
> 
> (Of course, now that I've mentioned that, who knows...  )



Good point, but personally I don't need the IS, as long as it's sharp enough to cut my eyes...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> * Digital makes it easier to fix things which couldn't be fixed in film, making a different set of trade-offs in lens design more attractive. As example, it's easy to fix distortions (barrel, pincushion, etc, all up to a point) with a computer, so making a lens with less chromatic aberation and more distortions makes sense.



OTOH, a little CA fixes up pretty well with digital processing while fixing distortion can require a lot more shifting things around and can lead to a loss of FOV and more detail than some well-behaved CA fixing. If you look at 14mm it seems like Samyang went for low CA and more distortion while Canon did the opposite.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tarrum said:
> 
> 
> > I've been to places where you can't use a flash. Never got told I mustn't bring a tripod lol
> ...



true, although thought it was a sad sign of our sue happy nation. I mean they even ban monopods. Is that really gonna trip you anymore than someone would end up tripping over someone else's legs? Monopods I suspect might be banned more since they seem more club-like and they prob don't want that at sporting venues/clubs/concerts/etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 17, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Danack said:
> 
> 
> > Chromatic aberration is also relatively easy to fix. As is vignetting. Really the priority of lenses now is a flat field and as sharp as possible.
> ...



And axial requires designs that they still mostly don't seem to be touching other than up in the super-tele range, where the old ones were already pretty much free of it to begin with.


----------



## EYEONE (Aug 17, 2011)

IS is useful sure but if Canon announced a 24-70mm f2.8 II without IS I'd be ok with that. I know people will disagree and probably call me rude things but I have never been shooting with the 24-70 and felt I needed IS. 

But I guess I don't go shooting in caves or whatever. I suppose when you are shooting people more IS becomes less useful because your really need is faster shutter.

But, I would be very surprised if it doens't have IS.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Aug 17, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> Bokehmon said:
> 
> 
> > 1Ds4 vs D4 should be interesting.... 24-70 II is long overdue.
> ...





I have to agree with you that current DSLR's do not have thje resolution of film...but many people seem consinved of the opposite. They frequently say that the sensore has more resolution than the lens is capable of.

But me, I still shoot my old 28-80 f2.8L; the only reason I'll upgrade is IS, and the extra 4mm will be nice.


----------



## bornshooter (Aug 17, 2011)

i have had my 24-70 for over a month now got it on a special deal for Â£900 which is a bargain and let me tell you is is not required and people complaining of sharpness and bad copes is rubbish yeah there will be some bad copes out there but thats true for every lens on the market and sharpness for me is superb but I'm not a pixel peeper so hey ho lol what matters to me is how the final image will look in print and there superb.


----------



## sarangiman (Aug 17, 2011)

Keep in mind that IS is extremely useful for hand-held video. So, though I don't find it necessary in most scenarios when shooting photos with my 24-70, I'd love it for shooting video.

I'd like IS even more on lighter lenses like the 85/1.8 or the Sigma 85/1.4. Those lenses have a long enough focal length to amplify hand motions & are light enough to not dampen them.


----------



## Jimlevitt (Aug 18, 2011)

bornshooter said:


> i have had my 24-70 for over a month now got it on a special deal for Â£900 which is a bargain and let me tell you is is not required and people complaining of sharpness and bad copes is rubbish yeah there will be some bad copes out there but thats true for every lens on the market and sharpness for me is superb but I'm not a pixel peeper so hey ho lol what matters to me is how the final image will look in print and there superb.



I've had my 24-70 for several years, and I'm far from alone is saying that it's soft wide open, and it can be a bit unreliable in focusing. Read this recent post by well-known photographer and instructor Zach Arias documenting his switch to Canon _despite his extremely low opinion of the 24-70/2.8:
http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/headline-i-switched-to-canon-world-still-turns/#more-2583

I've also had occasion to use the more modern Nikon 24-70/2.8. It's far superior to the Canon version, especially in the f/2.8 to f/4 range. Canon definitely needs to update this lens.

As to not needing IS on a new version of the 24-70? Do not assume your needs are the same as other photographers. I just finished covering a weeklong jazz workshop, for the fourth time. Many of the classroom venues have terrible light: 1/80 at f/2.8 or f/3.2 was the norm, usually at iso 1600, sometimes at iso 3200. There were plenty of times where I needed to drop the shutter speed slower than that, and still had to push the file in post to compensate for some underexposure. Tripods/monopods/flash were not appropriate given the need to minimize disturbance or because of crowded conditions. There are two variables at work. One is subject motion. The other is photographer motion (camera shake). 1/60th or 1/80th was sufficient to freeze subject motion most of the time, but camera shake is a different issue, especially when squatting, sitting on knees, or holding the camera overhead. IS can also permit you to use a smaller aperture, for more depth of field, something I often need in the 24-70mm range. There's IS on the 17-55 for crop cameras, and it's extremely helpful for this sort of work. If the 7D did as well at high-iso as does the 5D2 or 1D4, I'd use 7D's just to be able to take advantage of image stabilization in such a critical focal length range. 

It's possible to use the 70-200/2.8 IS to get better images at 70mm than it is to use the 24-70 at the same focal length, or shorter. Why should that be? I look forward to a newer, sharper version of the 24-70. If it includes IS, I'll be extremely happy._


----------



## J. McCabe (Aug 18, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > * Digital makes it easier to fix things which couldn't be fixed in film, making a different set of trade-offs in lens design more attractive. As example, it's easy to fix distortions (barrel, pincushion, etc, all up to a point) with a computer, so making a lens with less chromatic aberation and more distortions makes sense.
> ...



I agree there's only that much distortion that can be fixed without hurting other things, such as FOV.


----------



## justicend (Aug 18, 2011)

Bokehmon said:


> hambergler said:
> 
> 
> > jeremymerriam said:
> ...



You compare at EF-S 18-55 KIT with 3.5-5.6 and EF-S 17-55 with constant aperature of 2.8. 17-55 is big. Apply IS with 24-70 @ 2.8 : When 24-70 is already that heavy


----------



## bornshooter (Aug 18, 2011)

Jimlevitt said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > i have had my 24-70 for over a month now got it on a special deal for Â£900 which is a bargain and let me tell you is is not required and people complaining of sharpness and bad copes is rubbish yeah there will be some bad copes out there but thats true for every lens on the market and sharpness for me is superb but I'm not a pixel peeper so hey ho lol what matters to me is how the final image will look in print and there superb.
> ...


_
ok i read that post what a load of rubbish the guy goes and says his copy is soft wide open which i don't think he should be complaining about to start with then he says his friends got 1 and its the same and the lens isn't worth the money then further through the post he says it never leaves his body and he has now purchased his friends copy for his other body sorry but that post is the biggest lot of nonsense I've ever read in my life i lol at it was actually funny  do you personally own the lens?if so show us it and images you have taken and explain your problem my bet is your a nikon fanboy or someone who fantasises about owning stuff that you cannot afford sorry if I'm wrong but please don't talk about what you don't understand._


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2011)

Bokehmon said:


> Can't imagine how large the IS version would be
> 
> The lens would certainly have a couple extra elements and a price tag to match :S



Probably not significantly larger than the current non-IS version. For the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms, IS adds 0.15" (4 mm) to the length of the lens. For the 70-200mm f/4 zooms, IS adds no length. The IS versions are a bit heavier, but based on where the IS elements sit in the optical path, they're relatively small and light.

Cost is another matter...even if the lens is no larger, the price of a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS will be LARGE.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 18, 2011)

I have a sharp copy of teh 24-70L and so does my 2nd photographer. They are both fantastic lenses and easily the most versatile in canon's range. They are build like tanks, maybe even a little over-built. I'm sure Canon could easily shave of a few grams and make room for an IS unit. 
I don't really see the point of releasing a non IS mkII version. most of the pros that i know, wouldn't upgrade their existing mkI unless it had an IS unit. I certainly wouldn't! 
Another thing to consider, this is Canon's biggest selling L lens. They will not risk making any mistakes with this lens...a bit like the 70-200/2.8 IS L II. It needs to be stellar and right from the word go.


----------



## c-law (Aug 18, 2011)

bornshooter said:


> ok i read that post what a load of rubbish the guy goes and says his copy is soft wide open which i don't think he should be complaining about to start with then he says his friends got 1 and its the same and the lens isn't worth the money then further through the post he says it never leaves his body and he has now purchased his friends copy for his other body sorry but that post is the biggest lot of nonsense I've ever read in my life i lol at it was actually funny  do you personally own the lens?if so show us it and images you have taken and explain your problem my bet is your a nikon fanboy or someone who fantasises about owning stuff that you cannot afford sorry if I'm wrong but please don't talk about what you don't understand.


Zack Arias is no amateur. And his switch to Canon shows he is no Nikon fan-boy. His complaint against the 24-70 was that it wasn't as sharp as he needed wide open. However he stated it had a decent macro feature for the mid-sized product photography that he shoots in a studio with lights that would be shot at a narrow aperture. So to say he doesn't like it all as a low light event lens but to have it permanently affixed to his constantly setup studio cameras is not nonsense or contradictory.

Now this isn't to say that I agree with him. I own the 24-70 and do event work and find it perfectly acceptable. I may have just gotten a better copy, or maybe my tolerances are higher than his, but either way, he is doing what works for him and his business. It is well reasoned and he didn't have to insult anybody to do it.

Chris


----------



## Bokehmon (Aug 18, 2011)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I have a sharp copy of teh 24-70L and so does my 2nd photographer. They are both fantastic lenses and easily the most versatile in canon's range. They are build like tanks, maybe even a little over-built. I'm sure Canon could easily shave of a few grams and make room for an IS unit.
> I don't really see the point of releasing a non IS mkII version. most of the pros that i know, wouldn't upgrade their existing mkI unless it had an IS unit. I certainly wouldn't!
> Another thing to consider, this is Canon's biggest selling L lens. They will not risk making any mistakes with this lens...a bit like the 70-200/2.8 IS L II. It needs to be stellar and right from the word go.



completely agree, their reputation is on the line with this lens. As for best selling L lens, I though that went to the 17-40 or the 24-105 or the 70-200 F4?


----------



## EYEONE (Aug 18, 2011)

I would probably agree that the 24-70 isn't amazingly sharp at f2.8. I'm not sure I'd call it "soft" but it probably doesn't impress at f2.8

I recently took it to London with me and shot all over the city with it at f6.3 - f8.0. And I can say that it is tack sharp at within that range. But, yes, I know that is also not impressive.

The performance at f2.8 is certainly good enough.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 19, 2011)

I gave up trying to find a good 24-70mm L. I've owned five of them, and all were less than stellar. Many lens testers and experts have found the same issue, too many out of spec lenses.

If you have a good one, they are excellent as long as the curvature of field is not a issue for your usage. I'm not sure I'd waste my time/money on a new one, having seen the quality of the existing one five times. However, if there is a general positive agreement by the experts, I might bite.


----------



## EELinneman (Sep 12, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> </strong>Iâ€™ve been away for a few days making sure my marriage remains intact. [/html]



Good for you and your spouse! Make sure that you take care of the important things in life.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Sep 13, 2011)

Monopod: the original image stabilizer.


----------

