# Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 21, 2013)

```
<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/2013/09/patent-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/patent-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>New Patent

</strong>We’ve heard before that an EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS was in testing.</p>
<p><strong></strong>A patent has surfaced that has confirmed Canon testing such a lens. The Canon folks out there would be pretty accepting of such a lens.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Patent Publication No. 2013-182246</strong>
<ul>
<li><span>Publication date 2013.9.12</span></li>
<li><span>Filing date 2012.3.5</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Example 1</strong>
<ul>
<li><span>Zoom ratio 2.75</span></li>
<li><span>Focal length f = 24.70-36.42-67.88mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 2.91</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 41.22-30.71-17.68 °</span></li>
<li><span>Image height 21.64mm</span></li>
<li><span>164.87-172.85-196.79mm overall length of the lens</span></li>
<li><span>BF 39.07-44.44-54.56mm</span></li>
<li><span>20 pieces of 13-group lens configuration</span></li>
<li><span>Four four-sided aspherical</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Example 2</strong>
<ul>
<li><span>Zoom ratio 2.76</span></li>
<li><span>Focal length f = 24.70-34.88-68.18mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 2.91</span></li>
<li><span>Half angle ω = 41.22-31.81-17.61 °</span></li>
<li><span>Image height 21.64mm</span></li>
<li><span>165.79-174.26-199.67mm overall length of the lens</span></li>
<li><span>BF 38.47-42.81-58.00mm</span></li>
<li><span>20 pieces of 15-group lens configuration</span></li>
<li><span>Three 3 aspherical surface</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Example 3</strong>
<ul>
<li><span>Zoom ratio 3.22</span></li>
<li><span>Focal length f = 24.70-39.67-79.43mm</span></li>
<li><span>Fno. 2.91</span></li>
<li><span>41.22-28.61-15.24 ° angle of view</span></li>
<li><span>Image height 21.64mm</span></li>
<li><span>161.98-171.74-200.99mm overall length of the lens</span></li>
<li><span>BF 38.35-46.17-57.64mm</span></li>
<li><span>20 pieces of 13-group lens configuration</span></li>
<li><span>Four four-sided aspherical</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Canon patent</strong>
<ul>
<li><span>5-group zoom of positive and negative positive positive and negative</span></li>
<li><span>Antivibration (fourth lens group)</span></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-09-21" target="_blank">EG</a>]</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 21, 2013)

finally ! :

i wonder when it will be released? 2020?

i think sigma will more likely have my money again before canon get this out in the wild
especially if the rumoured f2 lens is on par with their latest offerings


----------



## EchoLocation (Sep 21, 2013)

i'm much more excited about the Sigma F2. 
I'm extremely tired of companies offering very small incremental changes over longggg periods of time. I'm not holding my breath for Canon to release what I want, I'm just moving on.
They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected, especially for the price. Had they made one, I probably would've bought a 5DIII and that lens(Instead of switching to Nikon who's 24-70 is amazing.)
At this point in time, I'm much more excited about 2.8 zooms and cheap bodies for the EOS M and a FF mirrorless.
I would not pay 2500 dollars for another DSLR lens as I'm very tired of the weight, and I'm not a pro. I'll probably just hold out and hope Sony can make a 24-50mm 2.8 in a size smaller than current 24-70 2.8's for the upcoming full frame mirrorless they're announcing.


----------



## Menace (Sep 21, 2013)

Good news for those who do not have a 24-70 2.8 or have the original version but want to upgrade to the latest version but haven't done it yet. OTH, these people may be waiting for a VERY long time for the IS version of this lens.

Personally, I couldn't be happier with my EF24-70 f2.8 II.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 21, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> finally ! :
> 
> i wonder when it will be released? 2020?
> 
> ...



Ah! You beat me to it! 
The sigma 24-70 OS and at f/2!! I'll go for that than the 2.8.. It will be cheaper than the canon version... right?  Even though the sigma might not be weather sealed or have the red ring, their new lenses are looking so fine and are performing top notch. I have faith in sigma! 

And if/when this canon 24-70mm 2.8 IS comes out, how much will they charge... Version II sells for 2299... Without IS. Haha.


----------



## AtSea (Sep 21, 2013)

If Tamron can do it - why in the hell can't Canon?

Just sayin!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2013)

AtSea said:


> If Tamron can do it - why in the hell can't Canon?



Because with the iq of the Canon and IS it would need larger-than-82mm filters and would be much heavier - Canon opted against it back then.

Also a 24-70 rumor popping up usually means there won't be any acutal lens releases for the next months


----------



## Radiating (Sep 21, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> i'm much more excited about the Sigma F2.
> I'm extremely tired of companies offering very small incremental changes over longggg periods of time. I'm not holding my breath for Canon to release what I want, I'm just moving on.
> They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected, especially for the price. Had they made one, I probably would've bought a 5DIII and that lens(Instead of switching to Nikon who's 24-70 is amazing.)
> At this point in time, I'm much more excited about 2.8 zooms and cheap bodies for the EOS M and a FF mirrorless.
> I would not pay 2500 dollars for another DSLR lens as I'm very tired of the weight, and I'm not a pro. I'll probably just hold out and hope Sony can make a 24-50mm 2.8 in a size smaller than current 24-70 2.8's for the upcoming full frame mirrorless they're announcing.



Just an FYI based on insider info Canon was testing several variations on the 24-70mm IS. Due to Canon's choice of image quality criteria the prototypes were unreasonably large and heavy. So Canon opted not to release them because they thought they would be too oversized.

Tamron was able to create a 24-70mm 2.8 IS in a small size because they compromised on image quality.

To get around the fact that a fast image stabilized lens would be huge and heavy Canon even considered a 28-70mm f/2.8 IS.

The 28-70mm f2.8 IS would have had a filter size of 86mm. The 24-70mm f/2.8 IS would have had a filter size of 95mm based on Canon's patents. 

The lens would have looked something like this:







That's a Nikon 14-24mm with a 95mm filter which matches the dimensions of the Canon patent.






I personally begged Canon to release the prototype.

Also some people suggest that Canon didn't release it because it would have a low profit margin.


----------



## willhuff.net (Sep 21, 2013)

I only care about this because it might cause a price drop in the 24-70II, unless they can make the IS version even sharper.


----------



## pwp (Sep 21, 2013)

The wait for the non-IS version was interminable...this one should keep the rumor-mill going for years. 
At least it gives people a chance to negotiate a bank loan for the no doubt high $$ asking price.
IS would always be nice, but I couldn't be happier with my 24-70 f/2.8II. 

-pw


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 21, 2013)

What I don't understand about this lens is what it accomplishes; Why spend at very least $3000 on this if it ever comes out? 

Jim


----------



## Old Shooter (Sep 21, 2013)

pwp said:


> The wait for the non-IS version was interminable...this one should keep the rumor-mill going for years.
> At least it gives people a chance to negotiate a bank loan for the no doubt high $$ asking price.
> IS would always be nice, but I couldn't be happier with my 24-70 f/2.8II.
> 
> -pw



LOL! Exactly! I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Woody (Sep 21, 2013)

We Canon users will always live in fantasy, looking longingly at our dream cameras and lenses through the eyes of our minds...


----------



## Stone (Sep 21, 2013)

Considering the price of the 24-70 non-IS, I can imagine Canon asking $3k for this lens if they plan to release it. Way out of the price range of most serious amateurs and many professionals at that.

Personally, i've had my fill of Canon sticker shock, I'll be picking up the current version, but only after I sell off my 7D and EF-S glass to partially fund the purchase. Canon should have released this first at the current price point, I'm certain they would still make a nice profit per lens and probably had more sales....


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 21, 2013)

what's wrong with 18-55 IS? :


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Sep 21, 2013)

I wouldn't bet on Canon releasing a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, but there's some logic in it.

It seems some people like Tamron's stabilized 24-70mm for video, Sigma is rumored to release one as well, and Canon wouldn't bother testing a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS if didn't think there's money in it to begin with, so it might release one so as not to lose sales to the competition.

[Canon already made an investment in R&D, so it already has something to lose. It might make some kind of compromise to keep the price down and/or release a cinema version to cover some of the R&D price in that market to keep the lens profitable.]

Canon has four versions of the 70-200mm, so why not three versions of the 24-70mm?


----------



## discojuggernaut (Sep 21, 2013)

I'm still rocking my old skool 28-70 f/2.8 that i bought for $600 that i will keep and use until i upgrade to the Tamron, a potential Sigma, or a reasonably priced Canon IS version.


----------



## sanj (Sep 21, 2013)

discojuggernaut said:


> I'm still rocking my old skool 28-70 f/2.8 that i bought for $600 that i will keep and use until i upgrade to the Tamron, a potential Sigma, or a reasonably priced Canon IS version.



I wish I had your wisdom. Really!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2013)

Jim Saunders said:


> What I don't understand about this lens is what it accomplishes; Why spend at very least $3000 on this if it ever comes out?



Because it will be "_*THE*_" lens - One Lens to rule them all, One Lens to find them, One Lens to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!

Plus for people spending $7k on a camera body and $10k for a tele lens another $3k probably doesn't matter that much - and as it has been argued in many Tamron vs. Canon threads, IS @70mm does make sense for various shooting conditions even for stills.


----------



## AdamF (Sep 21, 2013)

I find it interesting what Radiating said.

If you are out there Radiating, how do you know what you said is true ? You mentioned an inside source I noticed.

Thanks.


----------



## winglet (Sep 21, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Plus for people spending $7k on a camera body and $10k for a tele lens another $3k probably doesn't matter that much - and as it has been argued in many Tamron vs. Canon threads, *IS @70mm does make sense for various shooting conditions even for stills.*



Canon already makes a "pretty good" IS lens at that focal range, it's called the 70-200 f2.8 IS! ;D

Personally, I would put IS on the 24-70 firmly in the "nice to have" camp, not the "need to have". I have zero complaints about the IQ about the 24-70mm f2.8 II, any limitations are only due to my own shortcomings as a shooter. The lens is not cheap but it's producing some incredible images for me. 

The one guy who says he switched to Nikon for their 24-70....uh....ok...? (*scratches head*)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 21, 2013)

Personally I'm no longer very excited about 24-70 zooms, but for many a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be a great work-horse. Kudos to Tamron and Sigma for upping the ante! 8)


----------



## pwp (Sep 21, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> what's wrong with 18-55 IS? :


Absolutely nothing, except for three important letters. _*EF-S*_
It's a gem if you're driving an APS-C Canon. 

-pw


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 21, 2013)

Sigma is rumoring a 24-70 f2
why bother testing a 2.8 IS then?
The current 24-70 II is already 2k 
I suppose the IS will be even more expensive like 2.5k+


----------



## willis (Sep 21, 2013)

Uuuuuu, sounds very very nice indeed :


----------



## bholliman (Sep 21, 2013)

Menace said:


> ...people may be waiting for a VERY long time for the IS version of this lens.
> 
> Personally, I couldn't be happier with my EF24-70 f2.8 II.



+1 I'm extremely happy with my EF 24-70 2.8 II. Would I like for it to have IS? Sure, but I'm taking lots of great pictures without IS now.

If the IS lens would be as large as Radiating suggested, I'm not sure I would want one.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 21, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > ...people may be waiting for a VERY long time for the IS version of this lens.
> ...



+1 ... my thoughts exactly. 

I don't know how much better the 24-70 II can get, IQ wise. I see no point in splurging north of $ 3,000 for a replacement with IS.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 21, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> ... for many a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be a great work-horse. Kudos to Tamron and Sigma for upping the ante! 8)



I agree.

I would be very, very tempted to buy this lens if and when it does come out.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 21, 2013)

The first prototypes (fully metal) are from 2012, but the actual IS version is a complete rebuild and delivers superb image quility. Build qulity is like the version II with no IS.

After using the NON-IS-Version for a long time I am now a IS fan.

The IS-version is (like the version II with no IS) not a parfocal lens and delivers the ugly 18 rays from small light sources with an aperture of 16, 22 and so on.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 21, 2013)

winglet said:


> Canon already makes a "pretty good" IS lens at that focal range, it's called the 70-200 f2.8 IS! ;D



What about 69mm :-o ? ... No, of course if depends in which direction you want the flexibility, and for wider shots which often are required in events and photojournalism the 24-70 is the way to go, you can crop, but you cannot reconstruct data that isn't there because your lens was too long.



M.ST said:


> After using the NON-IS-Version for a long time I am now a IS fan.



Sssshhh, don't tell, even more people might buy the Tamron at half the Canon's price :-o ... in Germany, the Tamron's price has gone UP recently.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 21, 2013)

M.ST said:


> The IS-version is (like the version II with no IS) not a parfocal lens and delivers the ugly 18 rays from small light sources with an aperture of 16, 22 and so on.



Maybe I'm missing something but which is this IS-Version that you are talking about?


----------



## WoodyWindy (Sep 21, 2013)

I like that they actually cover up to a 24-80 f/2.8 IS in the patent series.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 21, 2013)

Radiating said:


> I personally begged Canon to release the prototype.



If they won't do your bidding, what hope do we mere mortals have?


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 21, 2013)

If this rumor is true, the price tag will be huge - $2700plus


----------



## EchoLocation (Sep 21, 2013)

winglet said:


> The one guy who says he switched to Nikon for their 24-70....uh....ok...? (*scratches head*)


I didn't switch to Nikon for their 24-70 specifically, if I had to name one thing it would be the AF of the D700 vs the AF of the 5DII(I did this over a year ago when the 5DIII was still $3500 and new 5DII's were around $2K.
I had an old 5DC with a 24-105, but I missed focus on half my shots and just constantly was disappointed when conditions were not perfect. I also like the pop up flash on the D700, it saves me from having to lug around a separate flash 90% of the time.
I traded my 5DC and lens for the 24-70 2.8 Nikon pretty much, then paid 1400 more for a used but basically mint D700. I think I made a huge upgrade from the 5DC and 24-105 without having to pay 5000 dollars. I hardly ever hear anyone say anything bad about the Nikon 24-70, and I've personally never used a better lens. The Canon might be sharper, but at this point, I wouldn't trade my Nikon 24-70 for anything less than a FF mirrorless system that is much smaller and lighter.
I travel a lot and am sick of DSLR's. I'm now looking to only use my EOS-M and hopefully something a little(or lot) better but with a similar size in the future.


----------



## Coolhandchuck (Sep 21, 2013)

Oh no... I'm sure that it will cost $2800 plus...


----------



## Eldar (Sep 21, 2013)

To me, the requirement some seem have for IS on the 24-70 is somewhat difficult to understand and I wonder if it is based on real world experience or just theoretical thinking. When I first bought it, it replaced my 24-105 f4 IS as my standard walk-around lens, and I thought I would miss both the 70-105 range and IS. The truth is I don´t. I have a very low threshold for buying the latest and greatest, but I don´t see how IS on this lens would tempt me. Improved IQ would, but that will be quite difficult. Improved magnification, like the 24-70 f4 IS, would. But I am still able to hold my camera sufficiently still to get my shots also in low lights with this lens and I have other alternatives for macro. When IS would help, I always get something moving in the image anyway (experience from the 24-105), so it is ruined both with and without IS.

So, I have the 24-70 2.8L II, I am extremely happy with it and I am pretty confident that I will hang on to it after a potential release of an IS version.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 22, 2013)

Eldar said:


> To me, the requirement some seem have for IS on the 24-70 is somewhat difficult to understand and I wonder if it is based on real world experience or just theoretical thinking. When I first bought it, it replaced my 24-105 f4 IS as my standard walk-around lens, and I thought I would miss both the 70-105 range and IS. The truth is I don´t. I have a very low threshold for buying the latest and greatest, but I don´t see how IS on this lens would tempt me.



About 2/3 of my shots with my 24-105 are taken below the 1/f rule, and I have taken shots as slow as 2-seconds handheld with that lens. I normally consider 1/10th to be my limit at 105mm and 1/2 second at 24mm. Which would you rather have, 1/2 second, ISO 800 or 1/30th ISO 12800 with the same motion blur?


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 22, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> *i'm much more excited about the Sigma F2. *
> I'm extremely tired of companies offering very small incremental changes over longggg periods of time. I'm not holding my breath for Canon to release what I want, I'm just moving on.
> They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected, especially for the price. Had they made one, I probably would've bought a 5DIII and that lens(Instead of switching to Nikon who's 24-70 is amazing.)
> At this point in time, I'm much more excited about 2.8 zooms and cheap bodies for the EOS M and a FF mirrorless.
> *I would not pay 2500 dollars for another DSLR lens as I'm very tired of the weight*, and I'm not a pro. I'll probably just hold out and hope Sony can make a 24-50mm 2.8 in a size smaller than current 24-70 2.8's for the upcoming full frame mirrorless they're announcing.



Of course you realize if Sigma really does come out with a FF 24-70 f2.0 it is going to be a monster to carry around, right? I expect it will be at least as big as the 70-200 2.8 II.


----------



## EchoLocation (Sep 22, 2013)

jrbdmb said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > *i'm much more excited about the Sigma F2. *
> ...


I didn't say i'd buy the Sigma, I just said i'm much more excited about it than the next 3000 dollar Canon lens.
If Sigma does make a 24-70 F2, I seriously doubt it will be as big as the 70-200 2.8, that is just too big and not practical. I do not think that would be very succesful at all. I don't think that the rules of lens optics and size are entirely set in stone yet.


----------



## WillThompson (Sep 22, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> what's wrong with 18-55 IS? :



No "L"!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 22, 2013)

WillThompson said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > what's wrong with 18-55 IS? :
> ...



Which unfortunately means the ef-s isn't sealed - L is not only about having a prestigious red ring, but a sturdy lens - avoiding a couple of repairs due to water or sand leaking into the lens will more than make up for the price difference.

I learned this the hard way after my 100mm non-L macro broke twice, while the L version doesn't twitch in whatever situation I use it in.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 22, 2013)

I see the IS version in the range 2.199 up to 2.499 bucks and the Version II without IS from 1.699 up to 1749 bucks.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > To me, the requirement some seem have for IS on the 24-70 is somewhat difficult to understand and I wonder if it is based on real world experience or just theoretical thinking. When I first bought it, it replaced my 24-105 f4 IS as my standard walk-around lens, and I thought I would miss both the 70-105 range and IS. The truth is I don´t. I have a very low threshold for buying the latest and greatest, but I don´t see how IS on this lens would tempt me.
> ...


Then we use them differently. I normally take pictures of things in motion, so to freeze that I need a decent shutter speed. I rarely go slower than 1/30s. And if I do, I normally use a tripod. So for me, IS is not important for this lens. If I did video I would think differently. If I did indoor, handheld, low light stills, I would think differently.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 22, 2013)

Just a thought but as the original 24-70's launch was followed by that of the 24-105, could the 24-105 mkii be the next standard zoom we see? 

And if yes is the answer, would it be a f/4.0 IS or a f2.8?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> Just a thought but as the original 24-70's launch was followed by that of the 24-105, could the 24-105 mkii be the next standard zoom we see?
> 
> And if yes is the answer, would it be a f/4.0 IS or a f2.8?


I doubt it will be 2.8. Today that is probably the most important walk-around lens for the FF community. At 2.8 it would become too big.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 22, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I see the IS version in the range 2.199 up to 2.499 bucks and the Version II without IS from 1.699 up to 1749 bucks.



If the IS version is around 2.5K, I would buy one. For current 24-70 MK2 price plus IS feature is the right price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2013)

dilbert said:


> *yawn*
> 
> More evidence that Canon has ceased to be a leader when it comes to lenses.
> 
> ...



And *WHY* might they not need to drop the price of the non-IS MkII by that much? Well, because it's a stellar lens that seems to be selling just fine. More evidence that Canon is a leader when it comes to lenses. :


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> And *WHY* might they not need to drop the price of the non-IS MkII by that much? Well, because it's a stellar lens that seems to be selling just fine. More evidence that Canon is a leader when it comes to lenses. :



+1 - Canon made the correct choice from a sales & usage scenario point of view, though many enthusiasts with deep pockets may miss "THE" lens...

... today I again shot outdoor action scenes (Berlin's yearly grocery fight between two city quarters ) with my meager 60d+70-300L. Apart from some poor fellows with Rebel gear everyone else was using 5d3 cameras with some 70-200L and the rest, yes, you guessed it: 24-70L2. I didn't see any Nikons, btw


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 22, 2013)

dilbert said:


> *yawn*
> 
> More evidence that Canon has ceased to be a leader when it comes to lenses.
> 
> ...



Lol...talk about a biased and opinionated attitude. Canon's lens catalog is the finest there is. Ranging from the only full frame fisheye zoom, the sharpest 24-70L on the planet, the sharpest 70-200 on the planet and even their 10-20 year old primes are still top drawer performers...topping off the best and lightest long tele's on the planet. Other marques have individual lenses which can match them but no one else has so many class leading performers.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 23, 2013)

EchoLocation said:


> They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected,



not all

many wanted and expected something with prime-like performance on a FF at 24mm and amazing f/2.8 center across the range in a reasonably small (smaller and lighter than before) package. And we got that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 23, 2013)

M.ST said:


> The IS-version is (like the version II with no IS) not a parfocal lens and delivers the ugly 18 rays from small light sources with an aperture of 16, 22 and so on.



umm the 24-70 II has been widely praised for having some of the BEST sunstars around, those rays you diss are a PLUS


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 23, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> Just a thought but as the original 24-70's launch was followed by that of the 24-105, could the 24-105 mkii be the next standard zoom we see?
> 
> And if yes is the answer, would it be a f/4.0 IS or a f2.8?



we already have the 24-105 f/4 IS II it is the 24-70 f/4 IS


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 23, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > The IS-version is (like the version II with no IS) not a parfocal lens and delivers the ugly 18 rays from small light sources with an aperture of 16, 22 and so on.
> ...



Yep, for landscape work, 9 blade apertures is far more better then the 8 found in the 24-105L and 24-70L mkI. As you said, the sunstars are far more attractive and brilliant. None of the 24-70L designs from any marque are parafocal, Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Sigma. So i dont know what this op is ranting about. The 24-70IIL is the sharpest and best lens of it's type ever. Please remmebr that Canon's mkI was the first of it's type from any brand and it lasted for well over 10 years. Nikon have only realease theirs a few years ago, where their 28-70L was the nearest competitor previously. The canon mkII version eclipses all over versions by a noticable margin. The only dissapointments are the price and a little more focal breathing at min focus distance. Thie good news is that the price will come down with time, it's already dropped a lot her in the UK over the last year.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 23, 2013)

No doubt, that the 24-70 2.8 II is the best lens until today.

But the new IS version nearly delivers the image quality of the version II and has all the advantages of an IS lens. I am sure, that a lot of photographers are willing to buy the IS version if the lens hits the market. The version II was my favorite standard zoom for a long time. Now it´s the IS preproduction 24-70 lens.

You can all like the rays from the version II. I don´t like the rays and I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.


----------



## RVB (Sep 23, 2013)

dilbert said:


> *yawn*
> 
> More evidence that Canon has ceased to be a leader when it comes to lenses.
> 
> ...



Sorry but I can't take this comment seriously,I use Leica,Nikon and Hasselblad as well as Canon so no fanboy here.. but Canon has a fantastic collection of glass. the MPE-65mm is completely unique,the best 24-70 and 70-200's on the market,amazing super teles the best TS lenses... the 8-15mm fisheye zoom is another unique lens... and we can be sure that more great glass is on the way... As for the 24-70is,well I don't need the i.s but wedding snappers and event guys will like it..


----------



## candyman (Sep 23, 2013)

M.ST said:


> No doubt, that the 24-70 2.8 II is the best lens until today.
> 
> *But the new IS version nearly delivers the image quality of the version II *and has all the advantages of an IS lens. I am sure, that a lot of photographers are willing to buy the IS version if the lens hits the market. The version II was my favorite standard zoom for a long time. Now it´s the IS preproduction 24-70 lens.
> 
> You can all like the rays from the version II. I don´t like the rays and I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.




Would that be a Canon marketing proposition? A little less IQ than the 24-70 MKII? Will its pricing therefor be more in the level of the Tamron?


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 23, 2013)

M.ST said:


> I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.



Me neither, same thing with the 100L - but was Canon seriously thinking about releasing a metal body, or are they set on releasing plastic lenses from now on?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.
> ...


I had the same thought when it was released, but after I had used it for a while I realized that it is a very solid body. High quality plastic does have some advantages also.


----------



## RVB (Sep 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t like the plastic body of the lens.
> ...



These plastic shells are very strong and will last as long as you will,Nikon has also started to use this technique ..


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 23, 2013)

RVB said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > M.ST said:
> ...


>sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer...and don't take the trouble to find out the facts before posting blurb and mis-information all over the place.
Canon are now using Aluminium and magnesium alloys in their lens casings. The 100mm IS Macro L is another example. This alloy doesn't feel cool to the touch as the cheaper and heavier casings, but are often percieved to be made from plastic. Where as in reality it's a higher grade product. The 24-70IIL is a fair bit lighter than the older mkI...but has a larger objective lens....so the glass is actually heavier in the mkII than the mkI.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Canon are now using Aluminium and magnesium alloys in their lens casings. The 100mm IS Macro L is another example. This alloy doesn't feel cool to the touch as the cheaper and heavier casings, but are often percieved to be made from plastic.



So, Chuck Westfall (Canon USA's technical mouthpiece) was *lying* when he stated ragarding the 100L, "_The official reply from Tokyo is as follows: The focus ring, lens mount and name plate are made from aluminum, and other parts are basically made with engineering plastic._" 

Or maybe you got a different asnwer when _you_ asked Canon? Or maybe you disassembled a lens and performed a materials analysis on the barrel? Or maybe not...... :


----------



## RVB (Sep 23, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



">sigh< This is the problem with the internet, every joker on the planet set them self up as a lens reviewer.."

Exactly who are you referring to as a joker?? It seems that your the one talking Crap, taken from photo zone.de http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/458-canon_100_28is_5d "The build quality is excellent but then we've expected no less from a professional grade "L class" lens. The lens body is made of very high quality plastics and a metal mount. The broad rubberized focus ring works very smooth. Similar to the non-L macro lens it features a "true" inner focusing system so the lens does not extend when focusing towards closer focus distances. The Canon EF extension tubes are supported whereas the EF tele converters cannot be used."

and referring to the 24-70mk11 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff "The build quality of this lens is exceptional thanks to a tightly assembled combination of metal and - mostly - high quality plastic parts. "


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2013)

I wish they'd split it into two lenses:

24-35 f/2L IS and
50-85 f/2L IS


----------



## birtembuk (Sep 24, 2013)

Another heated debate about: "IS or not IS, that is the question" 

Looking more closely at the stated specs, I notice the image height is 21.64mm and the size is about say 160mm to 200mm. What sort of glass is that ? Cinema ? Anybody a clue here ?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2013)

RVB said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > *yawn*
> ...



yeah, you can complain that marketing plays too many games with silly little body features being left out for silly little reasons, or that they have fallen behind in sensors and don't want to spend money as they others do to update their sensor fabs, or that they didn't do what they could to really take advantage of their mini-video revolution and instead went a more traditional route, but lenses man, lenses are where they are still producing

who else has an MPE65? a 17 T&S? a 24mm T&S as nice? a lens to match the 24-70 II? a 70-300L? etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2013)

RVB said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > RVB said:
> ...



what is so great about a metal casing? BTW the 24-70 L original was one of the lenses most likely to go out of tune after time. it weighs more too. heats up more. And if you drop metal it sometimes bends in nasty ways, certain plastic designs might just crack a front plastic outer bit which might be replaced for a few bucks on your own (of course not all plastic lenses allow for that sort of easy fix)


----------



## RVB (Sep 24, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Good point's,Polycarbonate has many positive's,another is weight.. If you don't carry it you won't shoot it,and the main reason I shoot the polycarbonate/magnesium Nikon 85mm 1.4G over the 85mm 1.2L when I'm on the road is the weight,it's 660gram's vs 1025 for the L,(the L is slightly faster which accounts for some of the extra weight but not all)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 24, 2013)

At the end of the day, if you like the lens for it's abilities and features and can afford one, then go buy one. It's as simple as that. For me, my mkI copy has been the backbone of my photography for the last 7 years. It's not as sharp as my primes but it's certainly a strong performer and it does so much so well. The newer mkII has a lot of additional benefits over the mkI but a few areas are weaker. The Max Magnification figure has dropped dramatically, which indicated focal lenght breathing at 70mm at MFD. For most user's this isn't a problem. But for wedding photographers like me who don't want to take a massive bag to each wedding, ring shots now need a dedicated macro lens. Will the rumoured IS version correct this? Who knows. I'm one of the few photographers who seems to like the reverse zoom and large hood of the mkI and was dissapointed to see this has been normalised...a pity, the old one was fantastically quirky and very functional. Last year I was on the Northumbria beech photographing a Bamburgh Castle with the sea / coast creating a nice leading line. The sea was craching in quite violently....my colleges who were also on the shoot were using a 16-35IIL and were constantly wiping sea spray from their objective lenses....my 24-70I's and it's deep hood had no such issues. 

Becuase this lens was different in it's function, it attracted a lot of unwarrented critism from people who hardly used one, there is a ton of web "opinions" which are based on re-gurgitation from the various web reviews and a quick fondle in a shop, but these opinions are not based on real world application, where these quirks are seen to be a really well thought out rationale with great benefit. This pressure (meme) has caused some obvious design changes which appeases the internet masses as a positive....but not the photographers who valued such a useful but quirky design.


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 24, 2013)

It was said that Canon did not issue 24-70 f/2.8 IS version as it would be bulky and IQ would be worse (or lens diameter size would have to be wider than 82 mm). Current Tamron 24-70 version has IS and IQ is slightly worse than Canon's 24-70 MkII version. Also, Tamron price is significantly lower. What I currently see in the market that Sigma and Tamron significantly improved quality and we see INNOVATIONS in these companies. On opposite side, Canon makes only slight updates and puts significant price cap on their products. What is my biggest fear that Canon might adapt Apple strategy, to release "new" product which is substantialy the same as old one and expect that loyal fans will buy their products. I would understand if Canon realeases 24-70 1.8 IS version and charges much more money than competitors.

Canon was sleeping when mirrorless cameras were evolving, current P&S market is sqeezing, very strong competition in DSLR lenses is increasing. If the same trends follow in few years we will see that Canon produces DSLR cameras only (lenses will be bought from Tamron and Sigma). We really need innovative products for reasonable price from Canon!


----------



## RVB (Sep 24, 2013)

dilbert said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



"What part can't you take seriously?"This part "More evidence that Canon has ceased to be a leader when it comes to lenses" ,Canon has an excellent portfolio of lenses unmatched by any other manufacturer,Saying that they cease to be a leader because they didn't add I.S to a lens is a bit harsh,not everyone is convinced that this focal length even needs i.s,admittedly I wouldn't mind if they did add it but not at the expense of I.Q,and the Tamron doesn't match the canon's I.Q


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 24, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> It was said that Canon did not issue 24-70 f/2.8 IS version as it would be bulky and IQ would be worse (or lens diameter size would have to be wider than 82 mm). Current Tamron 24-70 version has IS and IQ is slightly worse than Canon's 24-70 MkII version.



Problem is, as far as I understand it: In this top-range L class, improving the iq *slightly* requires a very *large* (i.e. expensive) effort, may it be to increase sharpness or corner performance. Obviously Canon found no reasonable tradeoff between (filter) size, weight and price for a IS version, and having an excellent IS system they certainly thought very hard about this decision.

Of course, with Canon, part of this equation will have been to be able to make a good profit, while 3rd party manufacturers or Nikon want to gain market share and/or recognition as a serious alternative in the first place.


----------



## tron (Sep 24, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> One Lens to rule them all, One Lens to find them, One Lens to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!


In the land of Canon where the profits lie ... ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 24, 2013)

Too late. I already have the Tamron and its meets all my needs.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 24, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I wish they'd split it into two lenses:
> 
> 24-35 f/2L IS and
> 50-85 f/2L IS



For $ 2,500 each ... I think I'll pass


----------



## EchoLocation (Sep 25, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > They easily could have made the 24-70 2.8 II an IS lens to begin with, which we all wanted and expected,
> ...


I would have been fine with v2 had the price not seemingly doubled at release(I understand sales, vs release prices and MSRP, but that is what essentially happened in the short term(1 year at least.) With the price hike from v1 to v2 they should have made it IS, put the opening price at $2499, and if they had wanted to released the current v2 at $2249, or less. 
I just don't like the idea of another new lens release with an insane price, especially when the concept of having IS in the this lens had been talked about for a while. 
I'm all for paying top dollar for something if it gives me exactly what I want, but otherwise, i'd rather just hold out for the best, considering the price of v2 wasn't low either. 
It's like the new iPhone here in China(where I live). They made the 5c for $730 bucks, and the 5s for $860. If i'm going to drop 700 dollars on a new phone, I don't want to wish I had the metal body, or better processor, etc(or IS), i'd rather just pay $100 dollars more and have the best. Likewise, if i'm going to pay $2300 for a lens, I'd like to be fairly sure there isn't an upgraded version coming the next year.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 25, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> At the end of the day, if you like the lens for it's abilities and features and can afford one, then go buy one. It's as simple as that. For me, my mkI copy has been the backbone of my photography for the last 7 years. It's not as sharp as my primes but it's certainly a strong performer and it does so much so well. The newer mkII has a lot of additional benefits over the mkI but a few areas are weaker. The Max Magnification figure has dropped dramatically, which indicated focal lenght breathing at 70mm at MFD. For most user's this isn't a problem. But for wedding photographers like me who don't want to take a massive bag to each wedding, ring shots now need a dedicated macro lens. Will the rumoured IS version correct this? Who knows. I'm one of the few photographers who seems to like the reverse zoom and large hood of the mkI and was dissapointed to see this has been normalised...a pity, the old one was fantastically quirky and very functional. Last year I was on the Northumbria beech photographing a Bamburgh Castle with the sea / coast creating a nice leading line. The sea was craching in quite violently....my colleges who were also on the shoot were using a 16-35IIL and were constantly wiping sea spray from their objective lenses....my 24-70I's and it's deep hood had no such issues.
> 
> Becuase this lens was different in it's function, it attracted a lot of unwarrented critism from people who hardly used one, there is a ton of web "opinions" which are based on re-gurgitation from the various web reviews and a quick fondle in a shop, but these opinions are not based on real world application, where these quirks are seen to be a really well thought out rationale with great benefit. This pressure (meme) has caused some obvious design changes which appeases the internet masses as a positive....but not the photographers who valued such a useful but quirky design.



The original 24-70 could only have that unusual hood arrangement because it was unusual in that it got wider FOV as it extended. It is quite possible that they could not stick to such a reversed design and radically improve image quality.

The new 24-70 II also has a nice feature that is not always mentioned: ultra-precision measurements of AF braking slippage, so when paired with a body that can make use of the extra precision it has better focusing precision than a regular lens.

For landscape shooters, focusing on every last ounce of quality on the wider side was a very nice move. And it manages to do very well at f/2.8 in the center across the range, good for isolation shots where the main subject is often not near the edges.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The original 24-70 could only have that unusual hood arrangement because it was unusual in that it got wider FOV as it extended. It is quite possible that they could not stick to such a reversed design and radically improve image quality.



... which is a pity because with all zoom lenses that cover a larger range the lens hood is too short at the long focal end and there's more flare than necessary - I esp. notice this with my 70-300L, I'm just trying to devise a self-made lens hood zoom.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... which is a pity because with all zoom lenses that cover a larger range the lens hood is too short at the long focal end and there's more flare than necessary - I esp. notice this with my 70-300L, I'm just trying to devise a self-made lens hood zoom.



You could follow Canon's advice for the TS-E 17mm f/4L...


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 25, 2013)

6 pages of posts about this? I'm surprised anyone is interested in IS - I mean Canon told us (with the Mark II) that we don't need it, so who are we to question Canon?


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I mean Canon told us (with the Mark II) that we don't need it, so who are we to question Canon?



When did Canon do that? Imho all they (implicitly) told us that they see more demand for a IS-less version that has a common filter size and is lighter than the mk1 - which squares with all photojournalists having this lens on their 5d3. 

Canon tested an IS version, so obviously they do see a need - but they decided to only release one version, at least for the time being. Remember: their main reason back then for updating the mk1 at all was that the Nikon had better iq, but also no IS.



neuroanatomist said:


> You could follow Canon's advice for the TS-E 17mm f/4L...



This is about what it'll be :-o though I'd like some waterproof plastic and I prefer black to make it look more impressive


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I mean Canon told us (with the Mark II) that we don't need it, so who are we to question Canon?
> ...



I believe Canon has never done that, but many CR users did. If you search the old threads, you will see many people mentioned that IS is useless on 24-70mm lens. I think you might see those posters will tell you how good IS feature is after Canon releases the new IS version 24-70mm lens.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 25, 2013)

cliffwang said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



The spot that I see IS being most useful is towards the long end in quite dim lighting. And you don't want to use a flash. Or for less light with a narrow aperture, say for outdoors/urban photos near sunrise/sunset where you want to get a lot in focus, don't/can't use a tripod/monopod and don't want to pump up the ISO very far because of noise concerns.

That said...I'd still like it, but I'm coming to realize that it wouldn't be _as_ useful as I originally thought for most photography. Even event photography, where you need a decent shutter speed anyway because the subjects are undoubtedly not holding perfectly still.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2013)

cliffwang said:


> If you search the old threads, you will see many people mentioned that IS is useless on 24-70mm lens. I think you might see those posters will tell you how good IS feature is after Canon releases the new IS version 24-70mm lens.



You're correct, but there's little that can be done about fanboys - I remember the threads you mentioned and all the people bashing the Tamron for having "useless" IS, but onion bokeh and less sharp corners(!)... until it was discovered that the Canon also has onion bokeh (though to a lesser extent) :->



Drizzt321 said:


> Even event photography, where you need a decent shutter speed anyway because the subjects are undoubtedly not holding perfectly still.



Depends on what kind of event - with people not caring about getting photographed, you're correct. But I was surprised to read that many wedding photogs do see a use for IS with this focal range, because their subjects "pose" and move less - and a little movement doesn't show up on 20-22mp and x-sync speed, but you not holding the lens perfectly still after a stressful day would.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Even event photography, where you need a decent shutter speed anyway because the subjects are undoubtedly not holding perfectly still.
> ...



Hmm...well, haven't read much from the wedding photogs, and while many of them use a speedlite, there are probably a lot of times they don't want to. And yea, at a wedding most people happily pose, even if you don't ask them to.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 25, 2013)

I was just messing with you guys on this - obviously many people have a need for IS and Canon doesn't "tell us" things - we, the consumers, tell them what we want with our purchases. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 24-105 f/4 IS have been around for quite a while... I'm sure Canon will put one out eventually, as a double- or triple-dip depending on which 24-70 you bought first 

...Meanwhile I'll be shooting with my 24-70 f/2.8 II, which I personally love in all ways but the amount of distortion. When they add IS, I'll probably buy one of those, too...


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> This is about what it'll be :-o though I'd like some waterproof plastic and I prefer black to make it look more impressive



Get Cinefoil - matte black all metal construction, heat and water resistant, highly customizable and a product recognized&valued all over the industry.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2013)

Lawliet said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > This is about what it'll be :-o though I'd like some waterproof plastic and I prefer black to make it look more impressive
> ...



Thanks for the advice (this forum is actually useful ) - I wanted to get this also for flagging flashes and just never came around to ordering it - I'll do it now, though as usual in backwater Germany the prices are ridiculous and I have to get it from GB. Are there any comparable product names I can search for on ebay except "cinefoil"?


----------



## Menace (Sep 26, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> When they add IS, I'll probably buy one of those, too...



Music to Canon's ears


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 26, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Are there any comparable product names I can search for on ebay except "cinefoil"?



You get the same thing in shorter lengths as "photofoil". 
Or from Lee as filter number 280, blackwrap, cinewrap.
Normally about 25USD for a 24"*25'(~60cm*8m) roll.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 26, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Canon are no longer making the trends, they are just following them - regardless of their portfolio.


Strange statement ... Who defined video based on SLRs? Who has the most extensive portfolio of high quality lenses in the business? Who has the broadest portfolio of SLRs in the business? ... If there is truth in the rumour about a medium format strategy, who else? ... I dare say that they still are at the forefront of what´s going on.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 26, 2013)

Efka76 said:


> It was said that Canon did not issue 24-70 f/2.8 IS version as it would be bulky and IQ would be worse (or lens diameter size would have to be wider than 82 mm). Current Tamron 24-70 version has IS and IQ is slightly worse than Canon's 24-70 MkII version. Also, Tamron price is significantly lower. What I currently see in the market that Sigma and Tamron significantly improved quality and we see INNOVATIONS in these companies. On opposite side, Canon makes only slight updates and puts significant price cap on their products. What is my biggest fear that Canon might adapt Apple strategy, to release "new" product which is substantialy the same as old one and expect that loyal fans will buy their products. I would understand if Canon realeases 24-70 1.8 IS version and charges much more money than competitors.
> 
> Canon was sleeping when mirrorless cameras were evolving, current P&S market is sqeezing, very strong competition in DSLR lenses is increasing. If the same trends follow in few years we will see that Canon produces DSLR cameras only (lenses will be bought from Tamron and Sigma). We really need innovative products for reasonable price from Canon!



I think you need to take a long and pragmatic look at how Canon have reacted in the past. Canon took a few years before they build their fisrt few DSLR models. But they took their time, watched not just how the market developed but also how the technology developed too. They chose CMOS where everyone else was claiming CCD superiority....Canon stuck to their beliefs and were proved very right. 
Canon make a lot more money on it's lenses than it's camera bodies, but it takes years of careful development to get a lens right. Rushed products like the 50mm f1.2 L and 1DmkIV caused marketing nightmares for Canon, which Canon were wise to learn from. Canon has a 5 and 10 year plan, to which most of us are not privvy to. Sometimes they don't get everything right, but the general trend is that they really know their market and what their customers need (not want). 
Canon's L lenses generally have at least a 10 year life span, that's a lot longer than many other brands. For example, take a look at how many ef 70-200mm f2.8 L IS there have been, 2. Now go and compare how many Sigma have pushed out, it's a lot higher. Canon like to get things right first time and keep their products in production for as long as possible. This jacks up the initial price up a lot but they discount very quickly (2-3 years later). In the current cameras, at the top end the 6D, 5DIII and 1DX have no real competitors....again they are state of the Art. Their crop cameras are currently going through a renewal (70D/7DmkII) to bring them back to the top again. Canon's white lenses have no equal, in performance, weight, features and IQ. Their TS-e lenses are the most comprehensive and optically strongest on the market. They offer more macro options than any other brand, the 100mm macro L IS is an amazing performer. Their range of fast primes are the envy of every other brand and are generally better than anything else out there...bar a few lenses which are in the process of renewal. Canon's f4 range of lenses are regarded as some of the finest zooms ever made and again are unmatched in the market place. 
When I look at the new 24-70IIL, I can see a lot of devepment for long term Professional use...which I really doubt that the Tamron will cope with. It's AF is far superior, it's more robust, it's certainly has stronger IQ. 
Not everyone wants a mirrorless camera, it's a niche item. Canon have a nice product in that range but it's not the tail which wags the dogs head. Olympus and Fuji might be going down the whole "misty eyed retro" look at the moment, but their products are seriously flawed in so many areas. 
So just because Tamron put an IS unit in their 24-70, you think Canon don't innovate anymore? I think you need to get a wider perspective my friend.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 26, 2013)

Re to: It was said that Canon did not issue 24-70 f/2.8 IS version as it would be bulky and IQ would be worse ...

Forget stupid posts from people who don´t get a prototype from Canon.

The IS version has more weight but it is not to heavy. The image IQ is outstanding and nearly matches the version II lens. But there are only a few prototypes out for testing. I don´t know if the production lens will be as good as the prototypes.

I am very happy with the IS prototype and often let the version II lens at home.

My prototype has a 82 mm filter size and no mm bigger. 

Adding a IS version make sense. Tamron and Co. is not the solution for professional use.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 26, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And D90 shaped the DSLR video market ?

What defines market leader? Market share? Business volume? Financial performance? Portfolio size and content? Used by most professionals? ... and how many more should we list? I think you´ll find Canon on top of most of them. So to speak of Canon as a desperate company looking for new segments to make money is at best a provoking statement to initiate a discussion.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 26, 2013)

Eldar said:


> What defines market leader? Market share? Business volume? Financial performance? Portfolio size and content? Used by most professionals?



And sometimes, figments of imagination of some CR / DR posters


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > What defines market leader? Market share? Business volume? Financial performance? Portfolio size and content? Used by most professionals?
> ...



+1 At least, they define it in their own minds. Some people have difficulty understanding (or accepting) basic facts...


----------

