# Canon in Active Development of EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 13, 2017)

```
<p>We’re told that Canon continues active development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.</p>
<p>At the time of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II development, there were prototypes with IS being tested alongside the non-IS version that was eventually released.</p>
<p>We’re told the previous development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS raised concerns about weight and size of the lens. Which makes some sense once you consider the target market, which is generally event photographers that have to carry and use the lens for 12 hours or more on some occasions.</p>
<p>This tells us that weight and size will have to be reduced before we see such a lens from Canon.</p>
<p>There is no known announcement date, and we doubt we’d see such a lens in 2017, but it’s good to know that development continues.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## MaxFoto (May 13, 2017)

YES!!!!


----------



## tianxiaozhang (May 13, 2017)

They like it slow don't they...


----------



## JMZawodny (May 13, 2017)

YES, YES !!


----------



## H. Jones (May 13, 2017)

Honestly, if they can keep the size and IQ similar, if not better, I'd love to have it. Most of the news photography I do doesn't need IS, since it mainly requires your subject being sharp and frozen while moving, but I can think of plenty of times where IS would have been handy for stationary subjects or panning shots. 

That said, while that would be handy, I wouldn't really be interested in lugging a lens the size of Nikon's VR 24-70 for something I might get occasional use out of. I think Canon obviously has the right idea when it comes to this though.


----------



## Cochese (May 13, 2017)

Dear Canon:
Nobody gives a S___ if the lens is a little bit heavier so long as it's quality is worth the exorbitant price you're going to charge for it over your competitors. 

Signed: Literally everybody forever. 

Seriously, just give us a fast, sharp, wide lens; include IS and we'll all be happy. For those who don't want the extra weight, they've still got the wonderful 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## smithcon (May 13, 2017)

After becoming smitten with a 5-axis IBIS-equipped camera from another manufacturer, I would much rather see Canon incorporate IBIS -- one intelligent enough to work in concert with lens IS for their existing and future IS equipped lenses. I would love to have that option when working with my non-IS Canon lenses, and what the heck, with my IS-equipped EOS lenses as well.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 13, 2017)

So, we're looking at probably close to $2,500 for this lens, weight well north of a kilo, and image quality no better than the 24-70 II (because, well, you can't really top that)

It's going to be hard to justify the extra expense upgrading from the current 24-70 to this one.

Yet I know I will have to do exactly that


----------



## YuengLinger (May 13, 2017)

"It's deja vu all over again." Yogi Berra


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 13, 2017)

Just remember the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD: only 825 g with a very good IS (VC), Canon's current F 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM weighs only 20 g less. I never understood the argument that Canon abandoned IS because they were concerned about weight. If the Mark III version of this lens would include IS, I'd really make up my mind about upgrading to Canon's zoom. The Tamron is quite an impressive lens, given its price, but its AF isn't too reliable so I did lose some otherwise nice shots with it (yes, I AFMAd my Tamron).


----------



## Ozarker (May 13, 2017)

I wouldn't care about weight. For some reason I like heavy lenses. I've not missed IS on my 24-70 f/2.8L II, but it would still be tempting if I didn't have s o many other lenses I want.

Thank you Canon, for all your great lenses!


----------



## Ozarker (May 13, 2017)

justaCanonuser said:


> Just remember the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD: only 825 g with a very good IS (VC), Canon's current F 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM weighs only 20 g less. I never understood the argument that Canon abandoned IS because they were concerned about weight. If the Mark III version of this lens would include IS, I'd really make up my mind about upgrading to Canon's zoom. The Tamron is quite an impressive lens, given its price, but its AF isn't too reliable so I did lose some otherwise nice shots with it (yes, I AFMAd my Tamron).



A III version would never include IS. This would be it's own lens series.


----------



## slclick (May 13, 2017)

tianxiaozhang said:


> They like it slow don't they...



Yes, that's how you get it right.


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2017)

And in other news, I am in Active Eyeroll for such news being story worthy.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 13, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> _We’re told that Canon continues active development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS. At the time of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II development, there were prototypes with IS being tested alongside the non-IS version that was eventually released._



Makes 100% sense. This is not their first rodeo -- an IS lens would have been either co-developed and put on moth balls or (at a minimum) space/size for the IS componentry would have been 'allowed for' in the original non-IS design.



Canon Rumors said:


> _We’re told the previous development of an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS raised concerns about weight and size of the lens. Which makes some sense once you consider the target market, which is generally event photographers that have to carry and use the lens for 12 hours or more on some occasions._



..because the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses event photographers carry are _much _lighter, I agree. 

This is where the story breaks down. I am skeptical of the reason being offered here. Pros grab f/2.8 zooms despite being considerably heavier than f/4 zooms, _but the added few ounces of IS weight would scare them off?_ Nonsense. 

I fully appreciate the need to lighten everything any small way we can, but I'd contend the value of the feature dwarfs the burden it adds to the total weight. People would gleefully pony up their cash for such a lens, even if it was 4-6 ounces heavier than the non-IS version.

I believe Canon hasn't offered as a 24-70 f/2.8L IS because they believe it won't be as profitable as commercializing _other _ new lenses or because Nikon's 24-70 2.8 IS offering hasn't flipped many Canon people over and isn't a major threat to market share.

- A


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (May 13, 2017)

Can't believe V2 of the Tamron is coming out and Canon still doesn't have a response launched. I think it shows how out of touch they are with video shooters, especially. I see the Tamron on C100's, 5D's, and adapted to A7's all the time. Canon really missed the boat not offering a stabilized 2.8 standard zoom to go with their DPAF tech, as those doing video have to choose between VC (Tamron) or reliability with DPAF (native Canon glass). I'd probably own Canon's response if there was one instead of the two Tamrons that are currently sitting in my bag, but by the time one is available the financial loss in switching won't be worth it. (And surely Canon wasn't naive enough to think that their EF-S 17-55 was the professional option for video shooters who often own full-frame cameras.)

Having recently completed a survey from CPS, I can tell you they seem rather desperate to get data on why their members own and use 3rd party mirrorless cameras, especially in regards to video...


----------



## hendrik-sg (May 13, 2017)

All canon will tell us, is pure marketing talk. So no creditability at all, for any reason why they are the only major manufacturer, who not offers such a lens.

Few things i would set as a fact:

- Recently, canon did not release any lens which is not really great, at least on the higher level lenses (questionable if the new 24-105 belongs to them).
- so maybe they would not release such a lens, if it is not as goood as the current one (the nikon is much worse then the unstabilized one).
- it's not about "adding" IS, it would be a completely different construction, and as it seems a complicated one with difficult compromises.
- maybe, all should buy the current one first, and the IS version is hold back. This is NOT a fact, we do not know it. But in this difficult market they probably would not refuse to sell what they can produce.
- they would sell it expensively
- i would like to buy one

What we not know, maybe there is someting even more spectacular in the making.... maybe F2.0 zooms with with smaller zoom ratios AND IS. as it seems we get the first 85 1.4 IS lens available, and the 11-24 is quite innovative as well.


----------



## ahsanford (May 14, 2017)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Can't believe V2 of the Tamron is coming out Nikon has a 24-70 f/2.8 IS and Canon still doesn't have a response launched.



Fixed that for you. 

Canon, as a general rule, doesn't ever respond to _Tamron_. (One might argue they are just barely beginning to respond to Sigma after a killing streak of a number of years now.)

- A


----------



## james75 (May 14, 2017)

smithcon said:


> After becoming smitten with a 5-axis IBIS-equipped camera from another manufacturer, I would much rather see Canon incorporate IBIS -- one intelligent enough to work in concert with lens IS for their existing and future IS equipped lenses. I would love to have that option when working with my non-IS Canon lenses, and what the heck, with my IS-equipped EOS lenses as well.



That would be nice if the rumored 6dii had in body stabilization, but I'm just dreaming. Just bought recently a very clean used copy of the 24-70ii and it's a great lens. I wish it had IS, as I don't have the steadiest hands.


----------



## rang (May 14, 2017)

Per the last few years and Canon's progress in actually getting the IS version of this lens *on the street*. For years it was "oh you don't need IS in a mid range zoom (forget the idea of following around any wedding photog worth their salt around a fast paced wedding) .... "Yada, yada, yada" to this rumor.

Watch what Tamron does with their current version on the 24-70 f2.8 VC. It should follow what they did with their 70-200 f2.8 VC *G2* which is very nice. Should address the summer time blues.

-Sorely disappointed Canon shooter.


----------



## grainier (May 14, 2017)

The sales of the current version must have levelled off.


----------



## infared (May 14, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> So, we're looking at probably close to $2,500 for this lens, weight well north of a kilo, and image quality no better than the 24-70 II (because, well, you can't really top that)
> 
> It's going to be hard to justify the extra expense upgrading from the current 24-70 to this one.
> 
> Yet I know I will have to do exactly that



Well..
I paid $2299 (ouch!) for the 24-70mm f/2.8 II on introduction back in Nov. 2012!.....so I would expect this proposed lens to be introduced at a considerably higher price 6 years later and also including IS. Buckle-up boys!
I am very happy with this piece of glass and would have no desire to upgrade (and take another financial bath in Canon soap suds ), what with the quality of the high ISO output of my 5D IV, I am all good here. 8)


----------



## nonac (May 14, 2017)

Sounds like the "target market users" need to hit the gym. I just got home from 6 hours in the blazing sun shooting track and field and a baseball game with a hand held 1dX with a 300 2.8L attached to it. I also had a gripped 5d3 with a 70-200 2.8l around my neck.


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> People would gleefully pony up their cash for such a lens, even if it was 4-6 ounces heavier than the non-IS version.
> 
> - A



100% correct!


----------



## jd7 (May 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wouldn't care about weight. For some reason I like heavy lenses. I've not missed IS on my 24-70 f/2.8L II, but it would still be tempting if I didn't have s o many other lenses I want.
> 
> Thank you Canon, for all your great lenses!



Guess we will get some sort of indication about how much weight matters for this type of lens by the response to the Sigma 24-70 OS Art when it arrives (and assuming it is otherwise up to snuff). I have to say my interest in that lens did cool a bit when I discovered it weighs 1 kg. No doubt that reflects the fact I am interested in a 24-70 as a general purpose walk around lens though (rather than, say, for professional events or sports work) - and I will wait to see reviews and price before coming to any firm conclusions.

Will be interesting to see what size and weight the upcoming Tamron 24-70 VC G2 is too. As others have already noted, Tamron's current 24-70 VC comes in only very slightly heavier than Canon's 24-70 2.8L II. If Tamron came make the G2 no heavier than it's current one, and it's up to the standard of the 70-200 G2 (not that I've used one, but its getting excellent reviews), it should make for a very interesting option.


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2017)

jd7 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't care about weight. For some reason I like heavy lenses. I've not missed IS on my 24-70 f/2.8L II, but it would still be tempting if I didn't have s o many other lenses I want.
> ...



I have no idea as to the Sigma or Tamron weights vs the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, but the Canon has become my favorite walk around lens. Keep in mind though that my only primes are the 35 f/1.4 and the 135 f/2. The rest of what I have are heavy zooms... so I have no real lightweight choice in a zoom and probably couldn't live with just 35mm attached. I should try that out though.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (May 14, 2017)

Canon take my money!


----------



## Jopa (May 14, 2017)

Hallelujah!


----------



## pwp (May 14, 2017)

Don't hold your breath for this one. Just think back to the years-long wait for the the 24-70 f/2.8II to finally be released. After five pretty hopeless copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI, I got a great copy of ther24-105 f/4is as a temporary measure just to see me through until the 24-70 f/2.8II shipped. That was four years of waiting and "coming-soon" rumors on this site...

In the meantime, that lens really woke me up to the value of IS in shorter focal lengths. My 24-70 f/2.8II is nothing less than amazing, but I'd be first in line for the upcoming IS version even with inevitable price and weight penalties. 

-pw


----------



## jd7 (May 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have no idea as to the Sigma or Tamron weights vs the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, but the Canon has become my favorite walk around lens. Keep in mind though that my only primes are the 35 f/1.4 and the 135 f/2. The rest of what I have are heavy zooms... so I have no real lightweight choice in a zoom and probably couldn't live with just 35mm attached. I should try that out though.



If you're interested

TDP says 805g for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II and 825g for the current Tamron 24-70 VC (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx),

Sigma says 1020g for the upcoming 24-70 Art (http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_24_70_28/specifications/).


----------



## rwvaughn (May 14, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I believe Canon hasn't offered as a 24-70 f/2.8L IS because they believe it won't be as profitable as commercializing _other _ new lenses or because Nikon's 24-70 2.8 IS offering hasn't flipped many Canon people over and isn't a major threat to market share.
> 
> - A



Having experience with both Nikon and Canon systems I will tell you that the Nikon 24-70 2.8 IS is a turd of a lens. The 17-55 2.8 on a D500 is sharper than the 24-70 on a D5.


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2017)

Three points to contribute...

1
The decision to ditch IS in the development on of the last 24-70L has to be seen in the context of the day:
- Pros were snitty about IS. Some still are. It was seen as more a consumer thing than it is today. Just look at the reaction to people when they launched the 16-35 f/5 L IS. 
- Sigma hadn't yet spanked Canon on lens development for four years running with lenses that were very, very heavy. I credit Sigma with breaking through to pros with the idea that you could add a pound to a lens and potentially beat other pros with IQ. Sigma actually has now changed the very impression you get when you hold a lens for the first time. If it's small and light, there's a little shrug inside you, and you assume it can't be quite the best. But this wasn't yet true back then.
- Finally, the perception back then was that the low- and mid-range camera market wasn't going to evaporate, and having reasonably sized lenses was a necessity. No one really predicted the degree to which the DSLR lens market that did remain would have moved so far upscale. IQ became the paramount feature after 2012, where before it was more of a balanced logic in a wider market. 

2
My impression is that IS does slightly degrade sharpness because of the introduction of another optical element. There is a cutthroat competition between Sigma, Tamron and Canon with their upcoming 24-70s, and none of them want to be the loser to this coming competition. That Tamron was able to provide amazing sharpness with its VC feature (its 85mm f/1.8 VC is superb, approaching Sigma IQ) means that now the others probably have to give it a go as well. 

3
I'm curious as to Sigmas coming model, as they've done so well with some zooms of late, but all of them have been unusually narrow ranges of focal lengths. I'm interested to see if they can deliver that same IQ over such a wide range.


----------



## JoSto (May 14, 2017)

Of course, this lense does look fine on paper but im curious about the price tag. 

The EF 24-70mm 2.8 II is about 1800€ incl taxes in Europe right now and this is quite much for an standard zoom lens. Sharpness is already very good so I don't know if an added IS is worth 1200€ because I expect the Lens to cost 3000€ or more.

IMHO this would be too much for a standard zoom, especially because the is the f4 IS if you dont need fast shutter speed.


----------



## mb66energy (May 14, 2017)

I am very interested in such a lens. I dream of an affordable two-body-two-lens solution. While the f/4 70-200 IS USM is a great lens for the tele range I cannot decide between 16-35 and 24-70 (IS USM f/4 versions) - 16-35 is too wide for me, in the 24-70 range I would like a larger aperture for smaller DOF but also IS to free me from tripods under normal conditions.
Maybe I should use my old-fashioned 28-70 more often to see if I would like thes FL range ...

Ideally Canon would relase a f/4 20-60 f/4 IS USM + a f/1.4 50mm IS USM but this will never happen. This would lead to a two-body-THREE-lens solution but with much greater flexibility!

So ... still waiting for solutions for my needs ... and saving lots of money


----------



## jd7 (May 14, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> I am very interested in such a lens. I dream of an affordable two-body-two-lens solution. While the f/4 70-200 IS USM is a great lens for the tele range I cannot decide between 16-35 and 24-70 (IS USM f/4 versions) - 16-35 is too wide for me, in the 24-70 range I would like a larger aperture for smaller DOF but also IS to free me from tripods under normal conditions.
> Maybe I should use my old-fashioned 28-70 more often to see if I would like thes FL range ...
> 
> Ideally Canon would relase a f/4 20-60 f/4 IS USM + a f/1.4 50mm IS USM but this will never happen. This would lead to a two-body-THREE-lens solution but with much greater flexibility!
> ...



Make that a 20-60 f/2.8 IS USM and I reckon I'm in!


----------



## douglaurent (May 14, 2017)

Extreme shameful Canon doesn't have a stabilized 24-70/2.8, especially as the bodies are not stabilized. It always sucks to work like that. Canon has the only system without stabilization in a 24-70 zoom range now. 

Third parties soon will already have 3 alternatives for EF mount. 2017 might be the historic year where a Canon camera user could work professionally without using one single piece of Canon glass.

Panasonic and Olympus have show that sensor stabilization can be way more effective than lens stabilization, so even if at some point Canon comes up with it, it is already behind.

Canon needs to wake up. You lose your reputation, which might not be reflected in today's, but tomorrow numbers.


----------



## hbr (May 14, 2017)

And you can still stand up? I would be in a wheelchair for a week.

LOL, Brian


----------



## slclick (May 14, 2017)

Patience. It will happen and it will blow all 3rd party early to the party glass out of the water. Yes, it will cost more, perhaps it will weigh more. 

But no one will look at the images and say "OMG it's so gorgeous, did the lens weigh a ton?"


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 14, 2017)

Always a little curious that such a "leak" comes from Canon just about the time that the Sigma 24-70 OS ART and Tamron 24-70 VC G2 are about to come to market.

Hmmm, kind of reminds me of how the "leak" about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS came about the time that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART came to market. Of course, we have yet to see that lens.



slclick said:


> Patience. It will happen and it will blow all 3rd party early to the party glass out of the water. Yes, it will cost more, perhaps it will weigh more.



That remains to be seen. Those of us who actually test lenses found that the Canon 24-70L II was better than, say, the Tamron 24-70 VC, but barely so, and not at all focal lengths...and at twice the price. I fully anticipate that the G2 version will significantly close that gap on all fronts and still undercut the current version in price. It's been a long time since I have seen a lens blow away the competition...the competition is just too good, and at the moment we are at a point of diminishing returns.


----------



## RGF (May 14, 2017)

The F4 IS is a great lens and light weight. Don't see the need for 

F2.8 non-IS
F2.8 IS
F4 IS

Perhaps the F2.8 IS is someone's pet project?


----------



## Ozarker (May 14, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Always a little curious that such a "leak" comes from Canon just about the time that the Sigma 24-70 OS ART and Tamron 24-70 VC G2 are about to come to market.
> 
> Hmmm, kind of reminds me of how the "leak" about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS came about the time that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART came to market. Of course, we have yet to see that lens.
> 
> ...



Dustin, I read your reviews and trust them more than any other reviews... even though I nearly always choose Canon.

Do you think third party manufacturers are starting to close the AF gap? That is something that really means a lot to me. I think the BR is big too. CA can be a real problem with my 135L at times. In fact, BR would weigh heavily on me when deciding to upgrade or not.

I've got a feeling every new lens is going to have BR. It seems very effective on the 35L. I think the 24-70 will have it and the new 135 and 85 to. I guess that and IS are the carrots on the end of the stick now.


----------



## romanr74 (May 14, 2017)

Cochese said:


> Dear Canon:
> Nobody gives a S___ if the lens is a little bit heavier so long as it's quality is worth the exorbitant price you're going to charge for it over your competitors.
> 
> Signed: Literally everybody forever.
> ...



It is perfectly ok if you just only talk for yourself. I'll express my opinion myself if you don't mind...


----------



## Surfwooder (May 14, 2017)

It's about time! I've been carrying my Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC USM now for events, festivals, wildlife, and a multitude of other subjects. I've never considered the weight, I just carried the lens. My recent house hunting expedition to New Hampshire, it never left the mount on my Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, as I shot the properties and interior of prospective homes. Tamron is now developing a follow up version, the G2, I'm sure will be coming with better image quality, and VC. If Canon thinks IS in this range is not marketable, Canon should think again, and rush to the table.


----------



## michi (May 14, 2017)

I have a 24-70L 2.8. The AF has really come alive now that I have a 5DIV. Always tack sharp. I always eyed the II version but couldn't really justify the money for the small quality improvement. If there was a III with IS, and it would approach the $2,000 at some point, I would probably get one unless Sigma beats them to the punch, which I have the feeling will happen.
I don't know why people try to justify IS for this or that focal length. Heck, I would take it for my 15mm fisheye if I can squeeze a longer exposure without tripod out of it. Just put it in the body already, Canon...


----------



## jalbfb (May 14, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Always a little curious that such a "leak" comes from Canon just about the time that the Sigma 24-70 OS ART and Tamron 24-70 VC G2 are about to come to market.
> 
> Hmmm, kind of reminds me of how the "leak" about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS came about the time that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART came to market. Of course, we have yet to see that lens.
> 
> ...



Totally agree with Dustin on this one. I am anxious to see what Tamron's G2 of this lens looks like (more than likely like all of their SP series) and performs. Canon, when and if they do release their IS version, will more than likely be cost prohibitive except for the very rich among us or high end pros. When Tamron comes out with its G2 version, I'll take a good look at it anymore than likely pull the trigger and get it rather than wait for Canon to release a much higher priced piece of glass whose IQ difference may not be worth the extra dollars or euros.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 14, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Always a little curious that such a "leak" comes from Canon just about the time that the Sigma 24-70 OS ART and Tamron 24-70 VC G2 are about to come to market.
> ...



I've really been surprised at the new lenses that have NOT received the BR element. I would anticipate that the 85 IS would have it, but in truth we've heard so little detail about the lens that I don't know what to expect. But yes, the 35L II is special. I own it and love it, but I also know a lot of people look at the Sigma 35 ART and say that it is "good enough" - particularly for the difference in price.


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2017)

I would not be as pessimistic on the price issue. When the version two of the Canon lens was released there really wasn't much in the way of competition. The fact that there is competition now, and that two very proven competitors are coming out with new versions, all indicates to me that Canon is going to have to bend its pricing curve if it wishes to maximize revenue on this project. My guess is $2.2k usd. Not that this is cheap.

Btw, +1 for Dustin on his observation re: recent vaporware rumors timed to third party actual releases. He pointed out the 85 example. The 70-200 talk prior to that was another.


----------



## slclick (May 15, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Always a little curious that such a "leak" comes from Canon just about the time that the Sigma 24-70 OS ART and Tamron 24-70 VC G2 are about to come to market.
> 
> Hmmm, kind of reminds me of how the "leak" about the Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS came about the time that the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART came to market. Of course, we have yet to see that lens.
> 
> ...



As long as the 70-200 2.8 Mark 2? 

I owned the latest Tammy 24-70 prior to this G2 we're waiting on and it left me wanting. The current Canon version hits all the check boxes, especially since I'm not that big on IS for less than 100mm. Personally I will have no GAS and that is huge. I hate gear temptation.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 15, 2017)

Does the VC in the Tammy G2s have a panning mode? If so, how well does it work?


----------



## scottkinfw (May 15, 2017)

I have the 24-70 2.8 II L and absolutely love it. It is tack sharp, excellent color and contrast. No distortion. 

For one thing, I have had some L lenses that were duds in the past, so I wouldn't want to risk losing a share thing. I might be tempted by the new lens IF it came with a significant improvement in iq- but this would be very difficult.

Finally, I am starting to lust after maybe a 12- 24, or perhaps a 500mm, and I have to save for them.

sek


----------



## clicstudio (May 15, 2017)

Enough with 24-70 2.8's. There are dozens of different companies making the exact same thing. 
Extend the range to at least 24-100 and then we get something more useful and different. 
Or make a 24-70 2.0 or something...
I can't believe technology hasn't evolved enough to do something better :


----------



## infared (May 15, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Yes, the 35mm f/1.4L II is special. So is the Sigma 135mm f/1.8mm. There are so many great lenses and cameras to choose from these days. It is a great time to be a photographer.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 15, 2017)

clicstudio said:


> Enough with 24-70 2.8's. There are dozens of different companies making the exact same thing.
> Extend the range to at least 24-100 and then we get something more useful and different.
> Or make a 24-70 2.0 or something...
> I can't believe technology hasn't evolved enough to do something better :



Harder than you think. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is already softer at 70mm than at 24mm, and the IQ of the 24-70 f/2.8 II is better than either Sigma's 24-105A f/4 and Canon's 24-105 f/4 IS II.


----------



## BeenThere (May 15, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > Enough with 24-70 2.8's. There are dozens of different companies making the exact same thing.
> ...


Better zooms moves in the direction of larger and heavier; not what most want in a zoom. For better performance, look to some of the excellent primes.


----------



## Ladislav (May 15, 2017)

Seriously, this is the most depressing rumor I have seen here for ages. It actually does not rumor anything. It is like a copy of rumor released about 2 years ago ...

[rant begin]
_Dear Canon, just cut of the bull***t and give me the lens! I don't give a s**t if it is 100g heavier than the non-IS one, so if that is your biggest concert, go straight to manufacture._
[rant end]


----------



## Pixel (May 17, 2017)

The version II is simply too good of a lens to justify the cost of replacing it only for IS. Talk to me in five or six years when it HAS to be replaced.


----------



## pokerz (May 18, 2017)

justaCanonuser said:


> Just remember the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD: only 825 g with a very good IS (VC), Canon's current F 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM weighs only 20 g less. I never understood the argument that Canon abandoned IS because they were concerned about weight. If the Mark III version of this lens would include IS, I'd really make up my mind about upgrading to Canon's zoom. The Tamron is quite an impressive lens, given its price, but its AF isn't too reliable so I did lose some otherwise nice shots with it (yes, I AFMAd my Tamron).


So that you will have to pay more in 2470L IS


----------



## Ozarker (May 19, 2017)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



 My mistake. For some reason I thought the 35II was the first, but also thought it was being implemented on all new lenses since inception. I didn't realize it wasn't. I guess that shows what happens when one gets tunnel vision and only looking at the lenses I'm interested in. I wonder why it isn't being put into all the new lenses? Anybody's guess, I guess.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 20, 2017)

I do wonder how much stuff Canon considers to be in "active development".

For example, Apple had the Intel version of OS X in the lab from day 1 and ready to be decanted whenever necessary. It would be surprising if Canon didn't have a 24-70/2.8IS design ready to be sent to the factories whenever it became a big enough problem not having one (as has been said on this thread, they must have designed the current one to have a place to add it), even if they're still trying to find a way to pull the weight and price down if they can. This also means I assume they have a FF mirrorless body and mount that they could send to the factories if the market suddenly turned. They're certainly still working on improving it, I'd assume, but it would surprise me if they didn't have the design ready for "wow, the Sony freaks are actually right and we're losing sales, we need to pounce now". Even if that's just a 5D body with the mirror removed and an EVF, using a regular EF lens mount.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 20, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



I think price is a factor. It's a very expensive addition, and may not work the same in every optical formula. It worked a treat in the 35L II, but we've not really seen a major high end prime release from Canon since. Some zooms, but the BR didn't make it into the 16-35L III or the 24-105L II for some reason.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 20, 2017)

I REALLY hope this is not true! A 24-70 F2.8 L IS, why would Canon spoil such a lovely lens!


----------



## brad-man (May 21, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> I REALLY hope this is not true! A 24-70 F2.8 L IS, why would Canon spoil such a lovely lens!




I just don't understand posts like this. We get it. YOU don't like IS, and because YOU don't like it, nobody else should either, right? Never mind that the release of a new 24-70 f/2.8L IS will not effect your or future copies of the v2 in any way. YOU don't think it should even exist :


----------



## LesC (May 21, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> I REALLY hope this is not true! A 24-70 F2.8 L IS, why would Canon spoil such a lovely lens!



How would IS spoil a lens? 

If it means being able to get sharper results at even lower shutter speeds, then great.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 21, 2017)

Because IS inevitably involves both optical and constructional compromises. Were we back in the film days or looking at cheap cameras/lenses then I have no problem with IS. When IS was introduced it was a life saver for photographers!

These days with higher end cameras and lenses I find that IS has more drawbacks than advantages. The impaired AF and tracking is more of a problem for me than learning to hold a lens steady or bumping ISO a little. So I do not like IS.

You probably consider me as mad as a box of Frogs ;D That's absolutely fine! However, if you do not live too far from South Wales I am more than happy to demonstrate the advantages of not using IS and, if we are lucky, introduce you to some other photographers who have benefited from disabling their stabilisers.

I have 4 Canon IS lenses (16-35 F4 L IS, 100-400 Mk2 L IS, 300 F2.8 L IS and 800 F5.6 L IS) - do I turn IS off to make a point or to spite myself? Err - no! I do it because I get better results - unfortunately turning IS off does not help with composition or inspiration - sorry! I have found a marked improvement, especially with moving or unpredictable subjects, so should I not share?


----------

