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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 12, 2018)

```
We continue to hear that an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is in development, while we don’t believe it’s on the 2018 road map at this time, we are confident such a lens is coming.</p>
<p>The latest source claims that the lens is in the final stages of development and that the next phase will be testing by select photographers and manufacturing planning.</p>
<p>We haen’t seen any new 24-70mm optical formula patents for quite some time, but if this lens is in late stage development, we expect to see some clues over the coming months.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 12, 2018)

Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?


----------



## kiwiengr (Mar 12, 2018)

One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.


----------



## bsbeamer (Mar 12, 2018)

Been waiting for a long time... finally can maybe replace the Tamron F2.8 VC?


----------



## DrToast (Mar 12, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?



It's not certain that a Canon version of the lens would have worse IQ. Adding IS doesn't always make a lens worse in that department. The 70-200 f/2.8 has IS and it's spectacular.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

DrToast said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?
> ...



The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 12, 2018)

I'm all for IS in any lens. Frankly though, I have not missed not having it on my 24-70. Mine would have to disintegrate before I upgrade. Glad Canon is adding IS.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> DrToast said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



it just proves that IS in a lens does not CAUSE an IQ hit ... or only *if poorly implemented* ...

Canon EF 70-200 4 L IS walks circles around the non-IS version in IQ as well ... and IS version is not even (really) larger or heavier either ... just a lot more expensive (as a consequence of too many stupid buyers willing to pay almost any premium).


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DrToast said:
> ...



Or maybe the 70-200 f4 L IS more expensive because Canon chose to equip the lens with a fluorite element. Stupid Canon making great lenses with stupid fluorite.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DrToast said:
> ...



The faster the lens, the more difficult it is to implement IS.


----------



## jayjay88 (Mar 12, 2018)

oh good to know. really looking forward to this anyway


----------



## SV (Mar 12, 2018)

It's about time! How many lens formula patents does Canon have over the years for this unicorn?!?!


----------



## Talys (Mar 12, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.



I own the 24-105 (Mk1) and the 24-70 f/4 IS. Having used both extensively for product stills, I am quite sure that the 24-70/4 produces better images at both ends of the focal range and especially at f/4. 

However, I keep the 24-105, because the top end of that zoom is super useful for portraits, and in a lot of my portrait shots, I'm not really concerned about the corners anyways.

If Canon puts out a top-of-the-line 24-70 f/2.8 IS -- IQ as good as the non-IS -- I will buy it!


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 12, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.



Take another look at the 24-70 2.8 L II. Mine is tack sharp, excellent IQ, and is simply an awesome lens.

Scott


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

scottkinfw said:


> kiwiengr said:
> 
> 
> > One hopes that improvement can be made in the performance of a zoom lens of this length. I currently use the original 24 ~ 105 L IS and, whilst adequate, nothing more recent out there in that range or 24 ~ 70 from either Canon or Sigma warrants stumping up the dosh.
> ...



+1, I had two copies of the original 24-105/4L IS, and the 24-70/2.8L II delivers much better IQ. Having said that, if shooting studio portraits, where you're generally stopped down to f/8 of f/11, there's really not much difference. But then, in those conditions an EF-S 18-135mm would likely do just as well.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 12, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?


Yes. A thousand times over. IS means so much more than a clearer test chart. Camera shake spoils clarity way more than a slightly softer lens.


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2018)

Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?


----------



## shutterlag (Mar 12, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?



The Tamron 24-70 VC has been around for years and clocks in just a hair behind the Canon mk2. The real answer it to swap to a system that has IBIS and then this is a non-issue.


----------



## Ladislav (Mar 12, 2018)

For God's sake just release it! These rumors are coming for how long? Five years? My Tamron is slowly falling apart. I will need a new standard zoom soon and it looks like I will have to go either for 24-70/4 or 24-105/4 Mk.II. I checked my catalog and found that I need IS more often than 2.8 max aperture but I of course prefer to have both instead of having two lenses for different purposes.


----------



## mppix (Mar 12, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Hi IQ - small size/weight - inexpensive -> you can get only two


----------



## traveller (Mar 12, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Nikon 24-70 2.8 VR is no where as good as their non VR lens. Even Sigmas 24-70 OS is not as good as Canons L non IS lens. So is the compromise of reduced IQ worth to photographers over non IS lens with better IQ?



That's a lot of very sweeping statement that you made in one short comment! First up, I disagree with your assessment that the 24-70 f/2.8 VR is "no where as good as their non VR lens", unless you are simply referring to resolution in the central part of the imaging circle in the 24-50mm focal length range. At 70mm, the VR lens is clearly better across the image circle. At 24mm and 50mm (to quote Roger Cicala -which he would hate): 

"...Nikon has made a design choice with the new lens, and the design choice wasn’t ‘let’s make it look great for the bench testers’. They’ve given up the absolute best center resolution in exchange for good resolution across the entire image field. So in the center 1/3 of the image, the old lens had better MTF results, but across the remainder of the field the newer lens is far superior. Not just that the resolution is better, but there is very little astigmatism, which the old lens had in spades." [https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-ed-af-s-vr-sharpness-optical-bench-testing/]

No quite as clear cut as your sweeping statement presents. Nikon made a choice with the design of the new VR lens' optical characteristics, just one of the many trade-offs they had to make, including increased size, weight and price. Indeed, I seem to remember that size and weight was the reason that Canon gave for not including IS in the the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, rather than concerns over resolution (following feedback from professional customers, who have the lens hanging around their neck all day). The Sigma lens is a bit of a dud (though not so bad at the long end), so I'm not quite sure what their design choices were, but the earlier (pre-Art) non-OS version wasn't any better. Tamron's 24-70 f/2.8 VC is also superior to the non-VR Nikon away from dead centre. 

To summarise, I think that it is too simple to make the statement that adding image stabilisation will inevitably compromise resolution. For sure, adding another variable to the len's design isn't going to make life any easier for the designer, but the outcome will depend upon the balance of priorities that has been set (probably by the marketing team).


----------



## kaws (Mar 12, 2018)

I'm excited for this!

The 24-70 f2.8L II is the *only* piece of equipment i;ve run across, as opposed to practice and learning better technique, that has made me a better photographer.


It's taken my *good* shots, ones I'd have been proud of taking with my 50mm f1.4 or the 135mm zoom, and made them *magic*.


I'm not shy about letting trusted friends use my 24-70, and *they've* all felt the same. Hell, this lens makes the shots that otherwise would have been thrown away at least moderately useful.


While I admit I'm not a professional, and I've not naturally a visually conscience person (I slid into photography from photogrammetry), The results I'm getting from this lens make it difficult to set the camera down....and I've had the privilege of playing with a substantial amount of high end gear.


So if the IQ of the IS is on par, or better, I'm getting this. I do a fair bit of impromptu indoor and firelight photography, and having a couple of stops of extra headroom will be bloody fantastic.


It would be cool if they could make the IS one a bit better for video, but that's *definitely* not a deal breaker for me. I'd like to play with video, but unfortunately the price of the gear is simply absurd...


----------



## 3dit0r (Mar 12, 2018)

dolina said:


> Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?



Nikon already have one.

I’d upgrade to this in a heartbeat. Bring it on. Surprised it’s taken them this long.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Mar 12, 2018)

Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way. Sigma is almost close.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 12, 2018)

AuroraChaserDoug said:


> Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. *Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way.* Sigma is almost close.



I'm always surprised by this attitude. I should qualify this by stating that I don't shoot fast action very often. Is it annoying? Certainly. Is it a deal-breaker? Certainly not. Of course, YMMV.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 12, 2018)

So glad I have the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 Non IS - I certainly won't be buying an IS version - still if it keeps others happy?


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 12, 2018)

brad-man said:


> AuroraChaserDoug said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. *Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way.* Sigma is almost close.
> ...


I've got the Tamron 24-70 G1 along with Sigma primes, Canon primes and the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I can't say I've ever had a problem with the different focus and zoom directions either. Even when I do make a mistake it takes like a half second before I realise I've moved something in the wrong way and go back the other direction. 
Yeah if we were talking about a top action lens like the 70-200s or 100-400s I can see how that little moment of hesitation before correcting yourself might get in the way of fast sports or I can see how it could be a problem for the kind of focal length where you swap it out often. But a 24-70 is the kind of thing you put on your camera to use for the whole day and it's not like anybody is shooting the 1000m sprint at the Olympics with it. I can't even imagine it being a problem for that lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 13, 2018)

mppix said:


> Hi IQ - small size/weight - inexpensive -> you can get only two



not true. 

Even Canon manages to get all 3 from every once in a while. 
EF-M 22/2.0 really small. excellent IQ. dirt cheap. 
EF-M 11-22 - really small. arguably best IQ of all (crop) UWAs on market. inexpensive 
EF 40/2.8 STM ... dito
EF-S 60/2.8 Macro ... dito
and some more ...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 13, 2018)

As far as 24-70/2.8 IS is concerned: Canon lost me on that one. Would have bought it 2 years ago. Had to settle for non-IS Mk. II because innovative Canon was not able to stick an IS unit into that lens then. Now, in 2018 ... I will definitely not buy any other mirrorslapper lens any longer ... no matter how big, small or good it may be.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Mar 13, 2018)

I've been holding off on the 24-70 range because of the IS version. I really want IS for video but also the 2.8 for low light action. I hate to have to purchase the same focal length twice, one with 2.8 non-IS and the other 4 IS.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Mar 13, 2018)

brad-man said:


> AuroraChaserDoug said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. *Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way.* Sigma is almost close.
> ...





brad-man said:


> AuroraChaserDoug said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. *Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way.* Sigma is almost close.
> ...



I made this statement after shooting a dodsled race with 70-200 @f/8 1/1000 ISO 400 (thin cloud layer), which doesn't need IS at all. Looking at the images, I wish I had the 24-70, since it would have given me a wider FOV with a bit of the Alaska Range in the background. (Snow was deep, so I couldn't add FOV with my feet.) Wouldn't need IS or f/2.8 for this but then there was my daughter's performance last week that a 24-70 f/2.8 IS would have been very useful. In the UWA lens segment, I opted for the Tamron 15-30 over the Canon 16-35 because of IS. The Tamron will easily flair and I'm always turning it the wrong direction. So, my choices to make are real and based on need and usage. A Canon 24-70 f/2.8 IS would be an instant buy for me.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 13, 2018)

If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it, but the IS part would find limited use, my subjects tend to move.


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it, but the IS part would find limited use, my subjects tend to move.



A lot of it has to do with your "next lens" in that focal range, for whatever reason. I mean, if you had to buy a 70-200/2.8, the chances of buying a non-IS new is pretty slim. The IS is still nice to have to compensate for my own movements.

The price will slowly narrow, and at some point, the IS will be nice for a new purchase, and the non-IS will be wonderfully less expensive, with some great deals used.


----------



## dolina (Mar 13, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?
> ...


Awesome to know Nikon has one already. I want to sell my 24-70/2.8 without IS for a 24-70/2.8 with IS.

And I think Sony's 24-70 already has IS on the lens and image sensor.


----------



## gmrza (Mar 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



There is a separate question about what the use cases are where IS is important. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is one of the most important lenses for event and press photographers. Most of them shoot subjects which are moving (at least slowly) which generally requires shutter speeds fast enough to make IS relatively unimportant. A 70-200mm lens is also very important for these photographers, but there the need for IS is fairly obvious, as there is often a need to shoot at or just under 1/100s.

I think a lot of photographers would not replace a 24-70 f/2.8 non-IS lens with one that has IS, quite simply because IS is not that critical at those focal lengths. When in the market for a new lens, however, having IS would do no harm, provided IQ is not impacted.


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

dolina said:


> 3dit0r said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



The Nikon 24-70/2.8 VR is inferior optically to the non image stabilized version. In addition, it's huge at 155mm at 1070g. To put it in perspective, in comparison, the Canon 24-70 is 113mm and 807g. 

The Sony does not have optical stabilization and it is 136mm and 886g, but that's just like every other Sony pro lens - what they took out of the camera body in flange in the body, they add back in the lens.


----------



## BillB (Mar 13, 2018)

gmrza said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



No harm, but an IS version will be more expensive and it may well be heavier. We can anticipate the whining about the price. It will be a Canon lens after all. There is always whining about the price.


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

BillB said:


> No harm, but an IS version will be more expensive and it may well be heavier. We can anticipate the whining about the price. It will be a Canon lens after all. There is always whining about the price.



At least it will not be the price of a Sony lens 

People complain about the price of everything, Hehe he.


----------



## Ladislav (Mar 13, 2018)

brad-man said:


> AuroraChaserDoug said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I use my Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS on my 70D, the need for a 24-70 2.8 IS in my 5D kit becomes apparent. But why offer the perfect lens when can sell 3 slightly compromised lenses with the 24-70 2.8 having great glass, 24-70 f/4 IS having good glass and IS and 24-105 f/4 IS having longer reach. *Tamron is close but zooms the wrong way.* Sigma is almost close.
> ...



I also used to be surprised before I purchased second body and shot event with Canon lens on one body and Tamron on the second one. Mistakes then become much more frequent and I missed quite a few very good shots just because I zoomed other way and that half second to get back was enough to be too late.

Apart from that Tamron has quite few other more severe issues which would make me swap it for Canon IS version instantly.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 14, 2018)

gmrza said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I agree completely, gmrza. I've been surprised by how often I choose this lens (24-70 f/2.8L II) for portraits. I'm a shade tree photographer, far from being a pro, so this really surprised me. IS would have been a nice feature to have at the time of purchase, but I'm not going to shell out the $$$$ for a new one with IS as long as I have this one. People with deeper pockets, people replacing an old or broken lens, or people just getting into this lens might. Not me.

If a really good 135 f/2L IS hits the stores... I'm probably all in. 24-70 with IS? Not too critical for what I do. I'm sure it will be a fantastic lens though!


----------



## Talys (Mar 14, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> IS would have been a nice feature to have at the time of purchase, but I'm not going to shell out the $$$$ for a new one with IS as long as I have this one. People with deeper pockets, people replacing an old or broken lens, or people just getting into this lens might. Not me.



I would only consider one, because I cheaped out on my last 24-70 and bought the f/4 IS 

I agree with you, though: for the majority of us non-pro's not earning big bucks on that FL, the current 24-70/2.8 is a spectacular lens that produces photos that always impress me. It's hard to imagine replacing it just to get IS. 

On the other hand, there are lot of new 24-70's sold, and if I were making a decision between IS and no IS, assuming similar IQ, that would probably be an easy choice if the price and size weren't drastically more.


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 14, 2018)

gmrza said:


> There is a separate question about what the use cases are where IS is important. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is one of the most important lenses for event and press photographers. Most of them shoot subjects which are moving (at least slowly) which generally requires shutter speeds fast enough to make IS relatively unimportant.



I think the biggest thing for me though, as a press photog, is versatility. I don't find myself needing IS much at those focal lengths, sure, but if Canon releases this at a price that isn't astronomical, I would probably replace my 24-70. 

Nowadays I find myself shooting video pretty often in the line of work, which makes IS a godsend without a tripod. I currently tend to use my 16-35mm f/4L IS for that, but all too often I don't have time to switch lenses, especially at breaking news. On top of video, stabilizing the viewfinder while shooting makes composing easier, even on the ultrawide 16-35. 

Although it tends to get cliche if you do it too often, I do find myself attempting wide-angle panning shots with the 24-70, and IS would be a huuuge help for those kinds of shots, as well as the large amount of static scenes you stumble upon on a regular day of assignments.


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2018)

I'd love to see announcements for older lenses being updated as opposed to perfectly fine recently made workhorses. We all know which focal lengths I'm referring to.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 14, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it, but the IS part would find limited use, my subjects tend to move.
> ...



As the focal length gets longer, IS can compensate for my movements, for shorter focal lengths, IS is less important. Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.


----------



## Ladislav (Mar 14, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.



Isn't this the reason why you can turn the IS off on every Canon lens which have one? On the other hand, you can't turn it on, if it does not have one.


----------



## lexaclarke (Mar 14, 2018)

It really doesn't take 1-3 seconds for a lens to stabilise. On my Tamron 24-70 G1 it's about half a second when coming totally out of sleep and on my Canon 70-200 f/4 it's stable in the blink of an eye.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 14, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.





lexaclarke said:


> It really doesn't take 1-3 seconds for a lens to stabilise. On my Tamron 24-70 G1 it's about half a second when coming totally out of sleep and on my Canon 70-200 f/4 it's stable in the blink of an eye.



I must be doing something wrong, because I have never had to wait 1-3 seconds for a Canon lens to stabilize. Maybe some very old IS lenses were slow, but that has not been my experience with any recent lenses. 

I leave IS on almost all the time and even shooting sports at high shutter speeds with IS on I have never had any problems. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If the optical performance is significantly better, and it focuses closer, I'd consider it, but the IS part would find limited use, my subjects tend to move.



It depends on what you mean by "tend to move." Most humans (and probably a lot of animals) don't move constantly, but pause frequently. I've shot speakers and performers at 1/15 of a second with a telephoto zoom and if you time it right you can catch them when they are sufficiently still to avoid motion blur. Some of the best shots are when you get their face sharp, but their hands are slightly blurred by motion. Those shots would be impossible without IS.


----------



## mikekx102 (Apr 12, 2018)

I can't wait for this lens. Canon bring it out already!
I sold my 24-70 F2.8L II to buy a 35L and planned to buy the IS version when it came out - I wish it would hurry up


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Apr 19, 2018)

mikekx102 said:


> I can't wait for this lens. Canon bring it out already!
> I sold my 24-70 F2.8L II to buy a 35L and planned to buy the IS version when it came out - I wish it would hurry up



It's such a good lens, I decided to go for the 24-70 F2.8L II and not buy the IS lenses in this focal range. I need the fast lens more than F4 with IS. My luck is running out with 3rd party lenses and my refurbished deal price on the 24-70 f2.8L II was to good to pass up


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 27, 2018)

H. Jones said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > There is a separate question about what the use cases are where IS is important. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is one of the most important lenses for event and press photographers. Most of them shoot subjects which are moving (at least slowly) which generally requires shutter speeds fast enough to make IS relatively unimportant.
> ...



Yeah, the days of newspaper photojournalists having the luxury of selecting gear based only on still image requirements is long gone. Video for the paper's website is almost a requirement now for every hard news assignment.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 27, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Waiting that 1-3 seconds for a image to stabilize can lose a shot as well, subsequent ones are fine, but if the moment has passed, its a hard lesson.
> ...



The original EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS released in 2001 took about 2 seconds to spool up from rest. The newer IS lenses from Canon are much, much faster in that respect.

Timing performers (singers, dancers, etc.) at that precise moment when they stop going up and start coming back down is becoming a lost art. With insanely high usable ISO and 10-12-14 fps, too many younger photographers just machine gun it and pick which frame they like the best after it's all said and done.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 27, 2018)

Back in ancient times we aimed for “the peak of the action,” when the subjects are still. The odds of hitting that on the nose in a burst of 6 to 10 shots in a second seem pretty slim.


----------



## Diko (Apr 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 70-200/2.8L IS II is excellent, true. But when the original 70-200/2.8L IS came out, its IQ was not quite as good as the non-IS version of the lens.


True that. But now you're ruined it all for me. :-( I was kind of hoping but now since you brought this quite logical argument you took it all from me.



dolina said:


> Just release the damn thing already so I can buy it. Tamron & Sigma have it already. Does Canon have to wait for Sony and Nikon to bring out theirs?


Either this or the regular one which I don't possess even though when I think about it it will be still the same price as it is today because most probably the stabilized version would be at least $300 more.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If the optical performance is significantly better, and it *focuses closer*, I'd consider it...


 What do you mean? If it is 24-70 it can't be 24-85 or you mean something else?



Talys said:


> The price will slowly narrow, and at some point, the IS will be nice for a new purchase, and the non-IS will be wonderfully less expensive, with some great deals used.


Not a chance after release it will be at least $300 North the price of the current model and it will stay that way for the next four years. That is from the official resellers. The gray market would shorten that price gap in about two years maybe.



stevelee said:


> Back in ancient times we aimed for “the peak of the action,” when the subjects are still. The odds of hitting that on the nose in a burst of 6 to 10 shots in a second seem pretty slim.


So it is indeed. These days what I enjoy most of the future features is cropping without damaging the image. The best new lenses combined with very good bodies like 5D4 and 5Ds I have always the freedom to make 2 or 3 totally different photos of one raw shot. Taking it back 10-15 years ago that wasn't possible at all.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 7, 2018)

Diko said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If the optical performance is significantly better, and it *focuses closer*, I'd consider it...
> ...



I think he means a shorter MFD.


----------



## kemfinsh (Jun 11, 2018)

Any news update for this topic?


----------



## Mphotostyle (Jul 7, 2018)

Two months ago, I was this close of owning the entire 24-70 II 2.8 because of the price drop, I tested the Tamron and I liked it better because of the IS equivalent system. I did my search that evening and decided I would stick with Canon. The next morning I was at the store and the store manager told me about the new lens expected in October this year and Canon will keep the price drop on the current version for the summer. I know a lot of photographers like the new 24-105 F4 for its IS. So I guess I will wait and see. October shopping list: New lens. New iPhone, 3 birthdays


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 8, 2018)

Mphotostyle said:


> Two months ago, I was this close of owning the entire 24-70 II 2.8 because of the price drop, I tested the Tamron and I liked it better because of the IS equivalent system. I did my search that evening and decided I would stick with Canon. The next morning I was at the store and the store manager told me about the new lens expected in October this year and Canon will keep the price drop on the current version for the summer. I know a lot of photographers like the new 24-105 F4 for its IS. So I guess I will wait and see. October shopping list: New lens. New iPhone, 3 birthdays



The "old" 24-105 f/4 also has IS.


----------



## btabucan (Sep 13, 2018)

With the new eos r release, is this lens still confirmed in development? I've been holding off on a zoom for my run and gun work and wanted to know whether to wait for this lens. I returned a tamron g2 because I wanted to stay in the canon line even though the tamron had weather sealing, good autofocus and similar iq to my canon primes from what I saw. I don't need a zoom yet for paid work but if forced to, I'll pick up the 24-70mkii l lens.


----------

