# 14-24L & 24-70L II Talked About Again



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 12, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;;width: 55px;" name="fb_share"><div id="fb-root"></div><script src="http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#appId=125029517579627&xfbml=1"></script><fb:like href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6741" send="false" layout="box_count" width="55" show_faces="false" font="arial"></fb:like></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6741"></a></div>
Iâ€™ve been receiving a lot of stuff recently, most of which Iâ€™m figured to be fakes. Like the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7_7W8E-bi8&feature=player_embedded">5D Mark III commercial</a>. Iâ€™ve also received a lot of camera specs based on the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/07/canon-3-layer-sensor-foveon-type-patent/">patent from a few days ago</a>.</p>
<p>However, a decent source thatâ€™s correct about 50% of the time sent me information about upcoming lenses from Canon.</p>
<p>Iâ€™m told an <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/">EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a> and <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-patent-published/">EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a> will be announced at the same time. Whether thatâ€™s with a new 1Ds or 5D Mark III was unknown. However, Q4, 2011 or Q1, 2012 was the timetable.</p>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>Patents for both optical formulas exist, so itâ€™s highly possible. I have a hard time seeing Canon adding to the L lineup until the 8-15 starts shipping.</p>
<p><strong>EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4X

</strong>We can expect this lens to become an official product with an announcement this fall. Availability in late Q1 2012 Iâ€™m told.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html?BI=2466&KBID=3296">EF 24-70 f/2.8L for $1399 @ B&H</a></em>
```


----------



## Randl (Jul 12, 2011)

I'd like to see 28-70/2.8L IS instead


----------



## bvukich (Jul 12, 2011)

Randl said:


> I'd like to see 28-70/2.8L IS instead



I'd like to see IS & non-IS versions of both. I'd probably go for the non-IS version for the 14-24, but I could see more video orientated people going for the IS version if it existed. For the 24-70, I'd want the IS version for sure though.


----------



## lol (Jul 12, 2011)

I'd just like to know how bad the price for the 200-400 will be...


----------



## justicend (Jul 12, 2011)

bvukich said:


> Randl said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see 28-70/2.8L IS instead
> ...



Whats the point of two version, just use of IS on/off will do the job. If cost is the reason, then current version is fine. I don't see point of two version of 24-70 II IS


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 12, 2011)

Canon desperately needs a 14-24mm f2.8 in my opinion. If this comes true I'll be all over that lens.

Covering 14mm to 200mm with 3 lenses at f2.8 it's a great thing and it is a useful range for cropped and FF bodies.


----------



## NXT1000 (Jul 12, 2011)

is there a technical reason why no 24-70 IS f2.8 existed in the world? not possible now?? what is the reason, can those with degree in optics say something?


----------



## J-Man (Jul 12, 2011)

There is no reason other than no one has yet.
8-15, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, where's the 400-800?


----------



## NXT1000 (Jul 12, 2011)

J-Man said:


> where's the 400-800?



who would want 400-800?? make no sense at all.


----------



## lol (Jul 12, 2011)

If I can reasonably hand hold it, I'd buy a 400-800  that's the only reason stopping me from looking seriously at the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 and strapping an extender on it. The 200-400 extender will be close enough in practice though.


----------



## kirillica (Jul 12, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> Like the <a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7_7W8E-bi8&feature=player_embedded\">5D Mark III commercial</a>.


C'mon, it's a fake. Even author said in comments, that it was homework for school


----------



## bvukich (Jul 12, 2011)

justicend said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Randl said:
> ...



What's the point of two 70-200/4 & two 70-200/2.8 then?

Adding IS isn't all positives. It adds significant size, weight, complexity, and the biggest issue for most; cost. Best case scenario, IS will only add $500-600 to the cost. That's still a fairly significant sum. I'm sure many people that don't want or need IS would opt for the non-IS version.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 13, 2011)

bvukich said:


> justicend said:
> 
> 
> > bvukich said:
> ...



Right, so the point was that if someone doesn't want the IS version, they can buy the non-IS version which already exists. I just don't understand why someone is getting on this forum and asking for a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 non-IS. JUST GO BUY IT. IT'S FOR SALE NOW.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2011)

Eagle Eye said:


> Right, so the point was that if someone doesn't want the IS version, they can buy the non-IS version which already exists. I just don't understand why someone is getting on this forum and asking for a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 non-IS. JUST GO BUY IT. IT'S FOR SALE NOW.



I've done that, five of them, actually, before I gave up trying to find a good one. Many others have seen similar issues.

Even when a excellent copy if found, it inherently has a problem with curvature of field that is quite noticible for a expensive lens.

I'm no longer even hoping for a new version, I now use primes.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Jul 13, 2011)

Personally I find it hard for Canon to release a non is and is version of the same lens when Canon is having productivity issues in its factory cranking out its lens lineup.

In any case any rumor on the 14-24 lens gives me hope and excitement once again!

Hopefully they'll make the lens cap similar to its 17mm tilt shift lens where its got grooves to twist and lock the cap on. The nikon version's 14-24 only fault is its flimsy and cheap lens cap that tends to always come off in your bag and create cosmetic marks around the barrel over time and use.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 13, 2011)

14-24 2.8 is a lens that sounds good on paper, but you'll get a heavy beast with an exposed front element, no filters, flare, and much lower IQ than the 14 2.8 prime. Better off with 14 2.8 and other primes or the 16-35 2.8 as a mate.

I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4 and 50 1.2


----------



## J. McCabe (Jul 13, 2011)

Etienne said:


> 14-24 2.8 is a lens that sounds good on paper, but you'll get a heavy beast with an exposed front element, no filters, flare, and much lower IQ than the 14 2.8 prime. Better off with 14 2.8 and other primes or the 16-35 2.8 as a mate.



For starters, the Canon EF 14mm has exposed front element and rear gelatin filters. Very similar to the EF 15mm fisheye. Per reviews I've read, the Nikkor 14-24mm has better IQ than the EF 14mm & EF 16-35mm, and I just checked Amazon - the Canon EF 14mm costs $2,250 and the Nikon 14-24mm costs $1,920.

I have an EF 17-40mm f/4 and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8. If Canon brings out a reasonable competitor to the Nikon 14-24mm and improves the EF 24-70mm's IQ, I would uppgrade the two lenses I have with the two new lenses.

As for flare, I have the Sigma 12-24mm, which has a flare problem. I still love it, use it, and plan to upgrade it to the announced mkII. If Canon announces an EF 14-24mm before I do, I might just sell the Sigma - a friend already said he would buy my copy if & when I do.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Jul 13, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> For starters, the Canon EF 14mm has exposed front element and rear gelatin filters. Very similar to the EF 15mm fisheye. Per reviews I've read, the Nikkor 14-24mm has better IQ than the EF 14mm & EF 16-35mm, and I just checked Amazon - the Canon EF 14mm costs $2,250 and the Nikon 14-24mm costs $1,920.
> 
> I have an EF 17-40mm f/4 and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8. If Canon brings out a reasonable competitor to the Nikon 14-24mm and improves the EF 24-70mm's IQ, I would uppgrade the two lenses I have with the two new lenses.



Not to detract the thread too much but is it possible to make a 24-70mm that doesn't externally extend while going through the focal lengths and if so how much additional costs would that tag to the price? I could have sworn at one time Sigma made such a midrange zoom lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 13, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > For starters, the Canon EF 14mm has exposed front element and rear gelatin filters. Very similar to the EF 15mm fisheye. Per reviews I've read, the Nikkor 14-24mm has better IQ than the EF 14mm & EF 16-35mm, and I just checked Amazon - the Canon EF 14mm costs $2,250 and the Nikon 14-24mm costs $1,920.
> ...



Easy, just add more plastic around where the barrel would extend, put one token piece of glass on the front, and keep the rest of the design exactly the same 
(and then the lens is permanently as long as the longest it is now)
Or don't even put a piece of glass on the front, a la the 16 - 35 L.


Also, I think the 14-24 would do more wonders for canon than they realise, especially if it's f/2.8. It would attract a lot of 7D (maybe even 60D) buyers, as an upgrade path to a Full Fram eventually. Sure, the 10-22 is wider, but i'd put up with 'only' 14mm until i upgraded to FF, and the only other fast/2.8 option is the Tokina 11-16 (i'd take a Canon FF compatible and probably better IQ if it's an L, over the Tokina for 3mm wider and probably a lot cheaper).


----------



## ronderick (Jul 13, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Also, I think the 14-24 would do more wonders for canon than they realise, especially if it's f/2.8. It would attract a lot of 7D (maybe even 60D) buyers, as an upgrade path to a Full Fram eventually.



Just my personal opinion, but if a Canon 14-24 is comparable to the Nikon version, it's going to be a front-heavy lens for 7D (it'll really look awkward on a 60D). 

Using a TS-E 17mm (and in my case, only with a tripod) already makes me nervous with the front element. I cannot imagine a 14-24 being attached to my camera and walking around with it w/o protection.


----------



## RandomDude (Jul 13, 2011)

bvukich said:


> Adding IS isn't all positives. It adds significant size, weight, complexity, and the biggest issue for most; cost. Best case scenario, IS will only add $500-600 to the cost. That's still a fairly significant sum. I'm sure many people that don't want or need IS would opt for the non-IS version.



There are many lenses with IS that cost less than $500 - so the IS system itself cannot cost that much. They may charge that much more because they *can*, but not because they have to. When comparing the 70-200 f2.8 IS and non-IS, we see about 10% increase in weight and a slight increase in size. On the f4 versions, the weight increase is about the same, but the size increase is negligible (+1mm diameter). The optics are more complicated in the IS versions, but the image quality isn't worse - especially not if you consider the new mkII IS version.

My point is merely that Canon could *choose* to release an IS version of the 24-70mm f2.8 without sacrificing performance, weight or the price point if they wanted to. They will almost certainly release the new lens at a significant price premium, at the very least until supplies are high, but that will likely be a business decision rather than a engineering necessity.

I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but with Canon's position/reputation in the market as the video leader but low-light loser, putting IS on the standard zoom ought to be a priority for Canon. First to solidify their lead in video performance and secondly to counter their reputation as trailing in low-light performance.

TL;DR? I think you're overestimating the problems with IS, and I would be very surprised if a new 24-70 did not include it.


----------



## Picsfor (Jul 13, 2011)

12-24 is the only lens Nikon have, that would cause me to want to get a Nikon body.

If Canon are going to release this, i'll purchase it along with a 1D5 or 5D3...


----------



## bvukich (Jul 13, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> My point is merely that Canon could *choose* to release an IS version of the 24-70mm f2.8 without sacrificing performance, weight or the price point if they wanted to. They will almost certainly release the new lens at a significant price premium, at the very least until supplies are high, but that will likely be a business decision rather than a engineering necessity.


They absolutely could. The question is, will they? I think a 24-70/2.8L IS would come in somewhere in the $2200-2300 range, and a non-IS MkII version would be $1700-1800. If they could do an IS version for $1800-ish however, it would greatly reduce the need for a cheaper non-IS version.


RandomDude said:


> I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but with Canon's position/reputation in the market as the video leader but low-light loser, putting IS on the standard zoom ought to be a priority for Canon. First to solidify their lead in video performance and secondly to counter their reputation as trailing in low-light performance.


I agree completely. I think they should put IS on nearly every lens they have, even some of the short primes.


RandomDude said:


> TL;DR? I think you're overestimating the problems with IS, and I would be very surprised if a new 24-70 did not include it.


I would be surprised (and disappointed) if the new version didn't come with IS. But I would also be surprised if they didn't either continue to offer the old non-IS version, and/or release a MkII (non-IS) a couple of years down the road.


----------



## Ricku (Jul 13, 2011)

Etienne said:


> I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4


What is there to update?


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 13, 2011)

Ricku said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see an updated 35 1.4
> ...



The Non-L has plenty of things to update. It's freakin' old.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 13, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Which 24-70 non L? or 35mm f/1.4 non L?


----------



## Dymonds (Jul 13, 2011)

Re: 24-70L ii - Appreciate that IS is not usual for this size zoom. That said, @ 2.8, personally, I think that IS would greatly assist given the size & weight for a everyday zoom.

Re: 14-24L 2.8 - I have not yet purchased any equipment (waiting for these announcements) but was considering the 16-35L 2.8 to partner the 24-70L and 70-200L. Given that the 16-35 covers a large spectrum for wide angle shots, what benefits would the 14-24 provide (one downside I can see is that you would have to change lenses above 24 whereas with the 16-35, you have a crossover range)


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 14, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Actually neither. The 35mm non L is a f2.0 not 1.4 
What I meant was the 35mm 2.0 is freakin' old.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 14, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Actually neither. The 35mm non L is a f2.0 not 1.4
> What I meant was the 35mm 2.0 is freakin' old.



You are just too young. Your perspective will change in 50 years. Nikon lenses are still in regular use on DSLR's that were made in the 1960's. The Canon EF lenses are new by comparison.


----------



## illyusha (Jul 14, 2011)

Not to detract the thread too much but is it possible to make a 24-70mm that doesn't externally extend while going through the focal lengths and if so how much additional costs would that tag to the price? I could have sworn at one time Sigma made such a midrange zoom lens.
[/quote]

not only Sigma, Tokina has made a whole bunch of different midrange zooms (few versions of 28-70, then 28-80), none of which had the extending front element issue. Shame that apparently it's not optimal design IQ-wise, as no one else is producing such zooms now.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 14, 2011)

Dymonds said:


> Re: 24-70L ii - Appreciate that IS is not usual for this size zoom.



efs 15-85IS, 17-55IS, 17-85IS, 18-55IS, 18-135IS, 18-200IS, 
ef 24-105LIS, 28-135IS, 28-300LIS,
sigma 17-50OS, 17-70OS, 
tamron 17-50VC and i'm getting bored of looking already.

a) it's easy to put IS in that zoom range for efs
b) it's easy to put IS in that zoom range for efs f/2.8
c) it's easy to put IS in that zoom range for FF f/4
but somehow a full frame is just too expensive?


Comparing the 70-200s with and without IS isn't so useful, at 200mm f4 iris size is 50mm for a â‚¬500 premium non-IS to IS, f/2.8 size is 72mm for a â‚¬1000 premium. Also, don't forget that price premium includes weathersealing.
The bigger the iris size, the bigger the glass that has to be shifted around in the IS, more powerful motors and complex design.

On a 24-70 f/2.8, the iris size is only 25mm. the 24-105 iris is just a smidge bigger at 26.25mm, both FF image circles.
my price list has the 24-105LIS at â‚¬1050, 24-70L at â‚¬1140.
i'd be guessing a 24-70L II would come in around â‚¬1400 if they fixed the curve of focus back to a plane, and/or the 24-70LIS would be around â‚¬2000...
I see no reason to not bring out both models, a basic economic principle is to fragment the market and get more sales in, people who want IS will pay for it, people who don't will pay less and get the nonIS.


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 14, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Actually neither. The 35mm non L is a f2.0 not 1.4
> ...



Oh please. There is nothing wrong with saying that a lens old. Canon has updated all their L primes and have abandoned their non-L primes. Canon has updated several lenses that don't need updates instead of updating their old non L Primes.

I understand that Nikon's mount is old and that great old lenses get used all the time. Awesome. But these primes aren't exactly "great old lenses" and I don't shoot Nikon.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 14, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Canon has updated all their L primes and have abandoned their non-L primes. Canon has updated several lenses that don't need updates instead of updating their old non L Primes.
> I understand that Nikon's mount is old and that great old lenses get used all the time. Awesome. But these primes aren't exactly "great old lenses" and I don't shoot Nikon.



and the irony being that using a Nikon lens through a $10 ebay adapter on a Canon camera, you can use all the older lenses (up to the newest ones without an aperture ring only wide-open).

And nikon body users have to check and double check tables to see what lens they can use on what body in what modes.


and i certainly understand what you mean about abandoning their non-L primes. think you may be right. i really really hope you're not. but probably are.
(Where's my EFS Primes already?)


----------



## bvukich (Jul 14, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> And nikon body users have to check and double check tables to see what lens they can use on what body in what modes.



Gotta love the Nikon lens secret decoder ring...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has updated all their L primes and have abandoned their non-L primes. Canon has updated several lenses that don't need updates instead of updating their old non L Primes.





dr croubie said:


> and i certainly understand what you mean about abandoning their non-L primes. think you may be right. i really really hope you're not. but probably are.
> (Where's my EFS Primes already?)



I'm pretty sure he's right. The reality is that the non-L EF primes were designed when all cameras were FF (i.e. film), and zoom lenses had a horrible reputation for low IQ (although that was changing when the most _recent_ - and I use the term loosely - round of non-L EF primes was released) - so, consumers wanted affordable prime lenses. Today, the IQ of a zoom can meet or exceed that of a prime (e.g. 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II vs. 200mm f/2.8L II), the vast majority of consumers use APS-C, and they want zoom lenses for convenience. 

You might see an EF-S prime to rival the Nikon DX-format 35mm prime - Canon's 50mm f/1.8 II is a big seller despite it's age, but that's mostly because it's cheap. If Canon does come out with an EF-S 35mm prime, don't expect good build or excellent IQ wide open, since that would be Canon's 'replacement' of the 50mm f/1.8 II (in the philosophical sense of a 'normal' lens for the typical consumer camera), so it will be priced to compete there ($150-200), probably have a plastic mount, cheap build, and decent IQ especially stopped down...but it's IQ won't rival the 35L when shot wide.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 14, 2011)

Well I guess the logic for the future of canons lens lineup is very simple:

Full Frame = Prosumer and Pros = EF lenses with all in L quality (Primes and Zoomes) 
APS-C = Amateur and demanding amateur segment = EF-S Zooms for them ... if so demands better image quality than the EF-S could provide he/she should get an L-lens for that reason (and maybe soon switch to FF...)

Regarding the 14-24mm f2.8 L - I would really love that lens. THIS is THE ONE LENS I sometimes am kind of sad I did not get a Nikon System ... anyway there are other Canon lenses that more than compensate for that but I still find the price of the 14mm F2.8 II L ridicules high compared to the Nikon Zoom which has an IQ I would only wish to see on the Canon Prime ...

In Regards of the 24-70mm f2.8 L II if it has IS nice if not also OK ... I have the current one and it is quite OK for me ... However a significant improvement of IQ would make me change it at some point ...


----------



## moreorless (Jul 18, 2011)

With reguards to the business(rather than purely production) side of the 24-70 2.8 IS might not its status as a standard zoom and possible FF "kit" lens make Canon less likely to charge the same IS prenium as at 70-200? Draw in more business with the first purchase then charge a prenium for UWA and Tele lenses instead.


----------

