# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Announced



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2012)

```
<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=""></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href=""></a></div>
<p><strong>Finally Announced!</strong></p>
<p>London, UK, 7th February 2012 – Canon today adds to its world-famous EF lens series with the launch of three new lenses for photography professionals and enthusiasts. The new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM professional zoom lens is an update to the popular EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, while the new EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM are the world’s first1 wide-angle prime lenses to feature optical Image Stabilizer (IS) technology. All three provide the highest levels of performance for modern digital photographers, combining premium image quality with durable, userfriendly designs.</p>
<p><strong>EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM: the ultra-high performance standard zoom

</strong>The new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM features completely redesigned optics to provide outstanding clarity, image quality and durability. A compact design makes it ideal for carrying on every shoot, and a range of optical enhancements provide improved performance – capturing greater detail across the frame while reducing distortion throughout the entire zoom range, particularly at the maximum 70mm focal length.</p>
<p>With a redesigned optical system that includes two Ultra-low Dispersion (UD) and one Super UD aspheric elements to minimise chromatic aberration and colour blurring, the lens delivers consistently sharp, high-contrast images. Each lens element also features Canon’s optimised Super Spectra coatings to reduce ghosting and flare and ensure excellent colour balance. Additionally, a fluorine coating minimises the amount of dust, dirt and fingerprints that adhere to the front and rear of the lens, helping to maintain superior image quality.</p>
<p>The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM also enables photographers to capture their subjects up close, with a minimum focusing distance of 0.38m at all focal lengths throughout the zoom range. A ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM) works in combination with a highperformance CPU and advanced AF algorithms to ensure accurate, silent and ultraresponsive autofocus. For those who prefer to maintain full control in every shot, fulltime manual focusing allows photographers to precisely tweak or alter the focus of their shot at any time, even when AF is engaged.</p>
<p><strong>Distinguished L-series design

</strong>The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is the latest lens from the elite L-series to offer Canon’s high-grade and user-focused design enhancements. The mechanical structure of the lens has been improved to offer enhanced zoom durability and greater shake and shock resistance within the lens barrel. The size of the lens has also been reduced by 10mm compared to the previous model, providing enhanced portability and greater convenience in everyday use. A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit, while a water and dustproof construction2 enables users to continue shooting in harsh conditions.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## cps_user (Feb 7, 2012)

congratulations to you personally as well; finally no more people stalking you with false info and questions


----------



## ColoradoCanon (Feb 7, 2012)

In the words of Otto from _A Fish Called Wanda_[/i]:

DISAPPOINTED!​
The lack of IS was anticipated, but I was secretly hoping for it anyway. Combined with a nearly $1,000 price increase, the lack of IS is a no-go for me. Paying that much for slightly better optics and a slightly lower weight is not in the cards. I have used and loved the 24-70 2.8 for six years as a wedding photographer, but will most likely be looking at the IS Tamron model for a future replacement. 

Now... can we see our new mid-range FF, please?


----------



## melbournite (Feb 7, 2012)

77mm or 82mm filter?


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2012)

melbournite said:


> 77mm or 82mm filter?



82.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Feb 7, 2012)

Seriously WTH Canon? They give the two new primes IS but dont give it to the 24-70 mkII?!?? That seriously doesn't make any sense! Seriously IMO unless you're a pro/have money to burn why would you buy the mkII when you could buy the mkI? Besides optics and IQ being better, yadda yadda, i know. canon are going in the wrong direction i think


----------



## cps_user (Feb 7, 2012)

seriously, yes. 

Ok, I realise a lot of people wanted IS. And it is a bit strange they did put it into these primes, yet not in the zoom. From a marketing perspective, this could go down very badly among some users. And I also agree the price is very, very steep. 

But as we've heard, the prototypes with IS were much larger and heavier and it could have meant a sacrifice in IQ, not to mention an even higher price. 

The mk 1 had some serious flaws in the IQ department, that's why I sold my copy. If the mk II is all about IQ, yes - I'd be interested.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

Did I miss an availability date? Or has Canon just given up on promising them, since they've demonstrated they can't meet them (500/4 II and 600/4 II announced August, 2010 and still waiting...)?


----------



## 00Q (Feb 7, 2012)

*Faint* I cant see why people would want to buy this UGLY lens WITHOUT IS for $2000. 

Im keeping my current BEAUTIFUL 24-70 MKI for now. And tamnron has the IS version. SHAME ON YOU CANON!!!


----------



## torger (Feb 7, 2012)

24 and 28 with IS, 24-70 without... hmmmmmm? It must be some optical design thing, right? Easy to provide IS in the 24 and 28 while maintaining image quality, hard in the 24-70, and they have prioritized high image quality. That's the only way I can see any logic in this.


----------



## amok (Feb 7, 2012)

What is the official price ?
And also: what is the weight of this new lens ?


----------



## frisk (Feb 7, 2012)

The first thing I want to say is that I *really* look forward to seeing a comparison between this lens and the Tamron 24-70 VC lens. Like many others, I own the current 24-70, and if one of those two new lenses is a significant improvement, I will upgrade.

I predict that this lens will be offered as the standard "kit" lens with the successor of the 5D2 (regardless of whether it is named 5D3, 5DX, 3D or something else)

And yes - is is clear that those claiming the photo of this lens posted yesterday was just a PS job were wrong...very wrong.


----------



## LuCoOc (Feb 7, 2012)

Now that we finally have the mark II, I'm ready to hear rumors for the mark III. Seriously it better be as good as the 70-200 II.


----------



## japhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm ready to hear rumors about a 24-70 IS...


----------



## 2020digging (Feb 7, 2012)

Is Canon reading the market correctly or are they resting on their laurels? I reckon the latter. There IS competition out there. I decided to go the Canon route when I first bought my 20D then upgraded to the 7D. Bought Canon glass, essential glass, but not too much as I soon realised that the competition wasn't going to lay down forever. Canon are forcing me to decide between it and the competition, rather than rewarding me for my loyalty. Product prices pitched far too high and then the advent of a 24-70 without IS is just plain dumb and arrogant. Or is it just lazy? Time will tell.


----------



## snideby (Feb 7, 2012)

I will stick with my beloved version I. Not big enough update to motivate a purchase of this new lens to a higher price.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 7, 2012)

LuCoOc said:


> Now that we finally have the mark II, I'm ready to hear rumors for the mark III. Seriously it better be as good as the 70-200 II.



+1 

THis feels as if the MKII has NOT been anounced yet!! I love it that tamron announced the IS version of their lens the day before Canon!


----------



## japhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy that the long wait is over and the damn lens is finally out!

The thing I'm happy about is that Canon is moving along and getting something done. This makes me feel better about my investment in the system itself.

Sadly the lack of IS is the thing I'm not happy about. I simply can't put this much money into a lens which is only usable (for me that is) on a tripod.

Hopefully they'll upgrade the 24-105 soon so that I can get rid of the 24-70 I have now. Don't know if it's my lack of skills, the unforgiving nature of the 7Ds sensor or that the lens has issues, but my keeper rate with the MkI hand-held is nowhere near what its supposed to be.


----------



## JR (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did I miss an availability date? Or has Canon just given up on promising them, since they've demonstrated they can't meet them (500/4 II and 600/4 II announced August, 2010 and still waiting...)?



My thoughts exactly, where is the date? ??? I guess we will have to continue rumors on this lens but now it will be regarding its availability date!


----------



## marius (Feb 7, 2012)

Competition is good, isn't it?!
The Tamron 24-70 couldn't come better at this time.
I think Canon have to make something with the price for the 24-70 II. And if this happens, then is a merit from Tamron too.

I can live without IS *IF* the image quality and AF are really that good and *IF* Canon 5D Mark III has a bigger DR and a better high ISO performance.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Feb 7, 2012)

The only dissappointment I have with the lens is the 82mm filter size. For ,my wide angle I specifically went with the 17-40 for the common 77mm threads. Now, If I upgrade lenses to this, I will need to get several new filters adding significantly to the cost. Oh well, when we get our annual bonus in September, this lens will be high on my wish list!


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

JR said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Did I miss an availability date? Or has Canon just given up on promising them, since they've demonstrated they can't meet them (500/4 II and 600/4 II announced August, 2010 and still waiting...)?
> ...


The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens is expected to be available in April for an approximate retail price of $2,299.00. Source: http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e#

OT: so it's internal zoom after all, ey


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> OT: so it's internal zoom after all



Ummmm...no. What gives you that idea? Why would an internal zoom lens need a zoom lock?


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DzPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > OT: so it's internal zoom after all
> ...


sorry, my mistake. I got confused because I quickly read the inner-focusing vs. front-focusing part. That has nothing to do with the zoom :-X *facepalm*


----------



## zim (Feb 7, 2012)

A very black day for Canon, sad really


----------



## phischeye (Feb 7, 2012)

It looks like the rumors about a Canon Product Announcement on Feb 7. were right, it just wasn't the 5DMkII successor. 

The price of the 24-70 is ridiculous. With an IS, it might be justified, but with out one, no way


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

phischeye said:


> It looks like the rumors about a Canon Product Announcement on Feb 7. were right, it just wasn't the 5DMkII successor.
> 
> The price of the 24-70 is ridiculous. With an IS, it might be justified, but with out one, no way


My thoughts exactly. With IS and internal zoom gladly. In this version, overpriced


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

Without using this lens, or reading a comprehensive review, I've decided to... 

Hopefully this lens has improved optical performance and will nicely compliment a 30+MP Camera. I'll wait to see it tested. I'll probably also wait a year or so for the price to drop $400 or so like the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

In the meantime my 24-105 "kit" lens keeps delivering awesome results.


----------



## editreject (Feb 7, 2012)

While a $1K price increase over the mark 1 version will prevent me from buying the lens, I have a feeling that once we start seeing the tests and image quality of this thing, people who make money from their images will have no problem laying out $2300 for it.


----------



## Z (Feb 7, 2012)

Ouch... the European price is more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I rarely complain about Canon's pricing, after all they're market leaders and a for-profit company... but... *really?*


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 7, 2012)

Looking at the chart, the optics seem much improved. Is it worth the price? Not sure to most, but it looks like they took a great lens and made it even better, IS or no IS


----------



## vlim (Feb 7, 2012)

> The price of the 24-70 is ridiculous. With an IS, it might be justified, but with out one, no way





> Ouch... the European price is more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II



2300 € are you kidding ? It's really too much but it's the trend we have already seen with the big lenses and in my opinion that will be the same for actually relatively affordable lenses like the 300 f/4 L IS or the 400 f/5.6 L !

Too bad :-\


----------



## gferdinandsen (Feb 7, 2012)

"A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit"


Typo/Misprint??? Isn't the lens fully extended at 24mm, would you not want to keep it at 70mm when carrying it?


----------



## vlim (Feb 7, 2012)

The version 2 is 145g lighter than the version 1, that's a huge drop off for this kind of lens  No IS could be in relation with the weight ? And imagine the price with an IS version


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

gferdinandsen said:


> "A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit"
> 
> 
> Typo/Misprint??? Isn't the lens fully extended at 24mm, would you not want to keep it at 70mm when carrying it?


That was the old version : this one is the other way around


----------



## gferdinandsen (Feb 7, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > "A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit"
> ...



So this lens will zoom out, not zoom in? That has always been one of the most touted features on the 24/28-70.


----------



## TokyoDekopon (Feb 7, 2012)

*For those who are wondering about this new pricing*, it is due to the very weak USD and Euro against the strong Japanese Yen in recent years. 
The price of this new 24-70L II is actually almost the same as the current 24-70L in Yen on the website of Canon Japan (current 24-70L is 220,000 yen and new 24-70L II is 230,000 yen). The prices of many Canon products are based on Yen. *Back in 2002 when Canon released the current 24-70L, 1 USD was 125 yen but today 1 USD is worth only 75 yen.*


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 7, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> Looking at the chart, the optics seem much improved. Is it worth the price? Not sure to most, but it looks like they took a great lens and made it even better, IS or no IS



Agreed, I was looking at the charts, and the new lens is astounding compared to the current generation.

Current 24-70mm Overview - MTF

New 24-70mm Overview - MTF 

How to read MTF Charts


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

gferdinandsen said:


> So this lens will zoom out, not zoom in? That has always been one of the most touted features on the 24/28-70.


yes it will


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 7, 2012)

phischeye said:


> It looks like the rumors about a Canon Product Announcement on Feb 7. were right, it just wasn't the 5DMkII successor.
> 
> The price of the 24-70 is ridiculous. With an IS, it might be justified, but with out one, no way



100% agree. That lens is $1000 more than the current one (Amazon price vs. the Canon release info). You have to buy new filters, no IS, etc. Is the image quality worth that extra $$ and what you didn't get in the new rev?

I'm seriously thinking to buy the current version, especially if the rebates are still available on it. I'm not sure the image quality difference is enough to sway me to spend an extra $1000 on the new one. It's the only L lens I've held off on buying until the new rev came out. I'm not planning to go above 20-24Mpix in a DSLR camera body as I have an old Hasselblad 500c with a PhaseOne back for medium format work (but looking at a new PhaseOne for 2013). 

In my bag I've got the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, the 24-105mm f/4 IS L, the 50mm f/1.2 L, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS L, the 135mm F/2 L, and the 1.4x Tele-converter III ( <--- this one is very nice, way better than the rev II ). My plans were to get the new 24-70mm (WITH IS!!!) and sell the 24-105mm to a buddy that has borrowed it often and loves it (hell I love it as well, but it's f/4 and limits my uses for portraits and low-light wedding work, one reason I got the 50mm f/1.2 L).

Now....I'm thinking to buy the current 24-70mm, save the the $1k and keep my 24-105mm f/4 IS L to have an IS lens as my walk around with decent range (like I do today).

Really disappointed with this. Steeling myself for further disappointment on what bodies Canon will announce. Makes me think about switching, something I would have never dreamed of doing until this last year.


----------



## zim (Feb 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> TokyoDekopon said:
> 
> 
> > *For those who are wondering about this new pricing*, it is due to the very weak USD and Euro against the strong Japanese Yen in recent years.
> ...



......And a few other currencies, it wasn’t personal ;D


----------



## kennykodak (Feb 7, 2012)

i'm not getting near it until it has been out there in the field for a while. i would base my spending on reviews rather than hype. so far, nothing is saying run out and buy me.


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Feb 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Ah, so we get to thank the idiots on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve for f**king up the price by devaluing the US dollar.



And the thousands of Americans who were dumb enough to purchase a zero interest mortgage that they couldn't afford. If you're adult enough to buy a house, you should be able to look at the monthly payments and figure out that you can't afford them.

Plus the governments and investors of most every other country that were over exuberant and leveraged their countries' debt ratios far more than was prudent. It was a localized risk that no one thought could have global repercussions. Not trying to start anything political, but the blame for the global recession has many many actors (just ask Greece!)


----------



## TokyoDekopon (Feb 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> TokyoDekopon said:
> 
> 
> > *For those who are wondering about this new pricing*, it is due to the very weak USD and Euro against the strong Japanese Yen in recent years.
> ...



Yes indeed, as we can see from Canon's recent financial reports, they have been losing a lot of money because of the weak USD and Euro since the Lehman shock. So people should not think that the optics has improved greatly enough to justify the great difference in price. The "real" price difference in quality from the current version is actually just 10,000 yen (130 USD), the rest of the price difference is just to compensate the weak USD. For the Japanese market, this is a fantastic upgrade with a negligible price difference from the current version.


----------



## dstppy (Feb 7, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the chart, the optics seem much improved. Is it worth the price? Not sure to most, but it looks like they took a great lens and made it even better, IS or no IS
> ...



WTF charts? ;D

Aren't those what Neuro posts with his awesome detailed posts? 

Re: price, I think Canon heard too much about the one-percenters in the news and is trying to tap some of that market  Lenses are looking like cars do with me, every time I go to buy a nice car, I save up the money, and it's 3 years later and now the prices are much higher . . . back to saving for lenses I guess.


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 7, 2012)

CrimsonBlue said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so we get to thank the idiots on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve for f**king up the price by devaluing the US dollar.
> ...



Nobody ever blames the real estate speculators. The people you bought 1,2, or 10 homes and condos (some even before they were built), and caused demand to go up along with the prices. Look at what cities were the most effected, Miami, Phoenix, Vegas, etc... There might have been a few poor people getting liar loans, but the majority were well off people buying homes to flip and make a quick buck off.


Anyways, the only way this lens would have been worth $2300 is if it had IS, had been a f/2, or had internal zoom.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> Anyways, the only way this lens would have been worth $2300 is if it had IS, had been a f/2, or had internal zoom.


f/2? ;D


----------



## TokyoDekopon (Feb 7, 2012)

TokyoDekopon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > TokyoDekopon said:
> ...



This means that we might also see a big jump in USD price for the new versions of the other old L-lenses and even for the 5D Mark II successor due to the devalued USD.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 7, 2012)

dstppy said:


> WTF charts? ;D
> 
> Aren't those what Neuro posts with his awesome detailed posts?
> 
> Re: price, I think Canon heard too much about the one-percenters in the news and is trying to tap some of that market  Lenses are looking like cars do with me, every time I go to buy a nice car, I save up the money, and it's 3 years later and now the prices are much higher . . . back to saving for lenses I guess.



Sorry I type on a Dvorak keyboard, the M and the W are right next to each other, slip of the finger for unintentional hilarity.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 7, 2012)

It's awesome that we care more about IS than improved IQ. This lens needed optical improvement and it looks like it got it. Bravo Canon. I'll take one! Well, when I need one that is.


----------



## Justin (Feb 7, 2012)

I couldn't even read any comments. Once I read that the price of this lens was only $700 less than the new D800 36 mpx camera from Nikon, weather sealed, 100% viewfinder, DX crop built in, etc etc etc my heart sank. IN a marketplace there is no room for loyalty to a brand. My brand has left me behind. This lens appears to be evidence of the wrongheadedness of this company. NO IS! $2300! Astounding.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 7, 2012)

This is very disappointing. And now my window of opportunity is starting to close down on getting an original 24-70. And with the ridiculous price tag I don't see prices for the original go down. In fact, I see a potential that prices may go up once people realize what we might be looking at here: yet another cheapened plastic lens build to increase profit margins.


----------



## Justin (Feb 7, 2012)

Global marketplaces call for global manufacturing and distribution. Would alleviate some of these yen problems the Japanese have been suffering through for god knows how many years.

They will figure out when actual demand for this lens is much lower than the pent up demand would otherwise predict that they don't know how to price a lens for a pro market. 

Is it just me (and I am mad, so I'll be the first to admit I'm being emotional, but this emotion has been building for years, believe me) or is this company completely out of step? Can't deliver lenses announced over a year and a half ago. Can't get regular releases on their cameras. Can't price lens upgrades at less than an ~80% premium over their replacement's price. No answer to the Nikon 800D. Odd lens upgrades. Blaming woes on the Yen. Who wouldn't be fed up?





TokyoDekopon said:


> *For those who are wondering about this new pricing*, it is due to the very weak USD and Euro against the strong Japanese Yen in recent years.
> The price of this new 24-70L II is actually almost the same as the current 24-70L in Yen on the website of Canon Japan (current 24-70L is 220,000 yen and new 24-70L II is 230,000 yen). The prices of many Canon products are based on Yen. *Back in 2002 when Canon released the current 24-70L, 1 USD was 125 yen but today 1 USD is worth only 75 yen.*


----------



## Macadameane (Feb 7, 2012)

That settles it, I will get a 70-200 before a 24-70. Perhaps the price is high because they want people to buy it as a kit with the new 5D camera. Hopefully if that is the case, it will be heavily discounted.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Feb 7, 2012)

This is one really expensive lens, especially considering you have to move up to 82mm filters. From 77mm (which is what all my filters are at) to 82mm is a pretty big jump in price, not to mention a whole new set of filters to carry around.

And as everyone has mentioned, no IS = No Go.


----------



## ions (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm a bit disappointed too for some of the above reasons listed - no IS, 82mm filter size and certainly the price is a disappointing surprise. That said, it looks like it will be a strong performer. The problem, I think, is that Canon DID listen to its customers and since people are stupid that was a mistake. What was one of the loudest complaints about the Mk I? "It's too heavy! I'm frail and can't lift anything for very long and it would never cross my mind to work out even just a little bit so I could hold a camera for more than a half hour without whining like an annoying weakling." Isn't that the biggest complaint everyone has with the fantastically performing 70-200 Mk II? So, they made The Brick smaller and lighter. Features add weight. Kinda sucks that we get less than we could have because of loud whiny weaklings. 

The benefit for those of us with Mk Is that we're more or less happy with is that the new version doesn't necessarily pack enough of a punch to motivate immediate upgrade. We can sit back and use what we have while we wait and see how well the new boy performs. Even wait it out until a few are on the used market. I'm skeptical that the Tamron is gonna blow my mind enough to make that switch.

For the record I have no problem using a 7D with the 24-70 Mk I mounted for an extended period, the 70-200 Mk II gets a bit heavy after a couple hours of shooting but I've let myself get into "photographer shape" I guess.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 7, 2012)

Justin said:


> Global marketplaces call for global manufacturing and distribution. Would alleviate some of these yen problems the Japanese have been suffering through for god knows how many years.
> 
> They will figure out when actual demand for this lens is much lower than the pent up demand would otherwise predict that they don't know how to price a lens for a pro market.
> 
> ...




I'm pro trade and for open markets. BUT - there are certain things that I don't want quite yet from China. I want my cameras from Japan or Germany. I want my guitars made in America. And in comparison to what my friends in Europa are paying for their cameras we're still looking good here.
What I find more disappointing is the obvious fact that they are asking for a premium on what is obviously a lens that has even more plastic in it. I miss the feel and precision of my FD lenses...


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 7, 2012)

Justin said:


> I couldn't even read any comments. Once I read that the price of this lens was only $700 less than the new D800 36 mpx camera from Nikon, weather sealed, 100% viewfinder, DX crop built in, etc etc etc my heart sank. IN a marketplace there is no room for loyalty to a brand. My brand has left me behind. This lens appears to be evidence of the wrongheadedness of this company. NO IS! $2300! Astounding.


Unfortunately, this has crossed my mind as well. The Nikon 24-70 is "only" $1850.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 7, 2012)

No IS = no new lens, save my money for 5D III.

Not to be a trader, but I can't wait to see what Tarmon f2.8 IS has to offer in real life.


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 7, 2012)

Price in Australia is 2899 Australian $ which would be today the same as 3129 US $. As mentioned in previous posts, Canon is very expensive in Oz


----------



## semola88 (Feb 7, 2012)

USD/JPY :-\


----------



## gene_can_sing (Feb 7, 2012)

This is so anti-climatic. Kind of reminds me of the wait for the "New" Star Wars Episode iV, and getting Jar Jar Binks. 

But this is actually much worse because these are the tools that I use to make my living. If this lens was a 77mm filter and had IS, I would have gladly paid the extra 1K for this lens with little hesitation.

So I might be taking a look at the Tamron lens when the 4K Canon Full Frame VDSLR comes out. I hope the mechanics are better than their other lenses since I manual focus for video, or hoping that Sigma comes out with something in this range with IS.


----------



## jlev23 (Feb 7, 2012)

IS, no IS, i don't care for video production, what we film makers DO care about is if the end of the lens protrudes out when zooming or focusing so we can ride a matte box. if it does then i won't be buying this lens, id just get the 70-200mm and then one of the wide primes


----------



## RuneL (Feb 7, 2012)

I hope it's better made than the current 24-70, I hate the build quality of that lens. I don't care about IS at all. 

For me image quality is at best random in my copy. 
It's wobbly (extending zoom - what the hell  ), it's made of cheap plastic (like the 50 1.2). The older lenses were a lot better. My ancient 16-35 and 16 year old 70-200 feel more solid than the new ones.


----------



## dealaddict (Feb 7, 2012)

US $2299 ????? ouch ... 
Although I expect it will be expensive, not that expensive though. Even more expensive than the 70-200 F2.8 IS II? 
The guy who bought my MK I for $1040 must be very happy.


----------



## RuneL (Feb 7, 2012)

jlev23 said:


> IS, no IS, i don't care for video production, what we film makers DO care about is if the end of the lens protrudes out when zooming or focusing so we can ride a matte box. if it does then i won't be buying this lens, id just get the 70-200mm and then one of the wide primes



Get the 16-35 (not the II), awesome awesome lens. 70-200 is ok for video if you got one hell of an solid stabilization rig.

No L-lens protrudes or rotates during focusing... And won't a matte box usually be attached to the camera and not the lens (where you'd attach the hood doesn't move either...) and then you adjust it, if you use on of them extend / distend-lenses (which the old and the new 24-70 is).
If you have the money to throw at primes and you are only doing video I don't get why you just don't get CZ-lenses and old nikon ones? They are better in lot of cases too.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 7, 2012)

dealaddict said:


> US $2299 ????? ouch ...
> Although I expect it will be expensive, not that expensive though. Even more expensive than the 70-200 F2.8 IS II?
> The guy who bought my MK I for $1040 must be very happy.


I bought a new one for € 1069 one week ago...


----------



## pakosouthpark (Feb 7, 2012)

B&H is taking pre orders and - Expected availability: April 17 2012

but canon went nuts with the price :-\


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 7, 2012)

gferdinandsen said:


> The only dissappointment I have with the lens is the 82mm filter size. For ,my wide angle I specifically went with the 17-40 for the common 77mm threads. Now, If I upgrade lenses to this, I will need to get several new filters adding significantly to the cost. Oh well, when we get our annual bonus in September, this lens will be high on my wish list!



Square filters


----------



## snideby (Feb 7, 2012)

Wasn't this lens suposed to be announced WITH a new DSLR (preferably the 5D3) according to latest rumors? Or did I get that wrong? Perhaps just wishful thinking?


----------



## Mooose (Feb 7, 2012)

I hope someone makes a 82mm to 77mm filter adaptor so I don't have to buy all new filters when I get this thing.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 7, 2012)

Well now we Canon people get to look at an overpriced 24-70 without IS where Nikon people wake this morning to see 2 new 36MP cameras complete with numerous new features. I'm glad that the clock has now started ticking for Canon. They must now decide if they wish to remain competive by not delivering the products they announced last summer as well as having cameras that are second place in resolution. I will give them some time. About as much time as it takes for Nikon to ramp up to full production volume so these new cameras are generally available. *After all I'm a Canon guy and I used to waiting for more than 6 months between release and when I can really buy them.*


----------



## KitH (Feb 7, 2012)

Question 1. Multiple Choice (mark all that apply)

The lack of IS in this lens at this price is caused by:-

a) Canon have found the upper limit on image quality possible with image stabilisation using what is, after all, a wobbly lens element held in place by motors and springs and for this lens chose to tie the glass down tightly? 

b) Canon don't want to kill any remaining sales of the 24-105mm f4 IS, which has been around for a while and has nicely paid back its investment already? 

c) Canon found they had sufficient image quality to do serious damage to the the L- prime lens market if they put this lens out with IS, because then only the bokeh-chasers would have any use for the big f1.4s? 


Question 2. Short Answers 

Discuss your answer to Q1, illustrating with visual aids, MTF charts, WTF charts and stuff pasted off the web as appropriate.


----------



## Z (Feb 7, 2012)

RuneL said:


> I hate the build quality of that lens



Really? I don't own this lens, but I've never heard bad things about its build quality...


----------



## ssrdd (Feb 7, 2012)

canon is lost. with 4kcine zooms,c300 and now 24-70 lens. no offense fan boys.


----------



## craigc (Feb 7, 2012)

I believe this lens is skewed toward the video guys. 82mm is very common for video, IF and Internal zoom ( I think ) both work well for 4x4 matte boxes and follow focus units, and the lack of IS, which is usually turned off for motion capture anyway.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 7, 2012)

ssrdd said:


> canon is lost. with 4kcine zooms,c300 and now 24-70 lens. no offense fan boys.



What do you mean lost? Do you mean they aren't making everything that you want them to make?

Let's be honest, the old school canon people obviously care more about straight photography and not much about video. If canon only catered to people like you then they would be lost. Let's look at other companies that decided to not progress with the market's demands:

Every single US automaker - people have been buying big trucks for years, so let's keep doing that and screw these babyman eco battery cars...

RIM - touch phones are toys...

Kodak - digital will never catch on...

Borders - people only want paper books...

The list can go on.


I'm sorry to say it, but video is the future. I want photography first, and it seems like you do also, but we are not the majority. And who cares if they incorporate video into their amazing dslrs, and who cares if they make lenses that work great for video and stills?

People saying canon is lost, and they are just screwing everyone don't really know what they are talking about. They might be screwing a few people, but if they just made stuff that you wanted they wouldnt even stay in the dslr business.


----------



## phischeye (Feb 7, 2012)

KitH said:


> Question 1. Multiple Choice (mark all that apply)
> 
> The lack of IS in this lens at this price is caused by:-
> 
> ...



As far as I know, IS is not so good for the video folks. If canon releases a video centric 5DM3 and some video concept camera, this new non IS camera might be for them.


----------



## KitH (Feb 7, 2012)

phischeye said:


> As far as I know, IS is not so good for the video folks. If canon releases a video centric 5DM3 and some video concept camera, this new non IS camera might be for them.



IS does have a place in video capture, especially in electronic newsgathering when things are more often handheld. It's when the camera is on a tripod that IS becomes a mixed blessing - but that's true for tripod mounted stills too, several lenses detect and disable IS when the vibrations appear to be consistent with tripod use. So the Arri users with their Cooke lenses aren't likely to be in the market for IS. 

That said, there are many who like devices such as the Steadicam Merlin, I've used one, it's astonishing that something so simple works as well as it does. IS can be an issue because when you reach the end of its' travel it lets go in an unpredictable way and that can give the framing a kick until it recovers again.


Lots of people here tonight are having a pop at Canon. For what it's worth, I can envisage the future of video and stills converging on the APS-C / Super35 sized image circles and using the PL mount with more intelligent electronic interfaces. If that's true then Canon have it about right.


----------



## canonluvr (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm glad I bought a new 24-70mm for 1100euro next month.
No way this is worth 2000$


----------



## timkbryant (Feb 7, 2012)

Well then. I had been debating either the 24-70 or the 24-105.

Since I am still a ways away from buying that lens, I would have been interested in the 24-70 MkII. Well, not at that price. But that's just me.


----------



## ions (Feb 7, 2012)

For people who are supposed to be visual the dismissal of this lens with its impressive MTF is disappointing. Like I said above my initial reaction too is disappointment, I'd have liked IS but if it had that it'd be bigger and heavier and you'd all be whining about how feeble you are and can't carry it. The same thing happened with the 1Dx specs, there hadn't been a single sample shot worth looking at and many of you were selling your gear and going to Nikon. 

It's quite possible that this lens is expensive because it has very expensive glass in it. Maybe it's been designed to work well on a very high MP 5DIII? Sensors are getting close to outpacing glass. Making sure that isn't the case is not a cheap endeavour. It's entirely possible they've improved on what they learned with the 70-200 MK II and that would make this a very nice lens to use. Potentially. I'm going to reserve my judgement for when I see what it can actually do.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 7, 2012)

With the price tag on MRK II- I hope i can buy this lens for $950...stay tune for an update

http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/pho/2836486105.html


----------



## kautzy (Feb 7, 2012)

hi! 

i'm new to this forum, 24-70 f/2.8 for 2300 euros (thats $ 3050,-) made me sign up for an account ;-)

after reading all the comments in this thread i have to say that i totally agree with all of you arguing that canon might have gone nuts... that price can never be justifiable keeping in mind that the current 24-70 and the 24-105 f/4.0 IS are both excellent lenses.

either that's how canon is trying to deal with the lower business volume caused by various environmental desasters or the lens will sale much cheaper than the MSRP once available.

wouldn't be too surprised if the actual price will drop to 200 euros/300 usd over the current 24-70 (I) models price in april. 

for example the 24-105 currently has an MSRP of 1299 euros here in Austria and sells for 880 euros in various online stores...

i'll wait and see. but if there won't be a significant price drop in April they are going to push people towards nikon.

chris


----------



## japhoto (Feb 7, 2012)

ions said:


> For people who are supposed to be visual the dismissal of this lens with its impressive MTF is disappointing.



I'm pretty much with you on this one, the MTF looks impressive and yes the lens probably has really expensive glass in it which reflects to the price.

I'm also going to see how it reviews and when the retailers get one here, I'll probably take it out for a spin.

That said, I'm still pretty certain that this lens isn't for me because of the lack of IS. It will be interesting to see if I can get more keepers with the MkII than I do with my MkI.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 7, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> ssrdd said:
> 
> 
> > canon is lost. with 4kcine zooms,c300 and now 24-70 lens. no offense fan boys.
> ...




You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.

There are certain aspects of quality that grew over decades and sometimes centuries that people are a little too willingly tossing out in the name of "progress". Call me old-fashioned or reactionary. I won't take it as an insult.

I can't wait for the day when some Panasonic or Fuji puts out a full frame poor-man's Leica...or if one day there will be a full-frame digital body that is manual focus works and with my FD glass. I'm going to open a 1983 Bordeaux when I come home and put on a few vinyls - you know "the large CDs" as my 5-year old calls them...


----------



## blarygake (Feb 7, 2012)

I have only ever owned Canon gear.
But I echo the poster that said Canon is lost.


This is a worthless update. 
The only worthwhile upgrade is the form factor, but nobody with a current 24-70L would even consider burning over a thousand dollars to update.


They should have added 5mm on the top end while maintaining the 2.8 and the IQ.
Or they should have added IS.
Or they should have found a way to make it an f2 lens

SOMETHING new and noticeably upgraded.
I will be waiting to hear about the Tamron 24-70.


----------



## zim (Feb 7, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.
> 
> There are certain aspects of quality that grew over decades and sometimes centuries that people are a little too willingly tossing out in the name of "progress". Call me old-fashioned or reactionary. I won't take it as an insult.
> 
> I can't wait for the day when some Panasonic or Fuji puts out a full frame poor-man's Leica...or if one day there will be a full-frame digital body that is manual focus works and with my FD glass. I'm going to open a 1983 Bordeaux when I come home and put on a few vinyls - you know "the large CDs" as my 5-year old calls them...



Amen to that. 
How much fun would it be if the guts of a GX1 were put into the F1n body with an EF mount. Yeh I know it's as likely as me getting my youth back....

I've got my FD glass on a 500D at the moment with confirm manual focus, works pretty well you should try that. Only thing I've found is that the 200 f2.8 is very diffucult to use hand held, used to be able to but combined with crop factor I really need IS nowadays


----------



## RuneL (Feb 7, 2012)

Z said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > I hate the build quality of that lens
> ...



It's too plasticky, the hood woobles because of same plastic, the extending front element wobbles and sometimes breaks off half way, the lens will still work, but it still broken off. AF sticks sometimes. I'm comparing this to the 16-35 and 70-200 that are just miles away in terms of build quality. Had 2 broken 24-70 2.8's so far. I like the lens, I use it a lot, it's just poorly made, obviously built down to a price, so that this new one is more expensive is not really of any concern to me, I just hope it will be better.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Feb 8, 2012)

I applaud how lenses are getting center stage in the recent announcements.

I am interested to know why the 24 and 28 2.8 IS primes were released with a white/silver ring like an ef-s lens? They should have released a 50 1.4 IS instead and charge that $800 price range!

On another note, if they priced a canon 14-24 2.8 without IS at 2299, I would still so snap it up! Just hope there won't be another disappointment in a similar lens hood design like the nikon version and the canon 8-15 fisheye version!


----------



## Matthew19 (Feb 8, 2012)

Everyone that has mentioned the currency aspect of the price point is correct. Its important not to think of things in terms of dollars because dollars have no fixed value. The federal reserve printed trillions of them in 2008 to bail out the banks and keep interest rates artificially low. Thats why it cost more. More supply of currency = less value per unit. If you price the new lens in term of real assets i.e. how many barrels of oil, or gold, silver, corn, did it cost in 2002 vs 2012 the price has actually gone down. Thats why I don't like to save money in USD. Everyone is slowly finding out why.

P.S. There is only one presidential candidate that understands how fiat currencies work. He wrote a book on it.


----------



## Caring (Feb 8, 2012)

I think the comments about a $1,000 increase in price for Mk II is a bit exaggerated. It is not fair to compare Amazon.com prices against the RRP for a lens (even if it is comparing Mk I Amazon price vs the RRP for Mk I!).


For a more accurate representation of RRP comparison in my country (Australia!):


[From http://camerapro.net.au *Note - Not sure how reliable this website is for Australian RRP of Mk I*]
"Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
RRP :$2,299.00"


[From www.photoreview.com.au]
"The EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM will be available in Australia from April 2012 for $2899"


This represents only an increase of AUD$600 in RRP. So is AUD$600 more worth the increase in MTF / IQ based on improved technology since Mk I was introduced in 2002?


----------



## jm345 (Feb 8, 2012)

Obviously there will also be an IS version of the 24-70 f/2.8 II - coming next - to be announced with the replacement of the 5dMKII. And the IS version will be priced at $2999. Stay tuned.


----------



## Matthew19 (Feb 8, 2012)

Caring, your quoting in Australian dollars, which has doubled in value vs the USD over the past 10 years.


----------



## Caring (Feb 8, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> Caring, your quoting in Australian dollars, which has doubled in value vs the USD over the past 10 years.



Yes, but $2,229 should be the current RRP? Not the RRP at the time that Mk I was released?


For the avoidance of doubt, Canon USA now quotes "Estimated Retail Price" for the 24-70mm, not the RRP:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_standard_pro/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_usm


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 8, 2012)

jm345 said:


> Obviously there will also be an IS version of the 24-70 f/2.8 II - coming next - to be announced with the replacement of the 5dMKII. And the IS version will be priced at $2999. Stay tuned.



Maybe if it was a 16-105 f/2.8 IS, I would be willing to pay that much.

I'm sure this lens is better in terms of IQ and what not, but it is kind of disappointing that they did nothing to improve it. Especially when you consider the price they are charging.

I think people need to look into the 16-35mm or a 17-40mm, a 50mm or 85mm to get more interesting pictures.


----------



## takoman46 (Feb 8, 2012)

Does anybody think that the benefits/advantages of the 24-70 version II justify the massive price increase from the version I? I mean... I can see bigger glass and 9 aperture blades causing a price increase... but $1100 is difficult to comprehend. I would have expected an increase of maybe $500 at most considering. All I have to say is "WOW!" For some reason, I'm still thinking about biting the bullet and purchasing the version II.


----------



## bchernicoff (Feb 8, 2012)

I've made an animated gif comparing the resolution charts of this new lens at 70mm to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L II at 70mm, since that is something a lot of us can relate to. It seems like it will deliver some stunning results (better at 70mm anyway).


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 8, 2012)

zim said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > You may have a point - and I hate it. I can't stand touch screens, I still prefer books on paper and even now am not 100% thrilled about the fact that film is for all practical purposes dead.
> ...



Ah well, we can dream, can't we? I want my 5DII sensor in a F1n or AE-1p body. Or alternatively a way to convert my 5DII to full-time manual focus with an AE1-p viewfinder and made-in-Germany Zeiss lenses...

The problem is that a majority of folks don't even understand what we are after with this - and what has been lost. I really should put a darkroom in the basement...


----------



## RedEye (Feb 8, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> All I have to say is "WOW!" For some reason, I'm still thinking about biting the bullet and purchasing the version II.



As an ex floor trader and market maker... it's not what it's worth, it's what the bid and ask let you take them for  

I'm in your camp, chips in.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 8, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit, while a water and dustproof construction2 enables users to continue shooting in harsh conditions.</p>



Locked at the wide end? Wait, does that mean no more reverse zoom?


----------



## Meh (Feb 8, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > A new Zoom Lock lever also enables photographers to lock the zoom position at the extreme wide end to prevent damage to the lens in transit, while a water and dustproof construction2 enables users to continue shooting in harsh conditions.</p>
> ...



Yes, you can see on the photo of the lens it is in the retracted position at 24mm


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 8, 2012)

Meh said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...




Geee... thats... depressing...
*goes out to order a MkI*


----------



## Meh (Feb 8, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > D.Sim said:
> ...



Get 'em while you can!


----------



## ssrdd (Feb 8, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> ssrdd said:
> 
> 
> > canon is lost. with 4kcine zooms,c300 and now 24-70 lens. no offense fan boys.
> ...



old school blah blah blah....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> Sorry I type on a Dvorak keyboard, the M and the W are right next to each other, slip of the finger for unintentional hilarity.



You type on a Dvorak keyboard, MTF!?
;D


----------



## jaetm83 (Feb 8, 2012)

Don't know why folks here are so upset about the price of the Mk II, below is from a press release for Mk I dated Sep 29, 2002:

The new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM measures 4.9 inches in length and weighs 33.5 ounces. The new lens, equipped with a lens hood, will be available at authorized Canon dealers in November and have a suggested retail price of $2,100.

The new lens got an increase of 200 bucks only.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 8, 2012)

jaetm83 said:


> Don't know why folks here are so upset about the price of the Mk II, below is from a press release for Mk I dated Sep 29, 2002:
> 
> The new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM measures 4.9 inches in length and weighs 33.5 ounces. The new lens, equipped with a lens hood, will be available at authorized Canon dealers in November and have a suggested retail price of $2,100.
> 
> The new lens got an increase of 200 bucks only.



You're taking a 10 year old release, and comparing to whats available now? You do realise that the current price of the 24-70 is way below that, right?


----------



## jaetm83 (Feb 8, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> You're taking a 10 year old release, and comparing to whats available now? You do realise that the current price of the 24-70 is way below that, right?



But we are looking at MSRP at the time of announcement, not street price, right now. The new MSRP seems perfectly reasonable considering the sharpness improvement proved by MTF graphs. The street price in a few months will be much lower than $2299. I just don't think blaming Canon for the huge price bump is right.


----------



## Mark1 (Feb 8, 2012)

I remember everyone lambasting Canon when they announced the 70-300L. Now it's held in high regard for it's image quality, build and weight relative to range. 

Let's not forget that ultimately this lens will have been tested extensively by seasoned pros and they like it, clearly, otherwise they would have told Canon to go back and try again. 

Can we wait to see how it actually feels and performs? It might actually be worth the money, heaven forbid!


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 8, 2012)

jaetm83 said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > You're taking a 10 year old release, and comparing to whats available now? You do realise that the current price of the 24-70 is way below that, right?
> ...



You can hardly compare prices from two different decades, especially when its from two different products. It doesn't calculate out economically. Its like saying Oranges in 2002 cost more than Apples in 2012

While the price jump is more caused by economics, as pointed out by the various commenters before on Japan prices being pretty similar, you cannot escape the fact that face with a choice, consumers are going to have to get the older version, or pay 1,000 extra for IQ. Are the consumers going to care that it cost about 2k 10 years ago? Can they go back in time? No, what matters is now, and what the two products are at this point in time.


----------



## jaetm83 (Feb 8, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> You can hardly compare prices from two different decades, especially when its from two different products. It doesn't calculate out economically. Its like saying Oranges in 2002 cost more than Apples in 2012



Simply put, wrong economics. You could have gotten a fresh orange in 2002 for 3 dollars but also had an option of getting a-few-days-old pear for a dollar. Now in 2012, you can get a fresh apple for 4 dollars but an old orange for 2 dollars.

If you want to get your hands on great new product first, you've got to pay more. However, you wait some time, and the price will eventually match your expectations, and more importantly, market demands. The prices of the fresh fruits were never wrong.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Feb 8, 2012)

Hmmm....I have a strange craving for a fruit salad.


----------



## kautzy (Feb 8, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> Does anybody think that the benefits/advantages of the 24-70 version II justify the massive price increase from the version I? I mean... I can see bigger glass and 9 aperture blades causing a price increase... but $1100 is difficult to comprehend. I would have expected an increase of maybe $500 at most considering. All I have to say is "WOW!" For some reason, I'm still thinking about biting the bullet and purchasing the version II.



no, this price increase can't be justified if you use the lense for photography. mtf chart looks better than version I, but not $1100 better.

keep in mind that the version I is an excellent lens, also the 24-105 4.0 is.


----------



## kautzy (Feb 8, 2012)

the 24-70 II is showing up at some uk stores already, for $ 3670,- / € 2770,- 


http://geizhals.at/eu/734241


----------



## sphax (Feb 8, 2012)

It's funny how everyone's begging for an IS-isation of the 24-70 when I'd rather see an F/2,8-isation of the 24-105 ;D


----------



## Pixyl (Feb 8, 2012)

The big question I'm facing is if I should take the plunge and buy the current 24-70 or wait til the new model arrives. After all, here in Norway the price of the II is announced to be US$ 3476 (the current model goes for US$ 1720). I assume the stores will have all their current 24-70 lenses sold out before they take in the version II, so there will be little chance of actually comparing the two and make a choice then.

If it's a general concensus that the current 24-70 is as bad as RuneL points out (in reply #89) it may just be worth the wait for the II and fork out the hard earned cash (or look for some other lens). What do you suggest I do?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 8, 2012)

sphax said:


> It's funny how everyone's begging for an IS-isation of the 24-70 when I'd rather see an F/2,8-isation of the 24-105 ;D



I'm with you on that!!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> sphax said:
> 
> 
> > It's funny how everyone's begging for an IS-isation of the 24-70 when I'd rather see an F/2,8-isation of the 24-105 ;D
> ...



me 3


----------



## psolberg (Feb 9, 2012)

phischeye said:


> As far as I know, IS is not so good for the video folks. If canon releases a video centric 5DM3 and some video concept camera, this new non IS camera might be for them.



I hope canon isn't trying to turn photographers into videographers any more than they are trying already because all they needed was an OFF switch on the IS.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 9, 2012)

psolberg said:


> phischeye said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know, IS is not so good for the video folks. If canon releases a video centric 5DM3 and some video concept camera, this new non IS camera might be for them.
> ...



There already is an off switch for IS



> Quote from: briansquibb on Today at 04:58:52 AM
> Quote from: sphax on February 08, 2012, 10:25:27 PM
> It's funny how everyone's begging for an IS-isation of the 24-70 when I'd rather see an F/2,8-isation of the 24-105
> 
> ...



A swap, perhaps? 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 f/2.8 IS? 

Gee, why wasn't this great idea thought of before.... wheres the submit suggestion button to canon? Something I'd definitely get...


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 9, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> A swap, perhaps? 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 f/2.8 IS?
> 
> Gee, why wasn't this great idea thought of before.... wheres the submit suggestion button to canon? Something I'd definitely get...



Howabout a 135F/4 and a 24-105 f/2??


----------



## takoman46 (Feb 9, 2012)

kautzy said:


> no, this price increase can't be justified if you use the lense for photography. mtf chart looks better than version I, but not $1100 better.
> 
> keep in mind that the version I is an excellent lens, also the 24-105 4.0 is.



@kautzy: Yeah, since I made my last post I have been heavily contemplating the 24-70 version 2's worth (at least to me). Also, yes, the version 1 and the 24-105 are still great lenses. I have the 24-105 but want to upgrade to a 24-70. My reasoning has led me to this conclusion: Since I actually don't really use my 24-105 all that much because I normally try to shoot with my primes wherever possible; it really doesn't make sense for me to drop the extra $1100 on the version 2 ???. When doing any job I always default to my 24, 50, and 85 L's when it counts and I wouldn't expect image quality of any zoom lens to come anywhere near the IQ of a prime . So, now that I am past my temporary lapse of judgement, I have already ordered the version 1 to take advantage of the continued rebate ;D. I am still curious to see how well the version 2 performs though... :


----------



## sphax (Feb 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > A swap, perhaps? 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 f/2.8 IS?
> ...



Dont be shy, guys, ask straight for the 50mm F/4L and the 24-105 F/1,2L IS !!
Although it's not 100% sure I would sell my house to buy it ... but there's a chance  Ahah ...

ANYWAY the price of this new lens is ridiculous for an amateur like me ... I can buy a 5D mkII + 24-105F/4L for 100€ more !!! They must be kidding ...


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 9, 2012)

sphax said:


> ANYWAY the price of this new lens is ridiculous for an amateur like me ... I can buy a 5D mkII + 24-105F/4L for 100€ more !!! They must be kidding ...



Too much confusion about the Canon price in this thread

There are two prices in this world

1. The Canon price which is the ceiling, hardly ever charges except to those on day 1 on the release

2. The street price which is usually between 25% and 33% off the Canon price

To compare a street price to a Canon price will be very misleading - I would guess that the street price of the 24-70II will be less than that of the 5DII as are the Canon price of both.


----------



## sphax (Feb 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> sphax said:
> 
> 
> > ANYWAY the price of this new lens is ridiculous for an amateur like me ... I can buy a 5D mkII + 24-105F/4L for 100€ more !!! They must be kidding ...
> ...



Well, I try not to guess and just to refer to what we know ! We know that Canon US said 2299$ and that the first pre-orders online were indeed at that price, and we know that Canon germany said 2299€, although there's no pre-order yet.

And I can buy a brand new Canon 5DmkII + 24-105F/4L IS for 2400€ at Fnac, main french high-tech shop ...


----------

