# Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS in Development? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 17, 2015)

```
We’ve heard from a few different places over the last few months that an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is currently under development. At the time of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II launch, there was a lot of talk that an IS version of the lens existed. We had then heard Canon planned to have 4 new versions of the 24-70 focal range. We got the EF 24-70 f/4L IS, which surprised a lot of people and then the EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM arrived, which we consider the basic focal range with a little bit of a broader appeal. We do have the EF 24-105 f/4L IS, but it’s not part of the new lens designs at Canon.</p>
<p>With Nikon rumored to be finishing development on a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 PF VR, it seems unlikely Canon would leave such a lens out of their lineup, a lineup they’re very proud of.</p>
<p>We’re also told that an IS version of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II would not replace the non-stabilized version, and would probably cost a lot.</p>
<p>There is no timetable and some grains of salt are probably required with this one.</p>
```


----------



## super_newbie_pro (Jun 17, 2015)

Good new. But... If we could have a 24-70mm f/2.8L II is ($$$$  ), i hope the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS will be affordable... Yes, we can dream... But why not propose a 24-70 f/2.8 IS (no L for better price) affordable for 500-700€/$ like the 24-105 ?


----------



## leGreve (Jun 17, 2015)

If it's not going to replace the non-IS version, I remain happy that the next A7S II will probably have in-camara IS and therefore we won't need the IS lens


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 17, 2015)

After looking at the first 5Ds(R) samples I see a lot of "unsharpness" which is directional - from moving subjects or cameras. So IMO IS is a must for these cameras if you need high resolution moderate action photographs in non-perfect light.

I think something like
24 - 70 IS + 100 Macro + 100 - 400 IS
with 2 or 3 bodies would be a a great combo which fits into a small photo back pack and gives a lot of
creative freedom ... 

On the other hand: a 20 - 70 4.0 IS USM would serve MY NEEDS better because I use mainly tele but would like a wider "universal" lens for overviews ...


----------



## super_newbie_pro (Jun 17, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> On the other hand: a 20 - 70 4.0 IS USM


 Excellent idea ! Agree for the IS USM but no F4, F/2.8 !


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 17, 2015)

Opps.

I just ordered EF24-70mm F2.8L II USM and they said I have to wait four months.
I have EF24-70mm F4L IS USM and planning to sell it when I get F2.8L II.

Should I cancell the F2.8L II and wait for new F2.8L IS model?
Question is, when the IS model gonna hit market...


----------



## WorkonSunday (Jun 17, 2015)

going wider 24mm may be difficult from design point of view. but i think 24-85mm F4 is do-able (contax had a 24-85mm but F3.5 -5.6).

i quite like the current 24-70mm F4, i only wish it is as sharp as the bigger f2.8.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 17, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> Opps.
> 
> I just ordered EF24-70mm F2.8L II USM and they said I have to wait four months.
> I have EF24-70mm F4L IS USM and planning to sell it when I get F2.8L II.
> ...



Please do not make buying decisions based on a [CR1] post. By the sounds of what I've heard, such a lens is more than a year away.


----------



## siegsAR (Jun 17, 2015)

Hmmm.. Filter thread size? ???


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 17, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> Opps.
> 
> I just ordered EF24-70mm F2.8L II USM and they said I have to wait four months.
> I have EF24-70mm F4L IS USM and planning to sell it when I get F2.8L II.
> ...



I would cancel your order and buy from somewhere else. That lens should be in stock everywhere.

When Canon released the Mark II without IS, I knew I wouldn't be forking over the cash for it. Even hating the design of the previous model, I feel that it makes more sense until an IS version comes out.

Sigma is also rumored to be working on its own 24-70 f/2.8 IS Art lens. Some even claim it will be an f/2? That's doubtful considering the weight and size needs for an extra stop of light. However, I'd take f/2 and no IS than f2.8 with it.

Just imagine a zoom lens that fast for covering events and weddings. You could almost toss the 24, 35, and 50 primes! Mmmmm...I need to stop dreaming!


----------



## dolina (Jun 17, 2015)

Finally a 24-70 worth getting.


----------



## photogaz (Jun 17, 2015)

I've got a Tamron 24-70 and couldn't be happier. So glad I didn't buy the 24-70 Cannon. The IS is a godsend.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 17, 2015)

Exept for price and weight I'd be most curious about the difference in IQ between the IS and the non-IS version.
The IQ would be the buying factor to me, more than IS. (But luckily I don't have to bother about that, as I am more interested in other lenses  )


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 17, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Opps.
> ...



What a quick response, lol.
Thank you, CanonRumors.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 17, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Opps.
> ...



Thank you, LSX.
But in Japan, there is no stock anywhere. 
I can't risk of "no warranty", so I shouldn't buy it from U.S.

I will wait four months and let's see when "Canon's new IS model" and "Sigma's Art-lense" will be on market.

Thanks again.


----------



## Rancorous (Jun 17, 2015)

Yeah, and with Sigma supposedly developing a 24-70mm f/2.8 with OS, Canon had better up the ante. That being said, I'll gladly go for the Sigma. I already own the 18-35mm and the 50mm Art series lenses.


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 17, 2015)

WorkonSunday said:


> ... i think 24-85mm F4 is do-able ...



Well, since the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS celebrates its 10th birthday in about four months, yes, I would say that a 24-85mm f4 is certainly "do-able."



WorkonSunday said:


> (contax had a 24-85mm but F3.5 -5.6).



And Canon had an even better (max aperture-wise) 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5.


----------



## Justhandguns (Jun 17, 2015)

Oh! My silver 24-85 3.5-4.5 is still alive! That is a decent lens with one of the first few non L-lens to have a moulded non-spherical element. 

I still do not understand why Canon did no introduce IS into the 24-70 2.8 lens from the beginning as they are so much in to videos. IS actually helps a lot when you handhold your camera doing videos.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 17, 2015)

Rancorous said:


> Yeah, and with Sigma supposedly developing a 24-70mm f/2.8 with OS, Canon had better up the ante. That being said, I'll gladly go for the Sigma. I already own the 18-35mm and the 50mm Art series lenses.



Not really..only in the amateur market. The pro market wouldn't even look at the Sigma. Sigma is well regarded as being over heavy, inconsistent Quality Control in manufacturing, Inconsistent AF (across their lens portfolio), more fragile mechanical compared to Canon and certainly more risk. The pro support network for Sigma is roughly 3 weeks for a repair with no option to rent or supply a loaner in the mean time. CPS offer a far better service and Canon L lenses offer a superior Pro product with far less business risk attached to it. Add to the resale advantage of Canon...from a business point of view...Canon is the clear winner. I certainly wouldn't rely on any Sigma for one of my professional engagements. I just couldn't trust them as a brand in that context.

If you are in the market for a 24-70 and you are considering Tamron, Tokina, Sigma etc...then you are not a pro or are not taking a professional business view point with your kit choices.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 17, 2015)

Justhandguns said:


> Oh! My silver 24-85 3.5-4.5 is still alive! That is a decent lens with one of the first few non L-lens to have a moulded non-spherical element.
> 
> I still do not understand why Canon did no introduce IS into the 24-70 2.8 lens from the beginning as they are so much in to videos. IS actually helps a lot when you handhold your camera doing videos.



Because in video...so few actually need f2.8. Usually they stop down a lot to gain DOF and even out focus drift. 
Most are better served with a 24-105 LIS and 70-200 f4 LIS. They are lighter, IS and better ranges.


----------



## Justhandguns (Jun 17, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Justhandguns said:
> 
> 
> > Oh! My silver 24-85 3.5-4.5 is still alive! That is a decent lens with one of the first few non L-lens to have a moulded non-spherical element.
> ...



That is true, but I guess I would not mind having a large aperture lens which can also be stopped down and do video as well. I think it is not just 'either/or' but more like a multi-purpose.


----------



## Ladislav (Jun 17, 2015)

A dream:

Performance like 24-70/2.8 L II
4 stop IS
"Macro" feature like 24-70/4 L IS
Inner zoom
Initial price < $3000


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 17, 2015)

siegsAR said:


> Hmmm.. Filter thread size? ???



I think it's fair to assume this lens (if real) would be a clone of the 24-70 f/2.8L II with some extra internals and an IS switch.

Historically, when canon has IS and non IS version of lenses designed on/around the same timeframe, the front element is the same diameter. It's the max aperture that bosses that front element diameter:

Consider:

70-200 f/4L = 67mm
70-200 f/4L IS = 67mm

70-200 f/2.8L = 77mm
70-200 f/2.8L IS I = 77mm
70-200 f/2.8L IS II = 77mm

So I think an 82mm filter size would be logical to expect on a 24-70 f/2.8L IS.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 17, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> A dream:
> 
> Performance like 24-70/2.8 L II
> 4 stop IS
> ...



Zero chance of an internal zoom in my book:

1) Canon does internal zoom for UWA lenses and the 70-200s, but every EF 24-something zoom does not have internal focusing to keep the lens compact when you put it in your bag. Take any 24-70 you own out to 70mm and then freeze it there*. It would be that big. That's fine for some, but not fine for all. Some folks travel will smaller bags or want to pack more inside of them.

2) I believe they co-developed the 24-70 f/2.8L II and 24-70 f/2.8L IS at the same time, or at least left enough room for the IS internals (to be developed later) for the IS version. I'm expecting the IS version to look just about identical to the 24-70 F/2.8L II but have one more switch and weigh a little bit more. I would be stunned if Canon made an about face on internal zooming given the rapturously acclaim the current 24-70 f/2.8L II has received.

- A

*Not including the _reverse_ extending 24-70 f/2.8L I. Imagine that one at 24, I guess.


----------



## optikus (Jun 17, 2015)

... as discussed here some month before - this was to expect. Canon has to have an fine sense in what is happening around in the market. Nikon was the first to be known, that something like that is in the pipeline - so they will have to follow to keep the pro's on board. For a production equipment price is not the key point if it brings better performance and productivity. We will see what we get presented ...

J.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jun 17, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Zero chance of an internal zoom in my book:
> 
> 1) Canon does internal zoom for UWA lenses and the 70-200s, but every EF 24-something zoom does not have internal focusing to keep the lens compact when you put it in your bag. Take any 24-70 you own out to 70mm and then freeze it there*. It would be that big. That's fine for some, but not fine for all. Some folks travel will smaller bags or want to pack more inside of them.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Wouldn't an internal zooming 24-70mm IS also require a larger front element to prevent excessive vignetting at the 24mm end of the zoom range?


----------



## andrewflo (Jun 17, 2015)

Ladies & gentlemen, prepare your wallets.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 17, 2015)

optikus said:


> ... as discussed here some month before - this was to expect. Canon has to have an fine sense in what is happening around in the market. Nikon was the first to be known, that something like that is in the pipeline - so they will have to follow to keep the pro's on board. For a production equipment price is not the key point if it brings better performance and productivity. We will see what we get presented ...
> 
> J.



This has been a 'cold war' sort of lens. A 24-70 f/2.8 is a staple lens reportage/sports folks use comically often, and it's stellar general purpose lens for other shooters. 

So I think Canon and Nikon both have had a 24-70 f/2.8 IS design sitting in the books and neither have offered one yet because _neither has flinched yet_. If Canon offers a 24-70 2.8 IS, expect Nikon to have one out far faster than your normal development lead times -- because they've probably had one ready to go (on paper) for some time.

- A


----------



## tron (Jun 17, 2015)

super_newbie_pro said:


> Good new. But... If we could have a 24-70mm f/2.8L II is ($$$$  ), i hope the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS will be affordable... Yes, we can dream... But why not propose a 24-70 f/2.8 IS (no L for better price) affordable for 500-700€/$ like the 24-105 ?


Having to choose between a top quality 24-70 with no IS and a non top quality 24-70 with IS would be ironical, funny, whatever... It would seem that Canon thinks sadistically or that they are not capable of a lens that is a superset. Of course right now the situation with a 24-70 2.8 II non IS and a 24-70 4 L IS seems similar but I guess they have technical limitations in introducing 24-70 2.8L IS


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 17, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> Ladies & gentlemen, prepare your wallets.


It will be very expensive.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 17, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> andrewflo said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies & gentlemen, prepare your wallets.
> ...



Agree, this will be a $2500+ sort of lens at launch. The 24-70 f/2.8L II price has eroded slightly since launch ($1799 down from $2299), but I still think the first to market of the two majors will gouge the dickens out of people for it.

- A


----------



## smithcon (Jun 17, 2015)

I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 with IS, and I have to admit not been entirely happy with it, especially the sharpness when I AF it to a distant object at 24mm for landscape shots, specifically that should be at the hyperfocal distance. I probably need to spend time with MFA on my 6D to get it into better focus. 

Also, if you forget to turn off IS on the Tamron when you are using it on a tripod, the results don't just sacrifice a little sharpness, they are quite blurry. The Tamron IS is _very _ unforgiving in this respect. I've achieved excellent results even when I forget to turn the IS off for tripod shots on my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, but the Tammy makes you pay dearly for this gaffe, at least my copy of this lens does. 

One silver lining is that I am getting much better at remembering to flip that IS switch off now. I used to forget about 25% of the time, since I tend to be mostly a handheld shooter. Now I forget maybe 5% of the time. Another thing is that the resulting blur is so bad that chimping on the camera reveals it pretty readily, so I usually catch it in time to correct it. With the Canon 70-200, sometimes I would fool myself because the images were still sharp -- in fact I usually don't really see a difference when I turn off the switch (I did notice a difference on my gen 1 of the same lens). Hopefully if Canon produces a 24-70 IS it will be on a par with the 24-70 II, and have IS that is forgiving of absent-minded photographers like me when using it on the sticks.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2015)

It's already out. A7RII IBIS + 24-70 f/2.8 II. 

(OK, just being silly, but not 100% silly though)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 17, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's already out. A7RII IBIS + 24-70 f/2.8 II.
> 
> (OK, just being silly, but not 100% silly though)


... now how do I use ST-E3-RT and 600EX-RT flashes with a Sony body?


----------



## Etienne (Jun 17, 2015)

WorkonSunday said:


> going wider 24mm may be difficult from design point of view. but i think 24-85mm F4 is do-able (contax had a 24-85mm but F3.5 -5.6).
> 
> i quite like the current 24-70mm F4, i only wish it is as sharp as the bigger f2.8.


Canon has had a 24-105 f/4L IS for many years


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 17, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's already out. A7RII IBIS + 24-70 f/2.8 II.
> 
> (OK, just being silly, but not 100% silly though)



I love how Sony states their adaptered lenses are as fast as native lenses and then all of a sudden it's _"All your lens are belong to us. You may no longer not buy our cameras for that reason."
_
Tip your cap, people. That's marketing in action.

When their AF tracks as quickly & accurately as my 5D3, I'll consider buying one of those things, but I think that might not happen until the 5D_*6*_ comes out. 

- A


----------



## Etienne (Jun 17, 2015)

Although I'd like one, it will probably be priced too high for me for the number of times I'd use it. 
I know it's considered the most useful range of a staple lens, but i find that range not wide enough for wide, and not long enough for long. But I've been very happy with this two lens combo: 

16-35 f/2.8L II
70-200 f/2.8L IS II

When I want wide shots, the 24-70 doesn't cut it
and when I'm looking for tele shots, 24-70 doesn't cut it


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's already out. A7RII IBIS + 24-70 f/2.8 II.
> ...



Get a Yongnuo YN-E3-RT and use manual mode.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 17, 2015)

I am currently testing yet another 24-70 f2.8 MkII against my 2004 24-70 f2.8 MkI and still can't see a worthwhile difference.

On the other hand if an IS version comes out I am all in whatever the IQ (I know it won't be bad after all).


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 17, 2015)

Justhandguns said:


> Oh! My silver 24-85 3.5-4.5 is still alive! That is a decent lens with one of the first few non L-lens to have a moulded non-spherical element.



I think my black 24-85 (my first Canon EF lens) is still alive, as well; I'll have to check with the "cousin-in-law" to whom I sold it about 9 years ago.



Justhandguns said:


> I still do not understand why Canon did no introduce IS into the 24-70 2.8 lens from the beginning as they are so much in to videos. IS actually helps a lot when you handhold your camera doing videos.



Because Canon's business plan is all about maximizing sales / sales revenue / profit. They realized that the 24-70 II was enough of an improvement over the original, 10-years-older design that photographers who live on the bleeding edge would spring for it, IS or no. Those same bleeders will be first in line to snatch up the IS version when it becomes available.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 17, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> Thank you, LSX.
> But in Japan, there is no stock anywhere.
> I can't risk of "no warranty", so I shouldn't buy it from U.S.
> 
> ...



I think they are all being sold in the USA on ebay as Gray Market Lenses.

Here is one being sold by a Japanese dealer.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2-8-L-II-USM-camera-Lens-Japan-model-New-/161193066927?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2587db01af


----------



## andrewflo (Jun 17, 2015)

smithcon said:


> I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 with IS, and I have to admit not been entirely happy with it, especially the sharpness when I AF it to a distant object at 24mm for landscape shots, specifically that should be at the hyperfocal distance. I probably need to spend time with MFA on my 6D to get it into better focus.
> 
> Also, if you forget to turn off IS on the Tamron when you are using it on a tripod, the results don't just sacrifice a little sharpness, they are quite blurry. The Tamron IS is _very _ unforgiving in this respect. I've achieved excellent results even when I forget to turn the IS off for tripod shots on my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, but the Tammy makes you pay dearly for this gaffe, at least my copy of this lens does.
> 
> One silver lining is that I am getting much better at remembering to flip that IS switch off now. I used to forget about 25% of the time, since I tend to be mostly a handheld shooter. Now I forget maybe 5% of the time. Another thing is that the resulting blur is so bad that chimping on the camera reveals it pretty readily, so I usually catch it in time to correct it. With the Canon 70-200, sometimes I would fool myself because the images were still sharp -- in fact I usually don't really see a difference when I turn off the switch (I did notice a difference on my gen 1 of the same lens). Hopefully if Canon produces a 24-70 IS it will be on a par with the 24-70 II, and have IS that is forgiving of absent-minded photographers like me when using it on the sticks.



Agree with you here! I've owned the Tammy for about 2 years now and LOVE it... but for most images, they just don't have the same eye popping sharpness as my Canon lenses (70-200, 16-35 f/4), even when stopped down.

Tbh I attribute it mostly to it being slightly out of focus, but I haven't done scientific testing to prove this. I AFMA it on the 6D only to find it seems front focused at certain focus distances and back focused at the others, so it's not really a perfect solution.

On the flipside, my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II and 16-35 f/4 get blistering sharp images nearly every time with proper technique.

I feel kinda disappointed looking at eyes in my portrait photos with the Tammy. But the VC is quite nice (especially for casual video shooting) and the extra cost of the Canon has made me hesitant for the upgrade. Overall not a bad lens, I'm just spoiled by the latest & greatest offerings from Canon. 

Plus clients rarely complain about sharpness


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 17, 2015)

Well crap, right aound the time I build up enough in my equipment account for the 24-70mm F/2.8 II, I hear about this! 

I prefer to buy lenses that I can keep for 10 years, so this makes me doubt investing in a lens if there'll be a better option around the corner a year from now. Perhaps I'll use the money towards the 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 IS II, as that lens will definitely not be getting an upgrade for a long while, and would have a bigger impact on my work as a photojournalist as it would extend my working distance, while a 24-70mm is just more convenient versus my 16-35mm and 70-200mm. 

Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.



Bad a$$umption, considering how close in price the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS II are at launch and now.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 18, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.



We'd like to think that, but that (admittedly legendary) 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens was sold at roughly the same price as the 24-70 f/2.8L II when it launched -- i.e. the *non-IS *standard zoom cost about the same as the much bigger and heavier short tele zoom *with IS*.

So I expect the IS version of the 24-70 to cost even more yet. Design-wise, I don't know the optical formula well-enough to know if that's justified based on the 24-70 II having additional aspherical / fluorite / supercoated / nanolasers / godzilla glass / space crystals compared to the 70-200, but I seem to recall 'sharpest zoom ever made' 3rd party test verdicts on the 24-70 II when it was launched. People hated the 24-70 II's price, but at least that price was legitimately backed up with performance.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a 24-70mm F/2.8 IS would cost less than a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II? I can't imagine that the lens would cost more than $2,000, because it'd make no sense selling a general purpose lens for more than its massive, white image-stabilized telephoto partner.
> ...



Dammit, Neuro, you beat me to it. 

I will say the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is perceived to be of greater value to customers -- it has maintained its high price better than the 24-70 f/2.8L II. Each has dropped about $400 in asking price, but the 70-200 has been out twice as long...

- A


----------



## Famateur (Jun 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I love how Sony states their adaptered lenses are as fast as native lenses and then all of a sudden it's _"All your lens are belong to us. You may no longer not buy our cameras for that reason."
> _



Zero Wing for the win! 

Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."



Then Canon laughs... ;D


----------



## Famateur (Jun 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."
> ...



Agreed!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Then Sony says to Canon, after releasing the A7RII, "You have no chance to survive make your time."
> ...



Call me crazy, but if Sony can deliver on just a few small things:


Triple the battery life
Deliver 1:1 EVF magnification
AF reliability as good as my 5D3
AF speed with native glass as fast as my 5D3
AF speed adaptored with foreign glass 80% at fast as native
An EVF experience that is 95% as responsive as my OVF
Offer more than one (expensive) price point for native lenses
Show tracking AF performance on the level of, say, a 70D (my needs are limited compared to others)
Offer 50% the ecosystem of accessories, flashes, triggers, etc. as Canon

...I would consider giving them my business someday. These are reasonable asks, I think, and I believe they will eventually get there.

- A


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jun 18, 2015)

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

I really really really really really hope this pans out.

I honestly cannot express just how much I have wanted this lens. On a scale of 1 to 10, my desire for this is currently at 3,592.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



I don't have real scientific data on this, but I truly believe AF speed on my A7s + FE55mm is fast as my 1Dx.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 18, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
> 
> I really really really really really hope this pans out.
> 
> I honestly cannot express just how much I have wanted this lens. On a scale of 1 to 10, my desire for this is currently at 3,592.



That is good news, because that is the launch price in US$, £, and the €. ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 18, 2015)

dilbert said:


> smithcon said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if you forget to turn off IS on the Tamron when you are using it on a tripod, the results don't just sacrifice a little sharpness, they are quite blurry. The Tamron IS is _very _ unforgiving in this respect. I've achieved excellent results even when I forget to turn the IS off for tripod shots on my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II, but the Tammy makes you pay dearly for this gaffe, at least my copy of this lens does.
> ...



As so often Dilbert, you are mistaken. Whilst the theory (ad word from Canon) is that older IS lenses should be turned off when tripod mounted, the truth is few of us use tripods where no movement of the camera is made, if you use IS with older lenses on most tripods you are fine, indeed it will make your tripod seem better than it is. It is easy to demonstrate too, just put an older lens with IS 'on' on a kitchen worktop and look through the viewfinder, the scene will occasionally 'jump', now do that on your tripod and for all but the sturdiest tripods the viewfinder view will not jump, there is enough movement to not confuse the IS.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's already out. A7RII IBIS + 24-70 f/2.8 II.
> ...



Yeah all true BUT, for a lot stuff where IS matters, crazy AF speed and all is sometimes less important or something that you might be able to make do with so it's still a somewhat interesting prospect I think.

You can always hold onto the 5D3 for all the macro with AF, sports, serious action, must be able to repeatedly hit some subject fast almst all of the time stuff and then for all the other times....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 18, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > smithcon said:
> ...



An alternate truth, I once forgot to turn the IS off on my 70-200 f/4 IS, which wasn't even an old IS unit type, and when I took some tripod shots I couldn't believe how nasty they were all coming out and then I noticed and flipped off the IS and all the rest of the shots were perfection. And there was no big wind, vibration going on.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 18, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Rancorous said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, and with Sigma supposedly developing a 24-70mm f/2.8 with OS, Canon had better up the ante. That being said, I'll gladly go for the Sigma. I already own the 18-35mm and the 50mm Art series lenses.
> ...



Oops, there went my career  Painting with a very broad stroke today, are we? I'll be contacting all of the clients, companies, and magazines that have had the audacity to pay me for images I took with a _Tamron 24-70_...


----------



## bholliman (Jun 18, 2015)

I don't think I would be in the market for one of these. I'm sure it will be a terrific lens, but since I don't shoot video, my 24-70/2.8 II is everything I'm looking for in a standard zoom. I'm not sure IS would add much to my photography. If I'm in real low light I go with my image stabilized 35/2 IS most of the time.


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 18, 2015)

bholliman said:


> I don't think I would be in the market for one of these. I'm sure it will be a terrific lens, but since I don't shoot video, my 24-70/2.8 II is everything I'm looking for in a standard zoom. I'm not sure IS would add much to my photography. If I'm in real low light I go with my image stabilized 35/2 IS most of the time.



No G.A.S. in you!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 18, 2015)

Meanwhile, another high end zoom may have just surfaced out of nowhere:

http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-announced-soon/

Shaking my head at that one -- partly because they had the nerve to try this, and also at the absurdly limited FL range.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Shaking my head at that one -- partly because they had the nerve to try this, and also at the absurdly limited FL range.



Tokina 11-16/2.8 - a very good lens with quite a few fans.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Shaking my head at that one -- partly because they had the nerve to try this, and also at the absurdly limited FL range.
> ...



Yep, as I just said on another thread, small FL zoom multipliers uniquely work in UWA that wouldn't in say, a 24-35mm lens. Those two framings are not different enough to think of that lens as a useful zoom. But, for a 16-24 I would absolutely reverse my mind on that.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Meanwhile, another high end zoom may have just surfaced out of nowhere:
> 
> http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-announced-soon/
> 
> ...



It'll be interesting to see how large it is and the price. Having such a small range for just one stop compared to a 24-70 f/2.8... The 24mm f/2.8 IS and 35mm f/2 IS can be had for 1000 new and less refurbished, and they're each much smaller than typical zooms. Many that interested in the fasted glass will already have 24 and 35 f/1.4 options... I wonder how big this market is. Now, it was a 24-35 f/1.4, then we'd be talking!


----------



## super_newbie_pro (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Meanwhile, another high end zoom may have just surfaced out of nowhere:
> 
> http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-announced-soon/
> 
> ...


 Need to wait the price... If Sigma hit the market with a 1000$/€ max, it will be a serious problem for canon. EDIT ; 849€ ==> http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigma-24-35mm-f2-art-price-rumor-849-euros/


----------



## bholliman (Jun 19, 2015)

super_newbie_pro said:


> Need to wait the price... If Sigma hit the market with a 1000$/€ max, it will be a serious problem for canon. EDIT ; 849€ ==> http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigma-24-35mm-f2-art-price-rumor-849-euros/



I doubt it. The tiny zoom range of this lens means it will compete more with primes than zooms, at least to my thinking.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 19, 2015)

bholliman said:


> super_newbie_pro said:
> 
> 
> > Need to wait the price... If Sigma hit the market with a 1000$/€ max, it will be a serious problem for canon. EDIT ; 849€ ==> http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/06/sigma-24-35mm-f2-art-price-rumor-849-euros/
> ...



+1. The 24L II and 35L are more expensive than their Sigma counterparts and they'll still sell. I think this lens will affect 24A and 35A sales more than the Ls because those buyers are more price elastic.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 19, 2015)

Maybe we should get back on topic, which was 
_Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS in Development? [CR1]_
And put the Sigma zoom discussion into the Sigma zoom release thread?

just my thought...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Maybe we should get back on topic, which was
> _Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS in Development? [CR1]_
> And put the Sigma zoom discussion into the Sigma zoom release thread?
> 
> just my thought...



My fault. Apologies.

Now that I gave up the 24-70 f/2.8L I for the 24-70 f/4L IS, I fear the 24-70 f/2.8L IS would not get my money.

I realize an IS version of the 24-70 f/2.8L II would be sharper, but I've grown to adore the lighter weight and shorter length, and I am in love with the 0.7x max magnification. I realize the macro working distance of that at 70mm is next to nothing, but on hikes and vacations, it lets me leave the 100L at home. It's not meant for dedicated macro work w.r.t. tripods/rails/ring-lites/focus stacking/etc. at all, but it's such a gift in a pinch. It really is a clever, clever add to a lens and I don't know of other standard zooms that offer it.

(Attached were very quickly snagged handheld with available light -- they don't go on the wall or anything, but they fill out a travelogue well.)

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> My fault. Apologies.


No need to apologize. You were not the only one and I thought to lift the flag a little bit 



> (Attached were very quickly snagged handheld with available light -- they don't go on the wall or anything, but they fill out a travelogue well.)


Really nice shots, although I don't like if a lizard has to lose its tail. Even just in photo


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 25, 2015)

This old man might have to wait for this one.


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 25, 2015)

I just heard the 24-105 f/4L IS is being discontinued, and the timing of that lines up for a new 5D or 1D model to be launched at the end of the year with a new kit lens; a 5D/1D + 24-70 f/2.8L IS kit would be a good excuse for a premium-price SKU.


----------



## tron (Jun 25, 2015)

aceflibble said:


> *I just heard the 24-105 f/4L IS is being discontinued*, and the timing of that lines up for a new 5D or 1D model to be launched at the end of the year with a new kit lens; a 5D/1D + 24-70 f/2.8L IS kit would be a good excuse for a premium-price SKU.


Where exactly did you hear that?

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-105mm-USM-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000AZ57M6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435243001&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+24-105mm+f+4l+is+usm+af+lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+ef+24-105mm+f%2F4l+is+usm+lens&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps


----------



## aceflibble (Jun 25, 2015)

https://twitter.com/Castlecameras/status/614051334480904192

Castle Cameras is a UK shop that seems _very_ tight with Canon, Sigma and Fuji. If they say the lens is going out of production, you can bet your bottom dollar it's going out of production.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 26, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve heard from a few different places over the last few months that an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is currently under development.



the last reasonable suggestion I've seen anywhere is the suggestion that it takes around 7 years for a lens to finalize from initial development.

(this was from nikon) ... even if it's quicker in canon land, it could be 5+ or more years away before it's completed and into manufacturing.


----------

