# EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 24, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-patent-published/" 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;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-patent-published/"></a></div>
<strong>Itâ€™s coming, really!</strong>

We posted the filed patent of a 24-70 f/2.8L II <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/10/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-patent/">way back in October</a>. However it has now been published as of April 21, 2011. The big omission appears to be IS. I think itâ€™s safe to say the lens is coming soon.</p>
<p><strong>Other Lenses in the Patent

</strong>A couple of other lenses appear in the patent. A 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS, which has been released. Also appearing is a 55-250 IS lens. This could be a version II of the current lens. It could also shrink to 200mm at the long end.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Information

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Patent Publication No.	2011-81062</span></strong></li>
<li><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Published	2011.4.21</span></strong></li>
<li><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Filled	2009.10.5</span></strong></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>24-70 f/2.8L II</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal distance f=24.74 â€“ 67.50mm</li>
<li>Fno 2.92 â€“ 2.91</li>
<li>Half angle of view 41.17 â€“ 17.77 deg.</li>
<li>Lens length 206.42 â€“ 177.53mm</li>
<li>Back focus 38.43mm</li>
<li>Aspherical 2</li>
<li>zoom ratio 2.73x</li>
<li>MOD 0.38m</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>70-300 f/4-5.6L IS</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal distance f=72.21 â€“ 299.52mm</li>
<li>Fno 4.65 â€“ 5.85</li>
<li>Half angle of view 16.68 â€“ 4.13 deg.</li>
<li>Lens length 142.64 â€“ 201.84mm</li>
<li>Back focus 37.77mm</li>
<li>Aspherical 1</li>
<li>zoom ratio 4.15x</li>
<li>MOD 1.4m</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>55-250 f/4-5.6 IS</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Focal distance f=55.60 â€“ 203.11mm</li>
<li>Fno 4.16 â€“ 5.88</li>
<li>Half angle of view 13.80 â€“ 3.85 deg.</li>
<li>Lens length 162.05 â€“ 202.41mm</li>
<li>Back focus 58.79 â€“ 82.03mm</li>
<li>Aspherical 0</li>
<li>zoom ratio 3.65x</li>
<li>MOD 1.5m</li>
</ul>
<p>Egami notes the 24-70 patent shows possible performance issues. You can check out their findings <a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2011-04-24#english">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Quote</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The performance does not seem to be so good. The spherical aberration is delivered to less than +-0.2mm in all conditions at the outskirts. The astigmatism exceeds 1mm extremely badly in the short distance. The distortion is -4% of barrels type in the wide side. In the short distance, the distortion is +5% of lozenge type in the tele side. The chromatic aberration of magnification is corrected well.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## tivoboy (Apr 24, 2011)

just curious. WHY do you think that the 55-250 will only be 55-200?


----------



## Roroco (Apr 24, 2011)

The Mark I of this lens is so good, I don't see why they are releasing a MarkII without IS. With video being a big focus with DSLR, I think IS is becoming a requirement at this focal length in a zoom...


----------



## mathino (Apr 24, 2011)

tivoboy said:


> just curious. WHY do you think that the 55-250 will only be 55-200?



...maybe because of what is written in the patent  :

Focal distance f=55.60 â€“ 203.11mm


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 24, 2011)

what the *? I don't get it why would they release a II without IS and with performance issues, the first one is already sharp and is a pretty good lens generally?


----------



## traveller (Apr 24, 2011)

The only aspects of the current 24-70L that most people had cause to complain about were the lack of IS and the wide open performance at 50mm and above (other than the price and weight). Why on earth would Canon release a lens that addresses neither of these complaints (and will probably be worse on both of the other accounts too). This really doesn't make any sense... Oh wait sorry, I forgot this is Canon we're talking about!


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 24, 2011)

Just because IS is the number ONE requested feature on the 24-70, why should Canon address that? Hmmmm......

I think they are making a serious mistake by not offering IS in the 2nd version because there would be no reason to buy it, especially for video. And with it being optically worse? Makes no sense, but then again, Canon makes no sense.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 24, 2011)

It appears to me that Canon is compromising by sacrificing properties that can be fixed by in-camera software, or in post processing for properties that cannot. They seem to be giving priority to center, corner and edge sharpness and to eliminating chromatic abberation. Distortion at the wide end or long end can be fixed by software, while sharpness and LOCA's cannot.

This formula might also be applicable to a new 24-105 mm lens, just because it is not in the examples does not mean it won't happen.

In any event, it is a very complex lens, moving three or four lens groups at a time and with extreme precision will mean tighter tolerances, and higher prices. Be ready for $$$$.

Simply constructed primes are looking better and better. I've nothing against zooms, but as mechanical complexity increases, so does the possibility of misalignment or malfunctions.


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 24, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> It appears to me that Canon is compromising by sacrificing properties that can be fixed by in-camera software, or in post processing for properties that cannot. They seem to be giving priority to center, corner and edge sharpness and to eliminating chromatic abberation. Distortion at the wide end or long end can be fixed by software, while sharpness and LOCA's cannot.



How can lack of IS be "fixed" by in-camera software or in post-processing? You could just say use a tripod, but then I'm not sure why Canon would make a MKII of this lens if the first one does so well? I know I can't be naive and think Canon hasn't been listening to those of us who want IS in a lens, or better ISO performance in a body, but at the same time it seems like they dropped the ball on this one.

I'm sure it'll cost more than the MKI with maybe a small %age increase in IQ that probably won't be worth it for most people. IS on the other hand would've been a fantastic feature to have (along with the improvements you suggest). That would given people who have been waiting a long time for this lens a real reason to upgrade.


----------



## macfly (Apr 24, 2011)

I did tell anyone who'd listen Canon took a real step backwards with the G12 from the G10, and from this it looks that it is about to do it again. I keep looking here to see if there is some great reason to stay with Canon, but more and more it looks like they are just missing the point.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 25, 2011)

I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 25, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > It appears to me that Canon is compromising by sacrificing properties that can be fixed by in-camera software, or in post processing for properties that cannot. They seem to be giving priority to center, corner and edge sharpness and to eliminating chromatic abberation. Distortion at the wide end or long end can be fixed by software, while sharpness and LOCA's cannot.
> ...


I don't think scaleusa was referring to IS when discussing factors that can be "fixed" in software. What he was referring to, I think, was more the factors in terms of optical quality, which can be "fixed" in software - for instance, peripheral illumination and barrel/pincushion can be sorted out either in camera or or in post.

As for IS, it might be worthwhile if somebody could comment on the technical feasibility of fitting IS into a package that is not too bulky for this lens. I am not sure whether that might be too much of a challenge.

If I were Canon, and planned to release a 24-70mm with IS, I would also market a non-IS version. Purely commercially, I think you would find that this is a lens where you could sell both versions. For stills shooters, many people need to use shutter speeds fast enough to ensure that there is no blur due to movement of the subject. This is unlike the 70-200 category, where shooting at speeds less than 1/200s is essential, whereas many photographers may not need/want to shoot at less than 1/80s - especially press or event photographers. As has been mentioned, this may be different for videographers.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 25, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> > How can lack of IS be "fixed" by in-camera software or in post-processing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thien135 (Apr 25, 2011)

I decided to sell my old cropped sensor camera and wait for 5D mark III and this lenses. However, my friend told me to buy 70-200 2.8 is mark II instead. So , 24-70 mark 2 or 70-200 would be best pairing with a FF camera?????? I'm looking to do a lot of portraits and some family events.


----------



## J-Man (Apr 25, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> It appears to me that Canon is compromising by sacrificing properties that can be fixed by in-camera software, or in post processing for properties that cannot. They seem to be giving priority to center, corner and edge sharpness and to eliminating chromatic abberation. Distortion at the wide end or long end can be fixed by software, while sharpness and LOCA's cannot.


Sounds like photogs that have time critical deadlines will be forced to send sub par images to their clients,
unless Canon is planning to add correction capabilities to future bodies. 
Time will tell if the lens is worth it or not.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 25, 2011)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.



Wait for the real lens and not just pass judgment based on a patent and rumor? Madness! That is like relying on a jury to sentence a criminal when you just totally know that based on 30 seconds of TV news that the person is guilty.

I will bet any new Canon lens, especially one so complex will have bunches of new patents, many of which don't make it in to the final production model, so I think i'll wait and see.


----------



## JakiChan (Apr 25, 2011)

Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY. *sigh*


----------



## Flake (Apr 25, 2011)

I just thought I'd point out something which no one seems to have noticed - the date this was filed 5/10/2009 some 30 months ago. The 70 - 300mm IS L was launched 8 months ago as for the 55 - 200mm I've no idea! So why is it they haven't launched the 24 - 70mm ?

Todays zoom lenses are computer designed to get the maximum possible performance from them, it would be a strange thing to find a top end lens which doesn't offer some incredible levels compared with the previous one. If the 24 - 70mm has some issues, it's likely that there is a compromise going on and performance in other areas will be spectacular!

However if it doesn't have IS it's going to be little more use than a paperweight in the late Autumn / winter months of the North and that would make it a very unlikely purchase for me no matter how good it is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2011)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design.



Agreed. Canon set the bar pretty high with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and I'd expect a revised 24-70mm to be stellar.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 25, 2011)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.



I agree. We have people talking about switching to from Canon because of a lenses that has not be released and someone thought it might have issues based on the patent.... Seriously?


----------



## Justin (Apr 25, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to actually see and use this lens before we get bent out of shape over this theoretical design. I have an excellent copy of the existing version and in my opinion the mkII has a lot of live up to, if not...then I'll keep my current version. It's a great lens.
> ...



These patents are not new. Multiple patents can be put together to make a final product. A product and a patent don't have to be identical. The 24-70 could be a month away from announcement or 3 years. We don't know. And it could just as easily have IS as not. My money is on IS.


----------



## Hypersonic (Apr 25, 2011)

Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.

Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor?  Wow, new rumor hehe


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 25, 2011)

Hypersonic said:


> Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.
> 
> Unless of course.. the 5D MkIII will have a built in stabilized sensor?  Wow, new rumor hehe



If that's the case, it still begs the question: Why the update? One would have IS with the current version of the lens.

And I can't see Canon going in-camera with the IS. I wish they would, but it would hurt their lens market.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 25, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> Hypersonic said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, this is interesting, no IS?? This is the number one feature request for this lens I would have thought, I don't see much point releasing an updated version with no IS.
> ...



They won't go in body IS and I'm glad. I like seeing the IS effect through the view finder. Much better for composition.

I don't think that 24-70mm is a range the demands IS. Is it better to have it? Of course. Is it weird that they aren't including it? Kinda. But does this bother me? Nah, not really. Give me a super sharp 24-70mm II with a bit better looking bokeh and I'm good.

And before anyone says it, I know IS is better for video. Or, required more like it. But is the 24-70 really a lens you'd want to use for video? Aren't light weight primes the more desired lens?


----------



## bvukich (Apr 25, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> They won't go in body IS and I'm glad. I like seeing the IS effect through the view finder. Much better for composition.



Seconded.

Given all the problems that Sony has with sensor overheating, and having the sensor move in general sounds like an engineering nightmare to me, It's not something I would desire to see Canon or Nikon pursue.


----------



## kennykodak (Apr 25, 2011)

well i'm feeling stupid. i sold mine late last year anticipating the new release with IS. okay i can live without IS and would have upgraded anyway but... lack luster performance on a replacement?


----------



## Kuscali (Apr 25, 2011)

thien135 said:


> I decided to sell my old cropped sensor camera and wait for 5D mark III and this lenses. However, my friend told me to buy 70-200 2.8 is mark II instead. So , 24-70 mark 2 or 70-200 would be best pairing with a FF camera?????? I'm looking to do a lot of portraits and some family events.



The 24-70 will be better for those group shots at family events, the 75mm end will do good for portraits. The 70-200mm you will find might be too long for family group shots.


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 25, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Give me a super sharp 24-70mm II with a bit better looking bokeh and I'm good.



And reduced field curvature - good border sharpness is a nice thing, but I'd like to have it where it makes sense.


----------



## JakiChan (Apr 25, 2011)

Well, I guess I'll be able to offload my 24-70 for a decent price. I mean if I only take a $200 hit on it I guess I'm ok. But I wish the new lens would get announced and reviewed so we can see what we're dealing with.

I *knew* I should have held off...I *knew* it...but I did it anyway. :-[ :'(


----------



## motorhead (Apr 25, 2011)

Jaki,

I've been very pleased with my "mark 1" version, so don't be too downhearted. The fact that theres a mark 2 version coming (bear in mind with Japans current situation it could be 12 months away) does not mean that the previous version is now useless.


----------



## Kuscali (Apr 25, 2011)

Hell even the predecessor to the 24-70mm the 28-70mm is great lens, some say even better than the 24-70mm.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 25, 2011)

JakiChan said:


> Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY. *sigh*



This isn't a product announcement. Also, just because a patent was published, it doesn't mean that the new version is _imminent_. Some patents never become real products. The ones that do can take years to reach the market.


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 26, 2011)

DJL329 said:


> JakiChan said:
> 
> 
> > Oh man...I bought the Mk. I version of this lens on THURSDAY. *sigh*
> ...



True, but the timing, with rumors of a new body, the DIGIC V news, the expected 5D3 or 1Dx ... this is looking like a kit lens that'll be out this year.


----------



## ksinton (Apr 26, 2011)

With the added resolution of Canons new sensors Canon is being forced to seriously upgrade all there lenses so that a new level of detail can be resolved.

I agree wit the earlier post that Canon is trading off barrel distortion for additional clarity. It's a good trade off since the barrel distortion can be corrected and besides sometimes barrel distortion looks good 

Expect this lens to be as sharp as many primes! That's why Canon is betting on this lens being a big seller even without IS. 

Although I would still love to see this lens with IS. Please Canon can we have an IS version. 8)

Kim Sinton
http://hawaiiphotographerwedding.com/


----------



## Justin (Apr 26, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > JakiChan said:
> ...



I doubt very seriously the 24-70 will make it to America as a kit lens. Too pricey.


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 26, 2011)

Justin said:


> HughHowey said:
> 
> 
> > DJL329 said:
> ...



On top of that, the lenses they announced *last* year _still_ haven't made it to the market. They were way behind schedule even _before_ the earthquake/tsunami hit. Who knows what that has done to Canon's time lines.


----------



## macfly (Apr 26, 2011)

> Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.



There is some sense to that, though no one from Canon has reached out to any of the other photographers I know, including the ones they sponsor, to ask our opinion about anything they do. However it seems the 24-105 is a more useful range for a video lens so your idea makes total sense, and would diferentitate the two lenses purpose. 

I'm not sure why everyone is so hung up on IS on theis lens as shorter lenses doesn't really benefit from IS like long lenses do, and if you have the extra usable apature and a faster chip that should really offset the need for it.


----------



## Sherwin (Apr 26, 2011)

Anybody knows the specs for the 24-70L I? What is/are the difference(s) between the two versions? Thanks.


----------



## ksinton (Apr 26, 2011)

macfly said:


> > Thus, maybe, just maybe, the feedback from the pro's that regularly use the 24-70 is that the extra price & weight of IS wouldn't add commensurate value to pictures taken.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As a wedding photographer I think think that IS in the 28-70 would be extremely useful. My experience at weddings is that I just can't get enough low light capability (as i really prefer to shoot without a flash). The last wedding I shot was shot mostly at 5000 ISO F3.2. With a 50mm f1.4 lens. I was still only getting 1/50th of second. 

I really would have liked a zoom like the new 28-70 with optics almost comparable to the 50mm f1.4 and ideally with IS. Without IS at 50mm some of my shots where slightly soft, which is a shame as far as I am concerned. 

AND... that was not even a very poorly lit wedding.. like I said at weddings you just can't get enough low light capability. 

Kim Sinton
http://hawaiiphotographerwedding.com/


----------



## kennykodak (Apr 26, 2011)

Sherwin said:


> Anybody knows the specs for the 24-70L I? What is/are the difference(s) between the two versions? Thanks.



excellent question


----------



## ksinton (Apr 26, 2011)

dilbert said:


> When people say photos are soft, they typically mean that focus was not achieved. That might be because the camera and lens are not properly matched, it picked the wrong thing to focus on or something else but...
> 
> Focus not being achieved is different to blur as a result of either the camera or the subject. IS only helps deal with blur because of camera motion.
> 
> At 50mm, you should be using the 1.2L or 1.4, which would give you a much faster shutter speed than the 2.8 for the same light.



Yeah I was shooting with the 50mm f1.4 but it's not always practical to shoot at f1.4 as I often need more depth of field than that. There are only certain shoots you can shoot wide open like that. 

My shots where focused correctly... the slight softness was due to motion blur.

I have shot with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS on a crop camera and gotten crisp shots at 1/20th of second.


----------



## Duncandim (Apr 27, 2011)

mathino said:


> tivoboy said:
> 
> 
> > just curious. WHY do you think that the 55-250 will only be 55-200?
> ...





kennykodak said:


> Sherwin said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody knows the specs for the 24-70L I? What is/are the difference(s) between the two versions? Thanks.
> ...


OH I KNOW I KNOW!!! It has finally arrived!!!! The in-body IS is coming with the new 5D so why bother having IS on the new lenses....... (please Canon make the dream come true)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2011)

dilbert said:


> So? I've taken sharp shots with the 50/1.4 at even slower shutter speeds of *static* subjects, hand held.
> 
> Anyway, you seem to have convinced yourself that you need IS on whatever lens you use, so good luck.



The problem is that at f/1.4, shallow DoF may be a problem for many shots, depending on the subject. I've gotten crisp handheld shots with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS out to 0.5 s (although the keeper rate is pretty low). The 24-105mm f/4L with 3-stop IS delivers the equivalent of f/1.4 in terms of 'handholdability' for static subjects. 

Photographers lived without IS for many, many years. So...need? Well, no. But humans lived without electricity and refrigeration for many, many years, too... All things considered, I'd rather be able to light a room with the flick of a switch and enjoy a glass of chilled wine...and have IS available at every focal length.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

IS Certainly makes possible some hand held images that I could not get without it.

This image was with my 7D and 17-55mm EF-s at 1/4 sec. I had just received the camera, and for some unknown reason I had the ISO set to 800, which pushed the aperture way high (f22), so there is a lot of diffraction, and there is just a bit of shake. Ultimately, I was disappointed at the 7D noise, even at ISO 800. I re-edited the raw file this morning in Lightroom 3, and it does a much better job of processing the image and removing noise, but its still quite visible at 1:1.







On a dark dreary morning, I looked out my back window, and saw our baby goats playing king of the mountain on our horse. I knew the horse loves goats, but he would not submit for long, so I grabbed my 1D MK III which always has my 100-400mm on it and snapped a shot at 400mm thru the doublepane glass. I did not stop to setup the camera, so I got the settings as they were, and a 1/25 sec exposure at 400mm. I was lucky to get the photo at all, the horse rolled seconds later.

Even though the image is not particularly sharp due to shake, my wife likes to show it to her friends.

Without IS, I would not have had time to setup a tripod, or adjust ISO even higher (already at 800).


----------



## Mousepotato (Apr 27, 2011)

Why _*wouldn't *_you want IS? If you don't want to use it, you can always turn it off.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 27, 2011)

Mousepotato said:


> Why _*wouldn't *_you want IS? If you don't want to use it, you can always turn it off.



Who are you replying to? 

Tip-- Use the quote feature for the post you are answering, and then we will have the context of your reply.

BTW -- Welcome to Canon rumors!


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 27, 2011)

Mousepotato said:


> Why _*wouldn't *_you want IS?



Pricier, potentially bulkier/heavier, battery hog if used, and compromised optical quality... could be disadvantages. In reality it's mostly price.

Haha, love that goats pic, scaleusa... ;D


----------



## Mousepotato (Apr 27, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Mousepotato said:
> 
> 
> > Why _*wouldn't *_you want IS?
> ...


Heh, Canon has never been modest about their prices. I expect to pay an arm and a leg, IS or not


----------



## Mousepotato (Apr 27, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Who are you replying to?
> 
> Tip-- Use the quote feature for the post you are answering, and then we will have the context of your reply.
> 
> BTW -- Welcome to Canon rumors!


Woops, I think that was in response to dilbert's message. I guess it was ripe for a "PMFJI", so I'd like to take this time to use my PMFJI retroactively 

And thanks!


----------



## NXT1000 (Jul 12, 2011)

what? no 24-70f2.8 IS II? why no IS. i will be so angry.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> what? no 24-70f2.8 IS II? why no IS. i will be so angry.



It would be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS *or* (or maybe and?) a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, since there's no current/MkI version of that lens with IS. I, for one, would prefer IS to go along with improved coatings and optics.


----------



## NXT1000 (Jul 12, 2011)

It would be a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS *or* (or maybe and?) a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, since there's no current/MkI version of that lens with IS. I, for one, would prefer IS to go along with improved coatings and optics.
[/quote]

the whole world is waiting for 24-70 f2.8L IS. seriously. not 24-70 f2.8L II - what is that? there will zero people going to buy that just to get a little improvement in IQ. 24-70 f2.8L already a fantastic lens.


----------



## bycostello (Jul 19, 2011)

i want, maybe even need a 24-70 with IS... that's what i'd wanna see on the mk2


----------



## gmrza (Jul 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> NXT1000 said:
> 
> 
> > what? no 24-70f2.8 IS II? why no IS. i will be so angry.
> ...



A reason that I can see why Canon might not build an IS version is that one of the main uses of the 24-70 f/2.8 is event photography - a lot of wedding photographers use it. To a large degree they need to take into account motion blur from subjects moving around - while not action photography, a lot of the time there is a need to shoot at shutter speeds where IS will not be of benefit on a 70mm lens. (This is rather different from the 24-105mm f/4 which is more of a general purpose lens.) The requirement for IS is rather different with the 70-200mm f/2.8, where it is often desirable to shoot at shutter speeds where IS is a necessity - therefor pros are happy to shell out the extra money for the IS version.


----------



## Crackson (Oct 24, 2011)

I've been holding off for the MK2 version of this lens and the wait is killing me. IS or non-IS I'm getting the lens. 
Hopefully they'll release both but I don't think someone would need IS at 70mm. It would just add way more weight to beautiful glass.

Either way it'll be a great lens IS or non


----------



## shoutout33 (Nov 8, 2011)

Roroco said:


> The Mark I of this lens is so good, I don't see why they are releasing a MarkII without IS. With video being a big focus with DSLR, I think IS is becoming a requirement at this focal length in a zoom...



If they plan to match and beat Nikon's 24-70, they need IS _*and*_ internal zoom/focus. I'd even prefer having internal zooming and focusing before IS. But that's just me.


----------



## DavidM (Nov 14, 2011)

is the new 24/70mm f/2.8 going to be IS?


----------

