# Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?



## davidgator (Dec 20, 2012)

Baed on the sale on the 24-70l II, I ordered this lens this morning.  Tonight, I read the CR2 rumor of the IS version coming in 12 months or so. I do not plan on using the lens for video. Should I return the lens I bought today and wait for the IS version?


----------



## fr8oc (Dec 20, 2012)

Enjoy the lens that you bought. If/when the next lens comes out you can sell this one and buy the new one. Canon lens hold their value well so it won't end up costing you too much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2012)

No, return the lens, skip the 24-70/2.8 IS, too. There'll be a 21-80mm f/2.8L IS a year after that..._that's_ the one you want to wait for. 




Seriously, making buying decisions based on rumors is a really bad idea. A new 100-400L has been 'coming in about a year'....every year for the past 5 years. If you need/want it now, get it now.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> A new 100-400L has been 'coming in about a year'....every year for the past 5 years. If you need/want it now, get it now.



And the 35L II too will be in by January right after 100-400L II. I am planning to take the second Sunday off to play with them.


----------



## davidgator (Dec 20, 2012)

OK, OK, OK. I get the point about not waiting for a rumored lens. Let me ask a follow up question. Will IS offer a big benefit for photos on this lens in indoor situations for family portraits?


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 20, 2012)

IS doesn't stop motion blur. But it helps with the video jitters.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

davidgator said:


> OK, OK, OK. I get the point about not waiting for a rumored lens. Let me ask a follow up question. Will IS offer a big benefit for photos on this lens in indoor situations for family portraits?



In practical terms, no; because in event photography, or gatherings, the bottleneck is always the subjects themselves moving...be it a vibrant party or a rock concert or active wedding guests in a dark venue... in these cases the subjects would have moved before your hands shaking.... IS in and of itself will not save the day here...but I suppose it never hurts to have IS...may be good for posed situations and portraits. But take into account the added weight and cost, I will take wider apertures and higher ISO any day over IS in these situations. 

But I am told IS in the wider range primes recently introduced by Canon (24mm, 28mm,35mm) are partly targeted toward videographers....may be it helps but I don't know much about videos to comment.


----------



## robbymack (Dec 20, 2012)

Waiting for something that will never happen. I am sure the smart Japanese guys at canon tried to make this work with IS but for what ever reason they couldn't. Either the price target was too high, or they couldn't do it and also shave the weight. My money is on the latter. But don't worry the world has a stabilized 24-70 2.8, it's a tamron and its a cracker! When, or better if, this rumored lens arrives it will be priced at $3000 or more.


----------



## Phenix205 (Dec 20, 2012)

Buy what you NEED now. I childishly but sincerely wish the IS version could push price for the the non IS version down to $1600- $1800 range. Then I'll go buy the non IS version in a heart beat.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 20, 2012)

there is always something new and better coming around the corner....


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 20, 2012)

davidgator said:


> Baed on the sale on the 24-70l II, I ordered this lens this morning. Tonight, I read the CR2 rumor of the IS version coming in 12 months or so. I do not plan on using the lens for video. Should I return the lens I bought today and wait for the IS version?


The rumor is some time in the next 18 months, not 12. And keep in mind that lenses sometimes get delayed even after they are announced (as the current 24-70 II was delayed).

As I wrote in the other thread, this is a bread and butter lens. I bought the current version and have already gotten a lot of use out of it. IS is nice to have, but I wouldn't wait a year or more for it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, return the lens, skip the 24-70/2.8 IS, too. There'll be a 21-80mm f/2.8L IS a year after that..._that's_ the one you want to wait for.



Well, I've heard that the 21-80mm will be the kit lens for the new FF mirrorless that will be released once the 0.2 μm copper sensor factory is up and running. You've got to love Canon. Get all the 5Dii people to upgrade to the 5Diii then a year later release a significantly improved sensor in a mirrorless body to encourage everyone to buy a second camera with an awesome kit lens. It's marketing genius.

But, it's probably all rumours. Best stick wth your current 24-70 for now.


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 20, 2012)

This is going to come off as rude, but I don't know how else to word it; the rumor stated within the next 18 months. If you can seriously put off a purchase for 18 months, then you don't NEED either of these lenses. Why don't you buy the extremely affordable 24-105L F4 IS lens? A year and a half is far too long for any professional or semi-professional to go without a normal lens. Sell it in a year or two at a minimal loss (Hey, you got to use it for 2 years, right?) and then make your decision. You may decide the cheaper 24-105 is all you actually need, especially if you are just a hobbyist. Like neuro said, it's silly to make purchasing decisions based on rumors, and even sillier when the rumor is 18 months away.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 20, 2012)

davidgator said:


> OK, OK, OK. I get the point about not waiting for a rumored lens. Let me ask a follow up question. Will IS offer a big benefit for photos on this lens in indoor situations for family portraits?



IS will help if you plan to shoot with shutter speed @ 1/10 or slower. In that case, you better pray your family doesn't make any moves.

Enjoy your new lens. You got great deal. I paid $2300 and I think it well worth it.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 20, 2012)

The IS version has more weight and will be very expensive.

If Canon don´t make changes, then the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L is delivers a better image quality.


----------



## SJ (Dec 20, 2012)

I bought this lens, its sharp.. i really love this lens on my 7D  8) 8)


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Dec 20, 2012)

I'd just go with the 24-70 II *if you need it*. 

If it's not a necessity, feel free to wait for the IS version, however it will be a lot more expensive than the 24-70 II. 

The 24-70 II is still a great lens. I use it currently on my 60D, but I'm excited to use it on my 5D 3 when it arrives (and use it to its full potential). You wouldn't really ever hate the 24-70 II. But when (*if*) the IS version comes out at the end of 2013/start of 2014, then there's always the option of selling the 24-70II (of course it wouldn't be worth as much, but it would still be worth a lot).


----------



## birtembuk (Dec 20, 2012)

If you can't live without IS, then I guess you've got to wait. Probably a fairly long time anyway.

Now, just think of how many billions good pictures have been taken using 24, 35, 50, 85 even 135 mm lenses without IS. I am no video-grapher so I fail to see the real interest of IS in a 24-70/2.8. For me, just nice to have but not really a buying criteria.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 20, 2012)

Weight or the higher price for the IS version is only one side of the medal. The IS prototype don´t reach the image quality of the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L lens. The difference is not very big, but you see it. Not sure if Canon make changes for the production version.

I recommend to use the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L lens instead the IS version.

The EF 24-105 f/4.0 IS L lens is only good at f/8 up to f/11 (f/16) and needs an replacement. I am totally shocked if Canon introduce the 5D Mark III with the old EF 24-105 f/4.0 IS L lens. That´s really a shame.


----------



## tomscott (Dec 20, 2012)

And so it starts...


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 20, 2012)

M.ST said:


> If Canon don´t make changes, then the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L is delivers a better image quality.



Anyone else notice?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Even the not-so-good IS on the 100-400 is better than nothing. I can get relatively sharp hand held shots in low light at 1/15 with my 24-105 due to the IS. I know for certain that I could not get the same from a non-IS lens.



Of course, 100-400 vs. 24-70 ranges have quite a difference in the shutter speed needed for handholding. 

I can also get sharp handheld shots with the 24-105/4 at 1/15 s...the furniture is sharp, anyway. The people are blurry, because 1/15 s isn't fast enough even for people posing for a picture. IS would be nice, but I don't miss it on my 35L or 85L...


----------



## Jesse (Dec 20, 2012)

I need the IS for video. That said, I bought the new one a few weeks ago and don't regret it even with this rumour. I'll be able to sell it in a year and buy the new one and take advantage of having the current version for at least a whole year.


----------



## Jesse (Dec 20, 2012)

The real question is, do I wait for the new 85 1.8 IS, or buy the 85L?


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 20, 2012)

Jesse said:


> The real question is, do I wait for the new 85 1.8 IS, or buy the 85L?



That's an easy one. They're both stellar lenses and you'd be happy with either, it really boils down to whether or not you have almost $2k to blow on the 85L. If yes, get it, if not, get the 85 1.8, it's an awesome lens. In terms of value for money, the 85mm f/1.8 is definitely the better lens.


----------



## carlc (Dec 20, 2012)

Why no mention of the new 24-70 f/4 IS version that should be available in January? I have the 24-70 vII now and just rented the Tamron for comparison. I didn't care for the Tamron that much and didn't feel their VC comes anywhere close to the Hybrid Canon IS version that is on the 70-200 vII.

Now I am considering returning the f/2.8 and ordering the f/4. Just don't know. I love the IQ with the new 24-70 on the 5DMkIII but scared to death of camera shake on the shot that I need to capture.

Any speculation that the IQ will be less on the f/4?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

carlc said:


> Why no mention of the new 24-70 f/4 IS version that should be available in January? I have the 24-70 vII now and just rented the Tamron for comparison. I didn't care for the Tamron that much and didn't feel their VC comes anywhere close to the Hybrid Canon IS version that is on the 70-200 vII.
> 
> Now I am considering returning the f/2.8 and ordering the f/4. Just don't know. I love the IQ with the new 24-70 on the 5DMkIII but scared to death of camera shake on the shot that I need to capture.
> 
> Any speculation that the IQ will be less on the f/4?



Speaking specifically of the announced 24-70 f4, it is still unclear to me why a shorter range with the same aperture of f4 would be better than the 24-105 L for an average user. Unless perhaps it is almost exclusively geared to be paired as a kit with 6D. 

Perhaps 24-105L being rather ubiquitous makes it less disirable for some? But then, the new 24-70 f4 will be equally so in a few years. I can't speak for individual copy variation that seems to exist among 24-105L, but mine is sharp. Unless the IQ and IS are both updated in the 24-70 f4 to the extent where its reduced weight becomes a key selling point, I think the 24-105L is still the better contender at give away prices.

If the price of the new 24-70 f4 L (now listed at $1499) comes down eventually to $900 then I think it becomes a more interesting match up and will present a tougher decision... lighter, marginally higher IQ and IS of the 24-70 f4, against an older, heavier, bulkier 24-105L. For some, the ergonomics could be an important issue, but not at ~$600 price differential with a shortened range.


----------



## syder (Dec 20, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Speaking specifically of the announced 24-70 f4, it is still unclear to me why a shorter range with the same aperture of f4 would be better than the 24-105 L for an average user.



The fact that it's nearly a true macro lens means that one lens gives you fairly wide to short tele and macro capabilities. That's a lot of versatility in one lens, and for people stepping up to full frame, being able to buy a single lens which may cover most of their needs (i would imagine a 70-200 of some description would be the next lens people would buy, which overlaps with the extra reach on the 24-105 anyways) may seem attractive.

...And its rumoured to be significantly sharper, particularly wide open.


----------



## mingyuansung (Dec 20, 2012)

I have to say that a new update L lens within one or two year range of the current model is too fast. I just ordered Mark II yesterday and see this rumor. Of course I can sell it when a new model announced like I am selling my mark I right now. But if I have to do it within 2 years, of course I do not feel good. The good thing is it is only a rumor. We never know when until it ship. I know businessman are way smarter than I am. If you have to take pictures, buy the current model now.


----------

