# Anybody still holding out for a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 with IS?



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 4, 2014)

I keep getting close to buying the 24-70 f/2.8, but I have to imagine an IS version will eventually come out. I love the IS on my 24-105, but I'd really like some more DOF and better bokeh as well as generally more light to play with. With the Tamron version out, there has to be pressure on both Canon and Nikon to get cracking. No?

Even on this site there have been rumors that hint that it will eventually happen, at least one suggested it was going to happen this year.

Canon Rumors (not including patent rumors, one of which was in April of this year):
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-cr1/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/ef-24-70-f2-8l-is-exists-as-a-working-prototype-cr2/
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/two-new-24-70s-coming-in-2014-cr1/

Does anybody else have hope we'll see it sooner rather than later? I keep hearing that the issue is size and weight and such. I also have read that the Tamron is large and heavy'ish. I haven't gotten the impression that put a dent in sales though.

I'd consider getting the Tamron, but I also have been reading that there have been AF and quality control issues with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2014)

Can't speak for the Tamron, but the Canon 24-70/2.8L II is a wonderful lens. Personally, I generally set a minimum 1/125 s shutter to stop the random motions of even 'still' subjects, and for landscapes, etc., I'm using a tripod, so the lack of IS doesn't bother me.


----------



## Ruined (Sep 4, 2014)

I originally was holding out, but after using the 24-70 II on some jobs its output was too good not to purchase. I also thought about it and it is extremely rare I shoot this lens handheld at less than 1/100 of a second, as otherwise I'll run into motion blur.

While the 70mm end could benefit from IS in some scenarios, in most cases it is probably not needed if you are shooting people. If you are shooting still life images where you will be doing long exposures, you are probably better off with the 24-70 f/4 IS.

I am 99% sure I would not trade it for a larger and heavier lens with image stabilization, it gets the job done. When I need more light than f/2.8 I use my 24L/50L combo.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 14, 2014)

The patent in April suggests that Canon still has plans to build one.

Canon said (IIRC) that they planned to have 4 24-70s, just like the 70-200.

I just keep getting ready to buy a 24-70 f/2.8 II but then wonder, "What if Canon announces the 24-70 f/2.8 IS in a couple months?"

I'd feel like I got played.

I love the IS on my 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I'd love a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS and a 16-35 f/2.8 IS (although the latter might just be wishful thinking). It would be the holy trinity of zooms.

I think I'll work on getting some primes while I ponder this and wait.


----------



## mwh1964 (Oct 14, 2014)

The 24-70 II is such a wonderful lens that you will forget about IS or whatever first time you see what lovely results it can produce. You won't be played purchasing this lens.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 14, 2014)

I've decided I won't buy another lens without IS. Given the 16-35 f/4 and the 24-70 f/4, it's reasonable to presume that a 24-70 f/2.8 IS is in the product roadmap. In the meantime, I'll get by with my 24-105L and fast primes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can't speak for the Tamron, but the Canon 24-70/2.8L II is a wonderful lens. Personally, I generally set a minimum 1/125 s shutter to stop the random motions of even 'still' subjects, and for landscapes, etc., I'm using a tripod, so the lack of IS doesn't bother me.


 
I'm basically in the same situation, Only in extreme low light do I drop the shutter speed a little. A Crop camera might benefit because of the 1.6 factor, but for FF I haven't even thought about IS.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 14, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Can't speak for the Tamron, but the Canon 24-70/2.8L II is a wonderful lens. Personally, I generally set a minimum 1/125 s shutter to stop the random motions of even 'still' subjects, and for landscapes, etc., I'm using a tripod, so the lack of IS doesn't bother me.
> ...



What about video?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


 
I don't use it for video, I've been there and done that. A dedicated video camera is the way to go.


----------



## D. (Oct 14, 2014)

I wouldn't hold out for a IS version of 24-70 2.8 - you will likely wait a long time. The 24-70 II is optically a great lens; however, I'm a big fan of IS and 99% of the time I shoot hand held. For that reason, and the extra reach, I often favor my 24-105 lens over the 24-70 II. Most posters on this forum seem to prefer the 24-70 II though


----------



## andrewflo (Oct 14, 2014)

Entirely just my speculation, but I don't "feel" like a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS would be coming out for at least 1-2 years, if at all. The 24-70mm f/2.8 II is one of the most popular Canon lenses, even despite the Tamron competing with it.

I personally went for the Tamron (mostly for the cost) and love it. I think my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is built significantly better, but I think that lens is built better than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II. Overall I feel really happy about my purchase. Given the option to have a free copy of either lens, I'd go for the Canon, but for my money, I'd pick the Tamron again no doubt.

If you're in the market for a 24-70, I personally wouldn't wait around for a Canon IS version to come out. Maybe get the Canon and take good care of it so you can resell it for a few hundred dollars loss. Not a bad loss if you think about the fact that you essentially "rented" the lens for an extended period of time.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 14, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I keep getting close to buying the 24-70 f/2.8, but I have to imagine an IS version will eventually come out. I love the IS on my 24-105, but I'd really like some more DOF and better bokeh as well as generally more light to play with. With the Tamron version out, there has to be pressure on both Canon and Nikon to get cracking. No?
> 
> Even on this site there have been rumors that hint that it will eventually happen, at least one suggested it was going to happen this year.
> 
> ...


If you can afford the 24-70 f2.8L II go for it, otherwise go for the Tammy. I had the 24-105 f4L IS and sold it when I tried the old 24-70 f2.8L. Trying to justify myself to go for the newer version because is expensive but better.


----------



## candyman (Oct 14, 2014)

From all the comments on CR about the IQ of the 24-70 MKII and the reviews on the internet, this lens seems to have stellar IQ. I just tested it once to compare it with the 24-70VC of Tamron. Currently the price difference between those two is about 800 euro. Personally my wallet can’t justify the price difference versus the improvement of IQ between those two lenses. The Tamron has very good IQ performance.
I don’t think we will see a 24-70 f/2.8 IS of Canon soon. How will Canon position that lens? With what IQ performance against what price? That is within there own range of lenses (24-70 MKII, 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 IS) and comparing it to lenses of Tamron and Sigma.


----------

