Canon's Replacement for 28-70L

[bill_goldman]

Ever since Canon announced the 16-35mm f/2.8L replacement for the 17-

35 f/2.8L and the addition of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, some have been

wondering when the other shoe will drop and they will announce a

replacement for the 28-70mm f/2.8L. Many wanted to see a 24-105 but

it looks like we will only get a 24-70. For the announcement and a

photo, go to http://eosseries.ifrance.com/eosseries/en/eos_news.html

[carl smith]

And may people wanted IS, and a free coupon for pizza with it.

 

As long as the optics are the same as the 28-70, the change to 24mm will be good for some people.

[isaac sibson]

Like me. This is perfect for me, and if I can save up enough, I really want to get one. It is the right lens to replace my 24-85, and won't shame my 70-200 F4L or 300 F4L IS.

[chuck]

24mm? Looks like Canon still has an eye on the subframe digital market.

[Ken Katz]

Sort of an evolutionary product. I don't think people will be trading in their 28-70L in large numbers for this lens. For D60 users (like me) an effective 38-112mm lens is not very exciting, and I wouldn't consider it until I own a full frame DSLR.

 

No IS, I blame Nikon for not providing enough competition for Canon by delivering new VR lenses to market (probably more money to be made by both companies by getting people to upgrade their digital bodies every 2 years).

[jkantor]

I've never seen a reason to own the 28-70. It's not wide enough or long enough and not fast enough to replace primes. On the other hand I love my 24-85 for weddings. A new one would have to at least match that in range.

[bill_goldman]

I wouldn't expect Canon to incorporate IS in a lens for which the maximum focal length is only 70mm. Don't expect to see IS in zooms of maximum reach of at least 135mm or primes of at least 135 to 200mm.

 

As to the 28-70mm f/2.8L (now 24-70) I found it quite suitable for weddings, receptions and family gatherings. A wider range might have been better but the 28-70 worked fine for me.

[bill_goldman]

Nikon may be slow in producing VR lenses but Sigma is introducing a lens with OS (optical stabilization) so I guess Nikon has even more competition now.

[bill_goldman]

BTW, the Sigma is an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX.

[paulo bizarro]

From the picture I have seen, it looks like that the barrel of the lens extends while zooming (like the old 28-70 L). This is a tad disappointing, if true. Also, the old lens used to zoom out of its own accord when pointing up or down, due to poor construction. If the new lens keeps the same construction, and only adds 4 mm, it doesn't look very attractive. If it were 24-85, that would be different. The current (and only) EF offering in this range (24-85 3.5-4.5) is an excellent lens at f/8 and produces some nice results, with a very helpful range for a zoom.

[bill_goldman]

Paul, I'm sure you're right in that the new 24-70L front barrel extends when zooming. I own the 28-70L and creep of the front barrel when pointing the lens up or down has nothing to do with "poor construction" but rather the significant weight of the barrel. In normal use, when the lens is in a horizontal orientation, this is a non-problem. Of course, I would like it better if the lens had internal zooming and didn't change length and I am sure that Canon would have designed it that way if they could have. However, no one can deny the superb performance of this lens in terms of sharpness and contrast. I hope the new one is at least as good. Maybe Canon has solved the creep problem. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[eos 10 fan]

Canon press release for the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM is here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/02_sept_ef_lenses.html

 

--

[kenghor]

I'm disappointed after all these years of waiting.

There's too much overlap in focal length with the 16-35mm.

I'm hoping for a 28-105L although 24-105 would be fabulous.

[jake_cole]

I'm only disappointed in the price. The 24 is very nice, but the minimum focusing distance of 15 inches/0.38m is great and the new IF design should make this one sweet lens from a mechanical operational point of view. Still, I have not really be attracted to zooms in this range in the past, and the price will keep me away for a while longer I would guess.

[bill_goldman]

There is conflicting information about the new 24-70 lens as to whether it changes length during zooming. One Canon website's press release states that it does not. I believe this may be in error as none of the other press releases mention it. This would constitute an entirely new design.

 

The photos of the lens show its mechanical similarity to the 28-70 and optical diagrams also show a similarity. I guess we'll just have to wait until we get more information.

[edward_kang]

Amateur photographers usually have one expensive EOS body and a bunch of mediocre L-series lenses that they unhappily switch between given a during day of shooting. They wish, more than anything, that they could buy a single lens (in the perhaps 20-200mm range?) so that their lives are simpler, even if it meant poorer optical quality at a larger fixed aperture.

 

Professional photojournalists DON'T switch between wide, medium, and long telephotos. Instead, they go into a situation with three EOS-1D bodies each mounted on a 16-35, a 24-70, and a 70-200 IS. They loop all three cameras around their necks and after a few years they look like Victor Borga. Their pictures never get printed larger than 4x6", but they don't care as long as they get a paycheck at the end of the month.

 

Photographic artists may be going through hell living with a couple of f/1.8 and faster primes, but generally they are too poor to complain.