24-70 II

[zml]

<p>Why would Canon need to make a statement? Did they ever promise/announce that the v.next of the 24-70 would sport IS? There is a lot of whishfull thinking on the part of the community and a prevailing sentiment that if we wish for something long and often enough it'll eventually come to be (and how disappointed we are if it does not materialize!) Still, it's all wishfull thinking.</p><p>I'm not trying to defend Canon here (in fact I do, too, scratch my head to the tune of "what were they thinking..." lately) but the target market for the 24-70 apparently does not need /want IS. How does Canon know that, I have no idea because IMO the surveys send out to CPS members in the US seem to be designed by their PR machine to confirm that the users indeed want what Canon is going to release anyway.</p><p>IS is not experimental anymore and does not degrade the IQ in any way: see the 200/2 L IS...it is a stellar lens, way better than almost anyhting Canon makes and it is both fast and sports great IS. Yes, IS does add bulk, heft and cost so perhaps that's why the 24-70 has not gotten it. Or perhaps the Canon upper management team is just too old (seems like 65 year olds are junior members...)</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Looks like I'm keeping my 24-105, along with its built in IS.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>IS is not experimental anymore and does not degrade the IQ in any way</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The VC Tamron 17-50mm is a less good performer than the non-VC. Perhaps this is an issue with IS and the wide-through-short tele range for full frame? If you are going to charge upwards of $2000 for this lens then the expectation must be that it will be a superb performer - not just "a good lens with IS".</p>

[ruben leal]

<p>How about a 24-70/2.8L IS for 3K? Maybe they are planning a new segment, just like the five options we have with the 70-200L: 24-70/2.8L II Non-IS, 24-70/2.8L IS and 24-105/4L IS.</p>

[ashishgarg]

<p>Looks like the 24-70 MK1 used value has just gone up ... thanks to Canon ... I wish I owned one to sell!</p>

[mendel_leisk]

 

<p ><a name="00ZyZv"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4435813">Philip Wilson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 07, 2012; 08:59 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Mendel do you use a protection /UV filter? I find my 24-70 worse than the 24-105 but not that bad.</p>

<p>Yes I do. Are you wondering if this aggravates flare? I've tried with/without, and it didn't make much difference:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=908977">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=908977</a></p>

 

 

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM</strong><br /><br />Manufacturer Specification Weight <strong>28.4 oz </strong> <br /><br />Manufacturer Spec Size (DxL) <strong>3.48 x 4.45” </strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD</strong><br /><br />Manufacturer Specification Weight <strong>29.1 oz </strong> <br /> <br />Manufacturer Spec Size (DxL) <strong>3.47 x 4.27”</strong></p>

<p><strong>Early conclusion:</strong><br>

On paper; way to go Tamron! Smart move. I will wait for the tests and reviews. But, Tamron so far has my vote.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>For decades now, Canon and Nikon react only to each other's moves. We will only see Canon or Nikon introducing a 24-70 IS, after one of them makes that move. It's that simple.</p>

[nathangardner]

Well if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's the fact that the old 24-70 is now obsolete, just like the 5D classic

and 70-200 ver. I.

[Robin Smith]

<p>"Obsolete" is way too strong. Most people will never be able to see a difference between these lenses.</p>

[dan_south]

I'm guessing that the Olympics shooters will couple this with their 1DX to great effect.

[nathangardner]

<blockquote>

<p>"Obsolete" is way too strong.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess sometimes it's hard to get a tone across through text, but I was being sarcastic. That's why I mentioned the 5D and 70-200, which are still dynamite products despite being upgraded. I was referring to the threads that pop up now and then asking, "Is the 'so and so' still worth it now that there's a new version?" I hate how people think that a new version of a product somehow magically turns all the existing old models of that product into utter garbage that is unsuitable for even a toddler.</p>

 

[danny_wilson]

<p>I think it's time to step back a bit and breathe deeply. The 24-70 I was a great lens; it looks like the 24-70 II will be even better. The fact that is more expensive has a lot more to do with global economics than Canon's ignorance as a corporation, and if you can't live without IS, go grab a Tamron (or wait a bit for Canon's inevitable answer to the Tamron).</p>

<p>True, it has been a hard couple days for the Canon crowd; Nikon is over there releasing some sweet stuff and getting everybody all riled up. However, I hope you can remember that this scenario happens every time one of the big two companies releases a revolutionary new product: everyone from Brand X that just released the great new product says "We are the pioneers! We have the greatest new thing and our company is the most innovative and forward-thinking idea-machine in the universe!" Then everybody from Brand Y that hasn't released any competing products yet says (under their breath) "Dang, why are we such luddites? Why isn't my brand keeping up with the times? I feel like caveman over here with my stinking Generation-1 hunk-o-obsolesnce. Maybe I should switch brands to express just how disappointed I am in my current setup." Then, of course, 6-12 months later, the story shifts, and everybody from Brand Y feels like kings, and Brand X feels like goofballs. The truth is, in two years, all this hooplah over the 24-70 II not being everything we wanted it to be is going to seem truly silly.</p>

[zml]

<p>All this is true, but...<br>

In the never-ending game of one-upmanship, Canon has been behaving strangely lately: new lenses aside (there has been plenty of those in the last year...) Canon is now saying "who needs megapixels" echoing a much-derided Nikon mantra from the times when Nikon digital stuff was crap and Canon was releasing great DSLRs every month. Remember? Nikon had nothing even remotely similar to offer and therefore was adamant about the lack of need for 24x36 mm sensors ("digital is game-changer...") and the unimportance of high megapixel rigs ("quality not quantity...") Of course after Canon practically took over the pro, and a large chunk or con/pro-sumer, DSLR markets, Nikon got religion, did some serious shopping around, and voila!<br>

Meanwhile, Canon seems to be busy shooting itself in both feet: after screwing up th 1D3 AF debacle (why no immediate fix and why no 1D3n..?) and releasing what amounts to a mild rehash of 1D3 as 1D4 (great camera but too late...) now we have a vapor 1Dx and no high megapixel camera on the horizon in either prosumer or pro segment. And no update to 5D2 in terms of AF (not that AF on the 5D2 is bad, but it is miles behind the 1Dx/1D/1Ds/7D series and it would be nice if it were just yards behind...)</p>

<p>Of course,as noted by another poster, this is a see-saw: all this can change pretty quickly and we might be celabrating a new 40 megapixel camera from Canon next month :-) (Disclaimer: "40 megapixel" is just an expression!)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Let's not give up on megapixels until we see the real details of the 5D MkIII, or whatever they end up calling it. With an improved AF system and a few more fps it could solve the problems that the 1D X doesn't address. Indoor sports shooters are going to flip over the 1D X, but wildlife, product, portrait and scenic shooters may not be so thrilled.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Sharpness doesn't amount to squat if motion blur intrudes. For me that was the Achilles heel of this lens. Too bad. I <em>would</em> be excited about this new version <em>if</em> it had IS. RIP 24-70 MK I.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Yes, me too, blah blah blah....</p>

<p>As a happy owner of the 24-70 "Classic" for 7 GOOD YRS now I'll wait another 3 to upgrade to this awesome ver. II.</p>

<p>And yup! SUPER HAPPY that Canon did NOT add IS to this lens. Hooray! Tripods blow away built-in IS and so do steady hands and high ISO with these modern bodies.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Nathan</p>

<p>Yes: I agree completely. Sorry I didn't catch your drift!</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>This lens has a few more limes per millimeter, that camera has a few more megapixels... if you aren't finding yourself frustrated because you are banging up against the limits of your current equipment then it's all just marketing and theoretical forum fodder. The things that matter, like dynamic range, AF performance, shadow tones and high ISO performance tend to be far down the list of specifications.</p>

<p>If you drive at a maximum speed of 80mph and your car has a top speed of 120mph, why does it matter if the new model now has a top speed of 150mph? It only matters if you are spending time at 120mph and need to be going faster.</p>

<p>I wonder how many people upgrade camera bodies and lenses for the improved specs that have never printed large enough to extract the maximum resolution from their current equipment? With the vast majority of digital images never getting away from a screen, on-line sharing and small format publications the megapixel wars are silly at best. I'm not discounting pride of ownership or a technophiles love of the "best", but it should be recognized that the majority of people who complain about their brand's lack of megapixels / resolution, etc. simply can't point to an occasion where their current equipment let them down.</p>

<p>8 bit TIFF files from the new Nikon will be around 100mb - switch that to 16 bit and 5 layers and you are looking at 1 Gig layered TIFF files in Photoshop. The downside of the pixel wars is that it comes at the cost of huge storage and computing power requirements - if you need it, fine - if you really don't, it's just another unnecessary expense.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Canon, inc. is watching the pricing of Leica lenses and looking for ways to raise their prices to boost the bottom line. Why else would they charge so much for the newer lenses?</p>

[dave404]

<p>I am still quite happy with my 24-70 MK I on a full frame body. I don't like this lens on the 1.6X crop camera. I guess some equipment hounds will upgrade but I don't feel any compelling reason to upgrade. What a price and no IS. The good news, I'll bet some of the older MKI lenses will appear on eBay soon. </p>

[zml]

<p>As an aside, this lens is aimed at the part of the market that replaces equipment on a regular basis becasue of wear and tear, and only rarely because of obsolescence. If you shoot 5000 frames per outing and do it 2-3 times a week, the equipment wears down, get banged around, dented, rained on, drenched with mojitos and diet coke, etc., and needs to be replaced often. As much as Canon cares about the well heeled, or just very rabid, amateur market, they have to cater to the pro market first or they will end up as another Minolta or Olympus.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sorry Michael, that is utter nonsense.</p>

<p>Go to any ATP world event and see how many 200 f1.8's are still in use, long long after the 200 f2 with IS has been available. Bodies I agree with, though the normal two to go, the shutter button and the shutter, are both fixed cheaply when compared to a body upgrade. Sure that white paint chips off easily, but the lenses still work perfectly, any heavily used lens will appreciate a trip to Canon every now and again, my 16-35 has lost sharpness on one side, that will be its third trip to Canon in its lifetime, but that doesn't mean I need to buy a MkII, the MkI works fine for me, many pros are still using 17-35's.</p>

<p>I have broken my 24-70 three times, it has gone to Canon and been fixed for $150 each time, the lens works perfectly. It is up to factory specs and shows no signs of irrevocable fixing, though theft, catastrophic damage etc are still concerns, little else necessitates a complete lens upgrade.</p>

<p>No, many pros buy new gear because they are gear heads that can write the stuff off against taxes, many hardly ever upgrade their lenses. There was, very recently, a large West coast news organization selling off their long white lenses to upgrade. They were all pre IS, that dates them to ten years old at least. If major news organizations don't need to upgrade for over ten years that rather contradicts your comment.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>...they have to cater to the pro market first or they will end up as another Minolta or Olympus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon makes their bread and butter buy selling as many Rebels as they can to the non pro market. They probably sell five thousand Rebel series to one 1Ds series. Otherwise, Canon will then become like the Minolta or Olympus' of the camera world.</p>

[mark from thailand]

<p>Possibly<br>

1) Canon have released this, with better IQ, to match the IQ demands of the 5D III & others.<br>

2) Canon are watching the likes of Apple and we will see a 24-70 IS in 18 months time (see the 70-200 range).<br>

No WAY would someone like me be able to see the difference in IQ from my trusty 24-70 I. However, I may re-consider once I invest in the shiny 5D III.</p>