24-70 II

[peter_j2]

<p>Here is a view of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM mated to a Canon EOS-1D X at Toronto's Tiff Bell Lightbox on February 15, 2012. The camera and lens combination was well balanced and light in my hands. At 14 fps JPG, the camera's shutter was blazingly fast.</p><div></div>

[KenPapai]

<p>Based on that photo of the II version of the lens, I vastly prefer my original 77mm diameter Mk I with the deep hood.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I waited a long tme to upgrade my Tamron 28-75 to the Canon 24-70 II hpng it would have IS like the 24-105 but in a F2.8 lens. <br>

Since this has not happend I have changed directions and will go with the new Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR which has fixed 2 of the issues I had with this lens.<br>

1. No full time manual focus like L-series lenses (fixed) now has USM silent drive.<br>

2. wanted 24mm not 28mm wanted the little bit wider angle (fixed) this is why they had to go to 82mm for FF camera's to fix the edge sharpness issues with the 28 -75 on FF camera.<br>

3. On thing I may still not be happy with is no internal focusing. I may be using the wrong term, but I hate the way the Tamron slams with a lound thud when you go from full zoom to wide angle. This can be heard loudly when recording video. I wish it where like the Canon 17-40 F4L where nothing physically moves when you zoom in or out. the Canon 24-70 F2.8L does move when zoom but doesn't thud when it hits bottom. I really hope this is fixed with the new Tamron Lens.<br>

4. New feature of VR is a big plus. I have all primes for most of my video work, but when doing run and gun work the VR lens will server me better than the 24-70 II which only brings better image quality which is not as noticable on videos as camera shake.<br>

My futre lens setup is 28 1.8, 35 F2.0, 50 1.8 85 1.2L, Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR, 100 F2.0 Macro, and will keep Sigma 70-200 F2.8 for now. Would like to up this but I don't shoot much in this range.<br>

May get the Tamron 70-300 VR but this lens is too slow for my taste and has too far of a focus distance. But for the pric it is very appealing.</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>Definitely not worth it. Now if Canon had come out with the 5D III we were all expecting with 36 MP like the D800, then maybe the pro shooters could justify the better corners.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I suppose those with the pixel deficient 18MP EOS 1-D X would be better off saving their money too. After all whats the point of a super sharp lens when you've only got 18MP to play with.</p>

<p>What <em>were</em> Canon thinking...</p>

<p>I'm waiting with anticipation for the new Nikon lenses that are matched to their 36MP sensor, but which will be a total waste of money if mounted their pixel challenged flagship 16MP D4.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I am guessing there is some serious sarcasm there Bob.</p>

<p>I am sure the vast majority of people complaining that Canon didn't get into a pixel war with Nikon don't print large enough to need to interpolate up from 22mp (and even if you do, I have seen stunning prints over 40" wide from the 1Ds MkIII with a little care and Genuine Fractals).</p>

<p>There is no free lunch when it comes to huge megapixel sensors, and larger is not necessarily better - except for PR departments and for people who knee jerk that way. There are significant implications for storage, processing power and handling speeds of large files (a 16 bit TIFF file from a 36MP sensor is 216MP - double that for every layer in Photoshop and you are very soon handling 1 Gig image files). There is also the definite potential for increased noise and lower DR at medium and high ISOs. I understand the "my camera has more MP than your camera" syndrome, but unless you are running out of resolution with your current camera and making huge prints or extreme crops, it's really irrelevant.</p>

<p>Even my former lowly 1Ds Mk II images benefited from excellent lenses, and the difference between good and excellent lenses was clear to see. Nikon apparently have won the propaganda war regardless of image quality - which ultimately may be the one that matters to many people.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I think the point is that those people who see a 36MP sensor as the best thing since sliced bread (assuming they like sliced bread...) have to consider why BOTH Nikon and Canon decided equip their latest and greatest (and most expensive) top of the line professional flagship cameras with a 16MP (Nikon D4) or an 18MP (Canon 1-D X) sensor. In Canon's case they actually reduced the pixel count of their flagship camera and in Nikon's case they took a fairly modest step up from 12MP to 16MP. </p>

<p>There's a lesson or two in there somewhere.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> There's a lesson or two in there somewhere.

 

But in the end it will be lost on many....

[mark from thailand]

<p>The 35mm film "equivalent" resolution is something like 50Mb, if I recall earlier posts on this topic?<br>

Full frame cameras have a larger lens circle than 'traditional' APS-H sensors.<br>

Hence, doesn't this mean lenses need to improve, particularly near the edges, as digital resolution approaches 35mm 'equivalent'?<br>

The new 24-70 Mk II does that, right?<br>

Maybe we don't need it now but I am sure some photographers are pushing the limits and need better edge IQ for their full frame cameras.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Tripods always blew away built-in IS. Nothing new here. IS was never intended to replace tripods. As for steady hands and high ISO of modern bodies, just imagine you have both <em>and</em> IS.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

[dogbert]

<p>If they had put IS in the body like some of us were asking years ago then we wouldn't be complaining too much. Sure IS in the body has its drawbacks, but it is better than no IS at all and it is probably better the the $3000 price tag they will ask for the 24-70 MkIII IS, and the $800 they are asking for the 24 and 28 f2.8 IS primes.</p>

[mark from thailand]

<p>Having just paid $450 for a replacement IS on a 70-200 lens, I imagine this is another good reason for not adding it to the 24-70. The improved IQ AND IS would have really had us complaining about the price?</p>

[william_bray1]

The reason canon hasn't put IS in the 24-70 is so thy can sell the 24 and 28 primes,

which has IS, to those who take video.

If they had IS on the zoom not many people would buy the primes.

It's another example of canon not giving It's customers what they want, and screwing

them so we have to spend more with them.

If canon did give us what we wanted it would be IS in the zoom and the wide primes

priced around £300, but there's more money to be made by doing it the other way.

I'm quite happy they didn't put IS in the mkii, because now there's no way I even

tempted to want it.

And I'm sure NIKON and all the 3rd party lens manufacturers are happy to , because

when people start to wise up to what canon are doing they'll be spending their

money elsewhere.

If this is going to become canon's future way of thinking maybe they'll regret it, and have

work hard to get their customers back.

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>It's another example of canon not giving It's customers what they want, and screwing them so we have to spend more with them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Screwing? Are you nuts? Where this word popped from? Are you forgetting that this is a free market? Canon is free to do whatever it wants. It's customers are free to buy whatever they want (including third party options), whenever they want (now or later, new or used) and of course, switch brands if they indeed feel screwed.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>I would like to hear your explanation why Canon has not listened to what it's customers want. All through out this thread people are saying, Why no IS ?, we don't need IS in a 28 or 24 prime lens, Canon has made a mistake, they've dropped the ball on this one.<br /> I have lost count of the amount of times people have asked. Should I buy the 24-70 MKi now or wait for the MKII because it'll have IS. Should I buy the 24-105 because I think I'll miss IS if I get the 24-70?<br /> These questions have been asked for years, anyone can see this with 2 minuets on a google search, and canon didn't know.<br /> If Canon brought the 24-70 MKII out with no IS and priced it sensibly, some will still say wheres the IS, but it's priced correctly in line with other manufactures. At the moment it is obscenely priced and the only thing that could remotely justify it is IS, which it hasn't got.<br /> And then they give us a 24 and 28 primes with IS for three times the price of the originals, and I've never heard anyone crying out for it.<br /> Canon will make a U turn and announce a high MP camera, at the moment they say we don't need it, but they have to get the lenses out there that can handle it.<br /> When you put 2 and 2 together you can see what is happening.<br /> Perhaps "screwing" is a bit strong for some peoples consumption, and would rather call it good business savey, or dumb luck. Call it what you will.<br /> All I know is a lot of people are left scratching their heads at the new releases from Canon and feeling disappointed.</p>

<p>Why Canon, why? Why do I have to turn to third party lenses if I want stabilization? <br />:-(<br /> Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

<p>Just trying to answer your question Yakim</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to hear your explanation why Canon has not listened to what it's customers want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not working in Canon so I can not answer that. All I can say that:</p>

<p>1. I do not always understand why Canon does what it does (the way they handled the 1D3 fiasco and the release of the 28/2.8 IS and the 24/2.8 IS are good examples of that). That said, I have criticism on other companies as well. </p>

<p>2. CW said that one of the goals when designing the Mk II was low weight and adding IS would hamper that. </p>

<p>3. In several threads in FM many 24-70/2.8 users said they do not want or do not need IS in such a lens. While I find IS very useful in many situations even in the shorter focal lengths it is evident that not all share my view. </p>

<p>4. Last, Canon is a big company and a leader in the photography business for decades. It hasn't got to that status by making too many bad decisions. I am forced to conclude that - at least when generally speaking - the guys there knows what they are doing, even if <em><strong>I</strong></em> can not always understand their decisions. </p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

[william_bray1]

<p>I'm not saying Canon has made a bad decision, in fact Canon has got to where it has today by making the exact same decisions similar to the one we are discussing. It's a tactical decision.<br>

I'm one of the ones who bought the 24-70 MKl , and IS wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. But when a well respected and popular lens goes from £950 to £2400 and all they can offer is it's smaller, so they couldn't put IS in it, and at that price I don't care about how much sharper it is or how it handles flare better.<br>

With a 5dmkii and a 24-70 MKl I have cropped an image so it is a panoramic and printed it out at 32x16 inches, and it looks fine.<br>

Maybe things will be different when canon bring out it's high MP camera and the MKll lens shows it's real potential. But judging by the prices that Canon are asking now you can only imagine how expensive a new high MP camera will be and that to the price of the 24-70 MKii , ( even when the initial price will drop it's still going to £2000 at least) if I ever get to the stage when I might need such a set up, at these prices I would be considering medium format cameras even if it meant using film and having it scanned digitally if I had to.</p>