Canon announces Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

[Xenedis]

The long-desired, long-awaited Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is a reality.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02...S_28mm_f2p8_IS

[Scotty72]

hmmm ho-hum

[Xenedis]

Canon Australia's announcement:

http://www.canon.com.au/About-Canon/...8L-II-USM-lens

The lens will be available in Australia from March, 2012, and the RRP is $2,899.

[GrahamS]

Thanks but I'll stick with my primes.

[Xenedis]

Thanks but I'll stick with my primes.

I hear you. I have no need or desire for a standard zoom either; but I'm always interested in developments in Canon's L-series lens lineup.

[bxaftw]

the RRP is $2,899.

wowsers

[Xenedis]

wowsers

That's fairly standard for a lens of its calibre.

Wait until you see the prices of the fast super-teles.

[Bennymiata]

I think it's wierd that they put IS on the new 24 and 28mm primes, but not on the new 24-70, especially at the price they're charging for it.

The old 24-70 is not regarded as a stellar lens, and its IQ isn't any better than the 24-105 at a more expensive price.
This new one looks to be better in IQ than the older design, but I won't be trading my 24-105 for the new 24-70, that's for sure.

Now, where's the new 5D MkIII??????

[Xenedis]

I think it's wierd that they put IS on the new 24 and 28mm primes

Yes, that's a first.

I'm not sure how popular are thosre two primes, but I've never known anyone to have owned either of them.

but not on the new 24-70, especially at the price they're charging for it.

It's entirely possible that offering IS on the new 24-70 would cannibalise the market for the 24-105/4L IS.

The old 24-70 is not regarded as a stellar lens, and its IQ isn't any better than the 24-105 at a more expensive price.

They're both excellent lenses. I came close to buying a 24-70 in 2005, but went for the 24-105, as then it appealed more to me. I bought it on the day of its release.

I sold it some years later, as I no longer had a need for a standard zoom, and still don't.

If I did want one, I'd opt for the 24-70.

Now, where's the new 5D MkIII??????

Time will tell.

[Arg]

...It's entirely possible that offering IS on the new 24-70 would cannibalise the market for the 24-105/4L IS.
....

Well they are eating their own foot because the equally new Tamrom SP 24-70 f2.8 does have IS. It's not just Canon vs Canon global sales!

[Jules]

I wonder if the upgrade to the 24-70 will be as impressive as the upgrade to the 70-200 2.8 IS? The MkII version of the 70-200 gets rave reviews, so if they can match that quality with this new 24-70 it could be quite a hit.

[jjphoto]

...The old 24-70 is not regarded as a stellar lens...

Really. I beg to differ.

I've found it to perform exceedingly well as it has better coatings than any other lens I've ever used, including a bunch of Leica R and Contax Zeiss lenses. It's the best 'night' lens I've ever used, hands down, due to amazing flare resistance.

The new Mk2 might not perform well in this respect if the hood on it is not as effective as the Mk1. It appears that the hood on the Mk2 will have to be shaped for the wide end as it sits on the front of the lens and moves with the front element (like the 17-40, maybe other wide zooms). It also means that the hood will transfer shocks to the focusing mechanism instead of the body, which was the case with the Mk1. The Mk1 had the hood mounted to the body of the lens and the front lens element retracted at the 70mm end making the hood very effective. The Mk2 won't work the same way, or so it appears.

We'll see soon enough.

JJ

[jjphoto]

I don't understand the craving for IS. I rarely use it, rarely, yet others seem to think it's the end of the world that the Mk2 doesn't have it. Is it possible that pro's don't really want or need it, but hobbyists do?

IS has it's uses but to be honest, it would NOT sway my decision nearly as much as the filter size, or the weight, and probably a bunch of other things that aren't even important enough to remember at this moment. IS isn't a big deal. Sure it's nice to have, because you can switch it off most of the time anyway and turn it on for the few times that it's usefull, but that's all.

JJ

[Xenedis]

Well they are eating their own foot because the equally new Tamrom SP 24-70 f2.8 does have IS. It's not just Canon vs Canon global sales!

I cannot adequately comment on that, as I've not used (and have no interest in) third-party lenses.

My comment was re Canon cannibalising sales within its own product line.

[Xenedis]

It appears that the hood on the Mk2 will have to be shaped for the wide end as it sits on the front of the lens and moves with the front element

Indeed, it does appear that Canon didn't preserve the very useful zoom design of the original 24-70.

That's definitely a pity.

[Arg]

I'm not sure how popular are thosre two primes, but I've never known anyone to have owned either of them....

The 28mm looks like an interesting option on a 28mm sensor, where it becomes a standard prime with "unprecedented sharpness levels", 4 stop IS for handheld shooting at 1/4? sec, and a circular aperture. They also mention the high speed CPU and USM are intended to make a very responsive lens. Yes I'm interested.

[Cyza]

if the 24-70 mkII did have IS I'd imagine the price of it would be even slightly higher thus probably pushing it over the 3K price tag.
If that were the case I seriously doubt that it would kill the sales of the 24-105 which grey sits just under 1 K and and local under 1.5 if your lucky.

my 2 cents.

[fabian628]

I don't understand the craving for IS. I rarely use it, rarely, yet others seem to think it's the end of the world that the Mk2 doesn't have it. Is it possible that pro's don't really want or need it, but hobbyists do?

Depends on whether the IS compromises the lens in other ways but having 4 stop IS is useful. Shooting indoors at 4 stops lower iso on stationary targets is pretty good imo. IS makes taking the picture easier / more success rate, I dont see why a professional would not want such a feature.
Obviously canon knows how to make lenses so it is a little interesting why they left it out.

[fabian628]

and since canon is putting IS in wide primes, would love to see a 35 1.4 IS

[LJG]

I wonder if the upgrade to the 24-70 will be as impressive as the upgrade to the 70-200 2.8 IS? The MkII version of the 70-200 gets rave reviews, so if they can match that quality with this new 24-70 it could be quite a hit.

You put into words the first thing that came into my mind when I heard about the release Jules.