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/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS

[Scotty72]

hmmm ho-hum

[Xenedis]

Canon Australia's announcement:

http://www.canon.com.au/About-Canon/News-Events/News-Press-Releases/New-EF24-70mm-f28L-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.:cool:

[Xenedis]

Thanks but I'll stick with my primes.:cool:

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 :umm:

[Xenedis]

wowsers :umm:

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 :p

[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.

[jjphoto]

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.

It depends on what you do. Wedding guys would probably appreciate IS as they are often shooting in low light. If you shoot on a tripod, as I do for 95% of my work, IS is useless.

Another thing to consider about IS is that it doesn't slow your moving subject during your 1/4 second exposure. If you shoot people, as long as they are actually alive, they will be moving about! IS is nice on longer lenses, where camera shake is a bigger problem at even medium shutter speeds.

JJ

[Bennymiata]

I have a Canon 28mm F2.8.
A very cheap lens, but good for indoor events with my 60D.

While I like to have IS, I've never really missed not having it on the 28.

I would say that these 2 lenses are used by a lot of video guys with 5D MkII's, and the IS would come in handy for them.

[mikew09]

Hmmm - I often thought about getting a 24-70, I love the 24-105 but is a bit slow at times. I think this has up-ed the priority. Was about to buy a 5D Mk II but then decided to wait for the Mk III - maybe the Minister for House hold finance will approve the extra cash when the time is due. Maybe Canon will offer a kit sell with the 5D Mk II - body and new 24-70 :-)

[andylo]

Maybe I will give Tamron standard zoom another look, the VC version is a new release just announced 2 days ago or so.

[Xenedis]

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

I have a 35/1.4L, and it's very large and heavy for its focal length (it's actually longer in physical size than the 85/1.2L II, which I also have).

Adding IS to a 35/1.4 would add extra size, weight, optical complexity and price.

[Tannin]

Xenedis, as an owner of one, what are your thoughts? I'm 99% decided to buy a 35/1.4L sometime in the next couple of months. It would be used alongside a 24-105/4L IS, with a couple of macro lenses (60mm EF-S and 100mm L) my only other primes. I used to have a 35mm/2.8 macro lens and enjoyed using that for walkaround things, especially on APS-H. I don't need the macro ability now (not with two others, either of which would usually be a beter choice for close-up work), just the walkaround general-purpose side of things.

Are you happy with your 35L? Are there faults or limitations with it that might make it better for me to wait a while for a 35/1.4L II? Or ... oh whatever. You own one, how do you feel about it?

Thanks!

[Xenedis]

Xenedis, as an owner of one, what are your thoughts? I'm 99% decided to buy a 35/1.4L sometime in the next couple of months. It would be used alongside a 24-105/4L IS, with a couple of macro lenses (60mm EF-S and 100mm L) my only other primes. I used to have a 35mm/2.8 macro lens and enjoyed using that for walkaround things, especially on APS-H. I don't need the macro ability now (not with two others, either of which would usually be a beter choice for close-up work), just the walkaround general-purpose side of things.

Are you happy with your 35L? Are there faults or limitations with it that might make it better for me to wait a while for a 35/1.4L II? Or ... oh whatever. You own one, how do you feel about it?



I love my 35/1.4L. It's a gem of a lens. Mind you, I shoot with a full-frame camera, so I'm seeing its native focal length.

There's certainly nothing about it which I'd regard as a negative point. If you want a lens of that capability, my advice is to buy it now. I'm not sure if or when a successor is to be released, but IMO and IME, it's a superb lens.

I've used mine to shoot a variety of subjects -- some serious, and some not so serious. You can see what I've shot with it here:

http://www.xenedis.net/viewalbum.php?a=72157600059581010

I do use it for portraits, and if you want to shoot environmental portraits, it's a great lens for that. It's also very useful for indoor live music, or as a great general-purpose walk-around lens if you like primes and want something with a useful focal length and a very wide aperture for indoor usage.

[Tannin]

Excellent! Thankyou Xenedis. I've heard nothing but nice things about this lens from existing owners - including one or two I have a great deal of respect for - and after reading your report (and enjoying some very pleasing images, thankyou for that link) I'll call the matter settled.

I'll be using it with a variety of bodies, by the way, not just the 1D IV. I suppose we all have our favourite fields of view; I particularly like what 35mm does on APS-H (where it's delightfully just-slightly-wider than a 50mm lens on FX - equal to 45mm FX or 28mm on APS-C), but I'm sure it will get to take a turn on the 5D II now and then, and perhaps the 50D as well. I think of it as a sort of "buy one, get two free" arrangement. :)

------------------------


And this returns me to the topic - if I love that true normal field of view so much, why should continuing APS-C users not love it too? F/2.8 isn't very fast by prime standards, but for those of us who are used to zooms it's plenty fast (most zooms are f/4 or variable 4-5.6ish things; f/2.8 is relatively uncommon) and that 28mm length is perfect. A crappy 50/1.8 aside, I've never owned a genuine fast prime and have always happily made do with dual-purpose f/2.8 macro lenses instead, and I think there is a useful thought to pull out here - I always found the 60 macro so much nicer to use than the Canon 50/1.8 that the cheaper lens stayed in the bag most days. In other words, build quality, a non-rotating front element, superior optics and a ring USM focus motor all worked together to trump the faster aperture of the 50mm lens.

Now consider the 28/2.8 IS in that same light. What APS-C photographer wouldn't love to have this perfect focal length, with quality build, low weight and small size, quality optics, non-rotating front, and real ring USM? It's not cheap, but it's cheap enough to buy on impulse, or as a present, which things like a 17-55/2.8 IS or an 85/1.2 or a 24-70/2.8 are not. Now throw in the magic of IS as well .... and you know, I reckon Canon could be on a winner here!

[Xenedis]

Excellent! Thankyou Xenedis. I've heard nothing but nice things about this lens from existing owners - including one or two I have a great deal of respect for - and after reading your report (and enjoying some very pleasing images, thankyou for that link) I'll call the matter settled.

Glad I could help you with the 35/1.4L. I cannot say I've ever seen a bad word written about it, but these days I don't read about gear or discuss it much.

If you like the 35mm focal length (one I consider quite useful in 135-format), you'd love the 35/1.4L.



Now consider the 28/2.8 IS in that same light. What APS-C photographer wouldn't love to have this perfect focal length

Any photographer who doesn't consider that focal length perfect. :-)

It comes down to whether or not the focal length (whatever view it provides, depending on the camera) is appealing.

Personally I don't like the 'standard' focal length (50mm in my case), as it's neither wide nor long, and gives me a view that a camera doesn't make very interesting.

I don't have an APS-C camera, but if I did, I wouldn't bother with a 28mm or 35mm lens, as the view it provides just doesn't appeal to me.

On a full-frame camera, I'd consider those useful focal lengths, though.