Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM

Kryptix

Kryptix

Messages
1,730
Edit My Images
Yes
There's a thread on Canon Digital Photography Forums about the (rumoured) IS-version of the 24-70L.

Within this thread, kandyredcoi posted the following message:
kandyredcoi said:
ok peeps, went to a big filipino event today, had a chance to cover it for a friends newspaper and guess what i saw?

YES its coming 24-70L IS was mounted and was already snapping...didnt get a chance to really talk to the guy, just that he confirmed that what he had was a 24-70L IS

i was stunned when i saw it

it basically looks the same as the current brick, but that it has the IS switch under the AF/MF switch

and i dont know but it also looks a bit slimmer

the zoom is still external meaning the lens still extends out of the lens body

i wish i had more time to look and ask questions, but i ha a feeling it was a hush hush thing and of course i couldnt take pics of it either
Click to expand...

Of course, this may be absolute rubbish but it's also rumoured on various sites too.

Anyone heard/seen any more?

Anyone got any price predictions?

What will you current 24-70L owners do? Is IS worth the extra money even though you've all coped without it for so long?
 
Kryptix said:
What will you current 24-70L owners do? Is IS worth the extra money even though you've all coped without it for so long?
Click to expand...

Carry on using the superb 24-70 f2.8 L lens i already have, it doesnt suddenly get worse because another model comes out, it just means if Canon redesign the lens correctly it maybe better in a few areas, its not major panic time.
 
i think if you have the 24-70 already there wont be a great deal of incentive to change, however if you are looking at getting a new lens i would wait a bit.

im personally waiting for a while to see if the IS comes out.

I expect the report you have found is fake though. If the lens comes out it will be a huge deal, not just appear at some show in the Phillipines of all places.
well at least thats what i would assume.

Having IS will be a bonus.
Large apperture helps work in low light and keep shutters speeds up to freeze motion.
IS helps reduce problems with camera shake and camera motion.
Both together is a winning combination, it means you dont have to worry about being so dead steady as well. Particularly useful in low light at max zoom ranges i expect. Will give you higher chance of a sharp image.
 
A 24-70 IS has been rumoured since I got into photography proper around 2 years ago, so I have to say I'm a bit doubtful about it tbh.
 
This has been discussed to death virtually everywhere. It's all just rumour and no-one actually knows anything yet. I seriously doubt that report you quoted is genuine as I've yet to see anything concrete on this lens at all, so for someone to actually have one in their hands seems very unlikely.
 
There can be no disadvantage by having IS, so the only reason not to have it is the price. No doubt it will be even more expensive that it already is.

However, if they are redesigning the lens to accommodate IS, perhaps it will take sales away from the 24-105.

I am not convinced there is any real demand for IS to be added. I find the bulk of the lens helps to steady the shot anyway. It's not a lens I find myself wishing it had it.

Graham
 
blue max said:
There can be no disadvantage by having IS,
Click to expand...

If you are an idiot like me, and forget to turn it off when you mount your lens on a tripod for a shot, there can be a disadvantage. However, hopefully if this rumour is true, then the IS would turn off when on a tripod.
 
malla1962 said:
I like the lens the way it is and have no need for IS on it.
Click to expand...

same here, in fact even with the IS lenses I have it's normally switched off
 
coldpenguin said:
If you are an idiot like me, and forget to turn it off when you mount your lens on a tripod for a shot, there can be a disadvantage. However, hopefully if this rumour is true, then the IS would turn off when on a tripod.
Click to expand...

Isn't the new IS gerneration now able to sense if a tripod is used?
 
So if you were about to buy a 24-70, but could wait, but would prefer to have it now... Would you take the risk? I'd be gutted if a 24-70 IS came out for under £1,200. I'd buy that instead, but if it's like £1,500+ I wouldn't regret buying the 24-70 non-IS.
 
another thing to ponder is the lens weights what about 950g [guess work] Adding IS would add another 200odd to that, now that is a heavy walkabout lens tbh.
 
Yes, the new IS is meant to turn off when on a tripod. However, it might not (and what I assume must be an old IS lens, 28-135, it can really screw up what would have been a nice pic)
 
kiteninja said:
another thing to ponder is the lens weights what about 950g [guess work] Adding IS would add another 200odd to that, now that is a heavy walkabout lens tbh.
Click to expand...

If you need a walk around lens do you really need this lens IS or not? There's plenty of other more flexible and cheaper solutions that are a better fit.
 
Kryptix said:
So if you were about to buy a 24-70, but could wait, but would prefer to have it now... Would you take the risk? I'd be gutted if a 24-70 IS came out for under £1,200. I'd buy that instead, but if it's like £1,500+ I wouldn't regret buying the 24-70 non-IS.
Click to expand...

You're assuming the only difference would be IS, based on past experience and given the age of the 24-70 f/2.8 wouldn't it be safe to assume there's going to be some image quality differences as well?
 
I love my 24-70, I don't need any more gimmicks on the lens to help me take crap pics
 
kiteninja said:
another thing to ponder is the lens weights what about 950g [guess work] Adding IS would add another 200odd to that, now that is a heavy walkabout lens tbh.
Click to expand...

Actually IS doesn't really add any weight (generally only changed of 20-40ish g) and then you need to remember that the weight of the actual lens may go down (think of the 24-70 HSM and non HSM Sigma) so it's not all cut and dry.

IMO the more lenses with IS the better, you can always turn it off if you don't want/need it, however if your lens doesn't have it then you can't turn it on. Also the suggestion that faster aperture is always better than IS is rubbish, in a lot of situations you don't want your lens at f/2.8, you want to stop down, which is where IS comes in handy (obviously doesn't include moving things, unless you want to pan, then IS again could be useful).
 
One of the shorter zoom lenses that does need IS. For me it was far to heavy and that is the reason I sold it a few weeks ago, much perferring the 24-105 which really does not need IS.
 
simonbarker said:
You're assuming the only difference would be IS, based on past experience and given the age of the 24-70 f/2.8 wouldn't it be safe to assume there's going to be some image quality differences as well?
Click to expand...

Indeed - they'd no doubt release it as a Mk2 version with IS and other improvements. Hoping for a small hike in price over the current model would be a dream IMHO - I reckon it'll be around 70%-100% more.
 
A hike of that much would take it out of reach of most people, 20% max I would think.
 
Raymond Lin said:
it's probably the same gap between the IS and non-IS of the 70-200 variant.
Click to expand...

Which, in the case of the F4, is around 75% more expensive.

Granted the F4 IS adds more than just the IS mechanism, but then so might the 24-70 IS.
 
i think it will come in at around 1500-1600, people will pay that, any more and i dont think they would. i would be amazed if it came out at 1200, but you never know.
 
Raymond Lin said:
it's probably the same gap between the IS and non-IS of the 70-200 variant.
Click to expand...

That comes to my mind as well. They may well run concurrently as it would otherwise kill the 24-105 sales. The IS price should be far higher (remember the sigma HSM stays at around the current Canon 24-70mm price).

Personally I think IS and redesign would really benefit that lens. I really have to concentrate to take a steady shot, I actually found Nikon 18-55mm easier to handhold despite smaller aperture. They could also fix 70mm sharpness and distortion and add another 15mm.

Despite all of this I would much rather prefer in body IS (as Sony or Pentax). It would benefit all my lenses (100mm macro really needs one) and would save us £££.
 
What would be the problem with taking sales away from the 24-105? I doubt there are many people who will buy both, so its an either or, which won't affect profit margins.
 
Amp34 said:
What would be the problem with taking sales away from the 24-105? I doubt there are many people who will buy both, so its an either or, which won't affect profit margins.
Click to expand...

The choice is between the 24-105 (with IS), the 24-70 (faster but without IS) and potentially the 'new' 24-70IS. The 105 is promoted by being included in the kit lens package. It is never good to have too much competition among similar products from the same manufacturer. Who knows what the outcome will be, but it would sure makes it hard for Canon to predict and manufacture.

Graham
 
I see your point, but there is still not much overlap, people only buy one or the other, and usually only go for the 24-105 due to the IS. As the 24-70 IS would be more expensive I would assume Canon would be on to a winner, either buying the 24-70 IS or exchanging the cheaper 24-105 IS for the 24-70 IS.

I get you though that it could be an issue with manufacturing demands though. :)
 
Amp34 said:
What would be the problem with taking sales away from the 24-105? I doubt there are many people who will buy both, so its an either or, which won't affect profit margins.
Click to expand...

Actually, i think in a way, it will make the 24-105 IS every more attractive.

The 24-105 IS has always been a little cheaper than the 24-70 (at the moment £150 difference according to CameraPriceBuster, £850-£1000). Now, the 70-200 2.8 to the 70-200 IS is a £500 jump at the moment (it used to be £200), I figure the 24-70 IS will have a simlar gap. It should come out around £1300 to £1400, and now if you look at that price compared to the 24-105 IS. One would think twice to spend another £600 on a stop with a shorter focal length. So those that doesn't care about the extra 1 stop who can't decide between the original 24-70 and 24-105 IS still would be more encouraged to get the 24-105 IS as if they even considered F/4, then they'll get it. For those who want F/2.8 no matter what, will get the 24-70, with or without IS in it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It should come out around £1300 to £1400, and now if you look at that price compared to the 24-105 IS. One would think twice to spend another £600 on a stop with a shorter focal length.
Click to expand...
A lot depends on what other lenses you're partnering with. If you have the 70mm and up range covered (for example with a version of the 70-200, which are very popular), then the additional 35mm of the 24-105 wouldn't matter so much and you'd just be paying for the additional stop. Whilst it may seem a steep price to pay for a stop, this doesn't seem to hamper sales of the 70-200 f/2.8 variants, which command around twice the price of their f/4 counterparts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top