EF 24-70 f2.8 II pic

Can't see the point really... There's nothing wrong with the original 24-70 :shrug:
 
Looks a bit sleeker, less bulgy. 82mm front thread - expensive! Wonder if it still has that annoying zoom extension when it's at 24mm.... always puzzled me that did :)

Mind you, on the same page there's a pic of a Tamrom 24-70 f/2.8 that, if it's anywhere near as good as the 17-50, will be brilliant for full-frame on a budget.
 
Even if it's real, there is no big reason for me to upgrade my 28-70 2.8L. especially lack of IS. Where is 35L mk II? and 135L mk II
 
Ricky said:
Even if it's real, there is no big reason for me to upgrade my 28-70 2.8L. especially lack of IS. Where is 35L mk II? and 135L mk II
Click to expand...

IS does not make a lens good infact its more detrimental to the IQ to have it there
 
specialman said:
Looks a bit sleeker, less bulgy. 82mm front thread - expensive! Wonder if it still has that annoying zoom extension when it's at 24mm.... always puzzled me that did :)
Click to expand...

It's far from annoying and is a brilliant bit of design.

It means that the hood is the right size for all focal lengths and can provide good shading at 70mm without vignetting at 24mm. It also protects the extending barrel from knocks and bangs. If this has been lost with the mk2 then that's a backward step IMO.
 
canon rumours previously suggested there were testing multiple versions, some with IS, which they might have decided were too big and bulky. Seems a bit weird to see a 24 mm prime with IS, but 24-70 zoom without.
 
Vertigo1 said:
It's far from annoying and is a brilliant bit of design.

It means that the hood is the right size for all focal lengths and can provide good shading at 70mm without vignetting at 24mm. It also protects the extending barrel from knocks and bangs. If this has been lost with the mk2 then that's a backward step IMO.
Click to expand...

+1
very clever idea for use with a hood.
 
Xenon54 said:
canon rumours previously suggested there were testing multiple versions, some with IS, which they might have decided were too big and bulky. Seems a bit weird to see a 24 mm prime with IS, but 24-70 zoom without.
Click to expand...

I don't see any complaints about optical or build quality re the Mk1 24-70. Since I doubt they'd be able to cut back on weight significantly without impacting quality, the only area for them to significantly improve on the Mk1 would be by adding IS, IMO.

Agreed that it's a bit silly to put IS on a 24mm prime :p
 
DoctorBob said:
I don't see any complaints about optical or build quality re the Mk1 24-70. Since I doubt they'd be able to cut back on weight significantly without impacting quality, the only area for them to significantly improve on the Mk1 would be by adding IS, IMO.

Agreed that it's a bit silly to put IS on a 24mm prime :p
Click to expand...

IS on a short lens could mean crazy slow hand held shots. Obviously the 24-105 has IS that's a couple of generations old now. I often shoot at 1/10th and lower with my 24-70, could be handy to up the hit rate a bit.

Lots of people complain about the IQ on the current 24-70 especially towards the edges of the frame. I know of architecture photographers who won't use one (but would love to).
 
daugirdas said:
Fake:

The tint and tone of glass is strange
Focus scale markings are unbelievable
no mention of 'II'
No markings underneath the red ring
Click to expand...

POAH said:
however if its not fake you'll look like a twit :lol:
Click to expand...

So can I call him a twit without getting an infraction?

Here goes - you twit :D
 
Last edited:
heidfirst said:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS
Click to expand...

Can't see any UK availability or pricing so I'll stab a guess at £1999.99 "and where would sir like to donate the penny change to?"......

The US press release says

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens is expected to be available in April for an approximate retail price of $2,299.00.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e
 
I'm rather glad the new version, assuming the pic is correct, will not be fully extended at 24mm. It worked well with the hood but after a few years of ownership you'd get zoom creep which makes shooting at 24mm for long periods annoying (it's particularly annoying when you try and get a shot through a prison van - where you need the hood off - and inevitably the lens is pushed back from 24mm against the glass).

The lack of IS is surprising as it works great for video work allowing handheld shots. It's the best thing about the 24-105mm. But, considering the price already, I'd rather do away with IS than pay a premium for it.
 
daugirdas said:
Fake:

The tint and tone of glass is strange
Focus scale markings are unbelievable
no mention of 'II'
No markings underneath the red ring
Click to expand...

Whoopsie!
 
Jackwow said:
You're a bunch of sad people.
Click to expand...

Considering how long an update for the 24-70 has been wanted, I'd say that the thread was entirely justified; especially given Canon's confirmation this morning.

However it's nice to see that you are keeping up the quality of your contributions on here.
 
It's always a little "disappointing" when a new version of a lens you recently purchased is released but at twice the price I personally couldn't justify it and at that price the IQ will have to be quite a step up from an already excellent standard lens without the IS, though I can see arguments for and against that.
 
Anyone know the asking price for the 'early adopters?'
 
who the 24 and 28mm f2.8 IS primes are aimed at I don't know lol

seems like a huge waste of money - maybe video users???????



the lens is retracted at 24mm so I'm guessing it zooms normally ;)
 
Not sure I'm buying the "smaller and lighter" marketing either. I read it was 1cm shorter - hardly a real world big difference, and it's likely wider with the 82mm filter. As for weight, not seen the figures but doubt there's a massive difference there either.

So looks like a straight like-for-like upgrade to a new optical design. It's always good when lenses get better over time...
 
I used to think the 70-200 mk1 was pretty good, until I bought the mk2, hopefully the same can be said for the 24-70.
Lighter and shorter sounds good to me!
 
The primes with IS, must be aimed at videographers, for still photography I'd much rather see an extra stop than IS.
 
DemiLion said:
Whoopsie!
Click to expand...

:nuts:


That pic still looks horrible - real or not. I really hope MF distance is not that short in real life as pictured, since it is giving me some royal PITA with 100mm macro lens (featuring a similar spacing between 1m and infinity).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS The main improvement seems to be durability, and rightly so.

It will be interesting to see the MTF and sharpness compared with the old brick.

EF24-70mm F2.8 L II USM(Release date April 2012) (excluding tax) 230,000 yen price (£1.9k)
EF24mm F2.8 IS USM(Release Date June 2012) (excluding tax) 80,000 yen price (£660)
EF28mm F2.8 IS USM(Release Date June 2012) (excluding tax) 76,000 yen price (£630) from canon.jp

All seem to be quite expensive, so certainly no drop in price of the old gear.

The primes are very highly priced (not that different to what a used 24-70 costs) so would better perform extremely well wide open.

82mm is now the new 'standard'. :thumbsdown:

In the meantime, [when] are they going to stop servicing 24-70 mk1?
 
daugirdas said:
In the meantime, [when] are they going to stop servicing 24-70 mk1?
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought manufacturers are obliged by law to keep supplying spares for service for 7 years.
 
We were only pulling your leg.

All is forgiven. :thumbs:
 
hoolio said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought manufacturers are obliged by law to keep supplying spares for service for 7 years.
Click to expand...

... from the date of release or discontinuation?

Wasn't 200/2 IS released in 2008, and 200/1.8 is now unserviceable?

I guess I should bite the bullet and get mine cleaned up and tightened before it's too late.
 
I reckon you'll be fine for a few years yet.
 
Got to be discontinuation or there would be situations occurring with products that have a longer sales life than that, though still for sale, being unserviceable due to a lack of parts from the manufacturer.
 
Edtog said:
I used to think the 70-200 mk1 was pretty good, until I bought the mk2, hopefully the same can be said for the 24-70.
Lighter and shorter sounds good to me!
Click to expand...

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk1 had a lot of room for improvement though, especially wide open at the long end. The 24-70 is already far better so, whilst I've no doubt the mk2 will be better, there's less scope for improvement.
 
daugirdas said:
... from the date of release or discontinuation?

Wasn't 200/2 IS released in 2008, and 200/1.8 is now unserviceable?

I guess I should bite the bullet and get mine cleaned up and tightened before it's too late.
Click to expand...
No need to panic. The 200mm f/1.8 was discontinued in 2003 and it was serviceable for several years after that.
 
Xenon54 said:
As for weight, not seen the figures but doubt there's a massive difference there either
Click to expand...

hmmm, I stand corrected. Looks like a ~15% decrease in weight, which is certainly welcome and worth having (805g vs 950g).

I guess it's all down to a cost-benefit comparison with v1 once the reviews are out and street price is known.
 
daugirdas said:
... from the date of release or discontinuation?

Wasn't 200/2 IS released in 2008, and 200/1.8 is now unserviceable?

I guess I should bite the bullet and get mine cleaned up and tightened before it's too late.
Click to expand...
The 17-35/2.8L was discontinued in 2001 and the 28-70/2.8L in 2002 but both were serviced by Canon until December 2010....worry not.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top