Canon 24-70 2.8 II - no IS and $1000 more?

eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
edited February 8, 2012 in Cameras
Just saw the specs and price for the Canon 24-70 2.8 L II. I just don't get it. Granted it has exotic glass that should do wonders for CA. But no IS and a $1000 price hike seems crazy. Makes me even more hesitant to move up to FF and give up my 'cheap' alternative of the EF-S 17-55 2.8 with IS for only $1000.

Link to info and comparison: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-version-1-vs-version-2/
Eyal
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos

Comments

  • Stuart-MStuart-M Registered Users Posts: 157 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    The extra sensitivity of a full frame sensor negates the lack of IS IMHO, and IS has it's drawbacks. The new lens sounds like it is mega sharp, so it is worth the higher cost I think.
    Liverpool Wedding & Event Photographer
  • Dan7312Dan7312 Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    Canon is also releasing a 24mm and 28mm primes with IS.

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/07/Canon_24-70mm_F2p8_II_24mm_f2p8_IS_28mm_f2p8_IS
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Just saw the specs and price for the Canon 24-70 2.8 L II. I just don't get it. Granted it has exotic glass that should do wonders for CA. But no IS and a $1000 price hike seems crazy. Makes me even more hesitant to move up to FF and give up my 'cheap' alternative of the EF-S 17-55 2.8 with IS for only $1000.

    Link to info and comparison: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-version-1-vs-version-2/
    Dan

    http://www.danalphotos.com

    http://www.pluralsight.com

    http://twitter.com/d114
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    Stuart-M wrote: »
    The extra sensitivity of a full frame sensor negates the lack of IS IMHO, and IS has it's drawbacks. The new lens sounds like it is mega sharp, so it is worth the higher cost I think.

    Everyone keeps saying that, but the bottom line is that it's STILL $1000 more and the Tamron will probably cost just under / around $1,000 total, WITH stabilization, and probably great sharpness. So I imagine that pretty much 99% of hobbyists will opt for the Tamron, and quite a big %% of pros will too.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    I wrote this in another thread but this one move by Canon is seriously making me second-guess my plans to move to full frame. I could justify the body costing $3000 to replace my current 50D. I was going to justify the move from a 10-22 and 17-55 to the 17-40 and 24-70 for some more money but not THIS much more and to lose the nice and helpful IS on the 17-55.
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    I think many of us are scratching our heads over this (see similar threads in accessories). I know there is no way I'll pay that much to replace my 24-70L I. I'll be following the Tamron to see how it performs in the real world and if I want to go for IS (I really would find it helpful - I'm not a good hand-holder at best and tend to move around quite a lot when I shoot anyway) and the IQ is strong enough would definitely consider it. The Tamron 17-50 has always been a stellar performer for me - it was only the focal lengths (I wanted the 50-70 range) and super-fast AF which made me get the 24-70 in the first place.
    facebook | photo site |
  • jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    I have the older version of the 24-70 and it works just great. I can't imagine why I'd ever replace it. However, since this focal length is necessary for a lot of shooters, I suspect Canon will get plenty of buyers moving forward.
    http://johnhefti.com/
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    I went from the 40D with 17-55/2.8 IS to the 5DII with 24-70L. I have never missed the IS. I thought I would.

    Put it this way - you are paying for $2300 worth of glass!

    Hmmmmm... sell my 35L and 24-70L to fund 24-70L-II??
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    Why do people think that MRSP is the price they have to pay to get this lens? Just look at the MRSP of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the street price now. It is not as bad as everyone is trying to make it out to be. Also if you look at the MTF of the new lens ... simply wow. As pointed out on another forum the new zoom beats the 24mm f/1.4 L II even at f8 in the corners. When the prices comes down I am sure a lot of people are going to buy it if they need a standard zoom. It looks like an awesome lens to me.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    If it's as sharp as the 70-200 II, (though it'll probably be sharper), I think it'll be worth about what the 70-200 II is - around $2000.

    I'm more interested in the 24 and 28 primes. I love primes, but why are these so expensive? And why are they only 2.8? They'd better be sharp - I'm talking 24-70L II sharp.
  • Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    According to MTF the new new primes have less resolving power than the new 24-70 II. MRSP of the old primes without is was "only" 200$ less btw.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    Wow, that's interesting. Thanks Manfr3d. The old 24mm 2.8 goes for around $300 used, the old 28mm for less.
  • photodad1photodad1 Registered Users Posts: 566 Major grins
    edited February 7, 2012
    B&H Photo is now taking pre-orders for the new 24-70mm f2.8L II, $2299. Not available until April 17th.
  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2012
    photodad1 wrote: »
    B&H Photo is now taking pre-orders for the new 24-70mm f2.8L II, $2299. Not available until April 17th.

    Someone at Canon needs to put the crack pipe down.

    It's bad enough they hiked their big telephoto lenses to be "in line" with what Nikon charges. Why do they have to be "in line" why cant they be cheaper? This puts the canon II about $400 more than the Nikon.. Ugh...
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2012
    Manfr3d wrote: »
    According to MTF the new new primes have less resolving power than the new 24-70 II. MRSP of the old primes without is was "only" 200$ less btw.

    The more I read the less I understand the logic behind these three lenses.
    Why even make a 24 and 28 prime if you can't do better than f/2.8?
    If the MTF is not at least equal to the zoom? What's the point?
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,156 moderator
    edited February 8, 2012
    eoren1 wrote: »
    The more I read the less I understand the logic behind these three lenses.
    Why even make a 24 and 28 prime if you can't do better than f/2.8?
    If the MTF is not at least equal to the zoom? What's the point?

    Both of these lenses had not been updated in a "very" long time and were starting to show their age. The new versions should be:
    Relatively small.
    Very lightweight.
    Inexpensive, (especially compared to the "L" versions).
    Improved in the edges and corners.

    The IS will improve their overall usefulness in handheld situations. The new 24mm is relatively interesting to me for the above reasons.

    I am hoping that both the EF 50mm, 1.4 USM and EF 50mm, f1.8 are updated sometime fairly soon. The 50mm, f1.4 just needs a new lens construction to reduce halation, and the 50mm, f1.8 needs more reliable and consistent AF performance.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • eoren1eoren1 Registered Users Posts: 2,391 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2012
    Couldn't they have made them more useful by omitting the IS and getting them a respectable 1.4 or 1.8 max aperture?
    Eyal
    My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
  • MarkRMarkR Registered Users Posts: 2,099 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2012
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Couldn't they have made them more useful by omitting the IS and getting them a respectable 1.4 or 1.8 max aperture?

    I would think -- and I do not have a dog in this race -- that the extra stop (or two) of aperture you are suggesting is trumped by the extra 3ish stops of lens stabilization.

    After all, at that wide angle you're not going to get creative through narrow DOF, esp. on a FF, but you can get creative with low shutter speed without a tripod.

    Here's a quick vacay snap that I took with a 35mm Pentax with in-body IS at 1/6 (no tripod):

    971837394_rZRQG-M-1.jpg
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2012
    eoren1 wrote: »
    Couldn't they have made them more useful by omitting the IS and getting them a respectable 1.4 or 1.8 max aperture?

    Um, Canon already makes a 24 f/1.4, and its ~$1500. They also already make a 28mm f/1.8, and it's ~$500. So Canon already has both of those wide-angle prime markets covered. (High budget, low-budget).

    I believe these primes are a good compromise between the two. You can get all the stability advantages of faster apertures, without the size and weight and price hikes. I just hope Nikon takes it's queue from Canon and does the same! (Actually, to be honest, I'd be happy with EITHER a stabilized 24 2.8, or just a 24 f/2. Whichever Nikon can make lighter or cheaper.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2012
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Both of these lenses had not been updated in a "very" long time and were starting to show their age. The new versions should be:
    Relatively small.
    Very lightweight.
    Inexpensive, (especially compared to the "L" versions).
    Improved in the edges and corners.

    The IS will improve their overall usefulness in handheld situations. The new 24mm is relatively interesting to me for the above reasons.

    I am hoping that both the EF 50mm, 1.4 USM and EF 50mm, f1.8 are updated sometime fairly soon. The 50mm, f1.4 just needs a new lens construction to reduce halation, and the 50mm, f1.8 needs more reliable and consistent AF performance.

    Exactly. For some of us, size and weight are MUCH more important than shallow DOF or faster shutter speeds. The MTF charts are created at f/2.8 if I am not mistaken; and I bet these lenses are RAZOR sharp at f/8-16 which is pretty much all that a hardcore landscape photographer cares about. These new lenses are specifically designed for the landscape photographers out there who love sharpness, but don't care about f/2.8 and certainly aren't keen on lugging around something like a 24-70 2.8...

    If Canon would go ahead and make medium-high-end IS versions of their 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8, pair that with a 70-200 f/4 L IS and you've got an INCREDIBLE landscape photography setup. Too bad none of those lenses exist for Nikon yet!

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • Mathieu05Mathieu05 Registered Users Posts: 203 Major grins
    edited February 8, 2012
    Don't worry Matt, the dark side always have that very delicious cookies! lol :ivar
    Matthew Saville wrote: »
    Exactly. For some of us, size and weight are MUCH more important than shallow DOF or faster shutter speeds. The MTF charts are created at f/2.8 if I am not mistaken; and I bet these lenses are RAZOR sharp at f/8-16 which is pretty much all that a hardcore landscape photographer cares about. These new lenses are specifically designed for the landscape photographers out there who love sharpness, but don't care about f/2.8 and certainly aren't keen on lugging around something like a 24-70 2.8...

    If Canon would go ahead and make medium-high-end IS versions of their 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8, pair that with a 70-200 f/4 L IS and you've got an INCREDIBLE landscape photography setup. Too bad none of those lenses exist for Nikon yet!

    =Matt=
    Chris Odchigue | Photography

    “There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
Sign In or Register to comment.