Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II finally here?

The lack of IS has given the new Tamron 24-70 VC quite a bit of attention over at POTN.

I have to agree that this announcement has been a bit of a disappointment. I guess I'll wait to see some more in-hand reviews but, at this point, I don't see any reason to upgrade. If there was IS... :cool:
 
I usually use Wex for my supplies.

Ouch is all I can say. Looks like I shall be buying a 2nd hand Mk I of this lens when someone trades theirs in for the new MK II version.

Regards,

Mark
 
firestarter said:
The 24 and 28 look really interesting. I have the old 24f2.8 as my 'walk around' lens on my 550D. Angle of view is good, and the old optical formula was very sharp (the focussing motor is awful). I'd certainly consider the IS replacement - especially if it's still quite light.

It's a shame the 28 isn't a bit faster. The 28f1.8 has some really bad bokeh effects, so it's a lens I've never considered getting. This new 28 is a bit slow... if they'd pushed it to f2 it would have been fantastic.
Click to expand...

These new wide angle EF lenses with IS make no sense to me... for crop users, you can get a 17-55 f2.8 IS for about the same money that is way more versatile and convenient without giving up any quality... so that leaves full frame users who are probably looking for something faster.

And how on earth can they justify IS on a 24mm prime when they can't on a zoom that goes to 70mm?! :confused:

rebby said:
The lack of IS has given the new Tamron 24-70 VC quite a bit of attention over at POTN.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really hope the IQ is there. If so, Canon stands to lose a lot of money to Tamron on this lens.
 
VirtualRain said:
These new wide angle EF lenses with IS make no sense to me... for crop users, you can get a 17-55 f2.8 IS for about the same money that is way more versatile and convenient without giving up any quality... so that leaves full frame users who are probably looking for something faster.

And how on earth can they justify IS on a 24mm prime when they can't on a zoom that goes to 70mm?! :confused:
Click to expand...

The cynic in me suspects it's a way to get full-frame users to buy more lenses: the new 24-70mm for everything that does not require IS, and the new primes for situations that do.
 
VirtualRain said:
These new wide angle EF lenses with IS make no sense to me... for crop users, you can get a 17-55 f2.8 IS for about the same money that is way more versatile and convenient without giving up any quality... so that leaves full frame users who are probably looking for something faster.
Click to expand...

Apparently the primes are popular with the movie making crowd - and IS will make them handholdable.
 
Very disappointed. I am sure it's a heck of a lens, but for whopping $900 more than predecessor, IS should be given. I realize Nikon does not offer IS either, but at least it lists for less than $2300.
 
Phrasikleia said:
The cynic in me suspects it's a way to get full-frame users to buy more lenses: the new 24-70mm for everything that does not require IS, and the new primes for situations that do.
Click to expand...

I guess there's always the 24-105 f4 IS for folks that need IS. Personally, I prefer a lens with IS because I do a lot of travel photography and when you're hand holding in a church (for example), IS is essential, more so than f2.8. In fact, f2.8 can create a problem with limited depth of field, so I'm probably better off with the 24-105 anyway if I go full frame. So I guess I'm going from disappointed about the lack of IS on the 24-70 to don't care. :p

firestarter said:
Apparently the primes are popular with the movie making crowd - and IS will make them handholdable.
Click to expand...

I tried doing video on my 7D with IS on my 17-55 and it was a mess but maybe I was doing something wrong. Are you sure you can shoot video with IS enabled? If not, these lenses still make no sense.
 
robbieduncan said:
So why not give them stepless/continuous aperture control?
Click to expand...

Does the EF standard even support that?

VirtualRain said:
I tried doing video on my 7D with IS on my 17-55 and it was a mess but maybe I was doing something wrong. Are you sure you can shoot video with IS enabled? If not, these lenses still make no sense.
Click to expand...

Dunno... it was a theory I saw on another forum. I don't own any IS lenses myself, so I haven't tried it.

If you've ever watched the 'Digitalrev' reviews on YouTube, they're shot on the 24-105 f4 IS, and they usually turn out OK (at least, from a steadiness point of view).
 
VirtualRain said:
I guess there's always the 24-105 f4 IS for folks that need IS. Personally, I prefer a lens with IS because I do a lot of travel photography and when you're hand holding in a church (for example), IS is essential, more so than f2.8. In fact, f2.8 can create a problem with limited depth of field, so I'm probably better off with the 24-105 anyway if I go full frame. So I guess I'm going from disappointed about the lack of IS on the 24-70 to don't care. :p
Click to expand...

The problem with the 24-105 is that it is merely adequate in resolution (interactive chart here). It has a decent sweet spot in the middle of its range when stopped down, but its corner sharpness is never very good, and it leaves a lot to be desired at f/4 across the board. As full-frame cameras make ever higher demands on the resolution of lenses, the 24-105 is going to look increasingly inadequate. So for people who need to print large or submit to agencies that pixel-peep submissions, that lens doesn't quite cut it.
 
Phrasikleia said:
The problem with the 24-105 is that it is merely adequate in resolution (interactive chart here). It has a decent sweet spot in the middle of its range when stopped down, but its corner sharpness is never very good, and it leaves a lot to be desired at f/4 across the board. As full-frame cameras make ever higher demands on the resolution of lenses, the 24-105 is going to look increasingly inadequate. So for people who need to print large or submit to agencies that pixel-peep submissions, that lens doesn't quite cut it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard that from others as well. I recently saw rumors of a replacement for this lens coming down the pike... we can only hope that doesn't mean a similar $1000 price hike! :rolleyes:

It will be very interesting to see how the Tamron performs.
 
I've got the 24 105 and am happy with it, interesting to see the comments on resolution, cant follow the link for the interactive charts (grrr flash on a mac site:eek:)

Some mtf charts here, though gives resolution to the 24 105 over the 24 70
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

As does this
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/188-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-usm-l-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1

I would like the extra stop from a 2.8 and I think the bokeh on the 2.8 is better. Mostly though it's because the 24 70 is the lens I've always wanted and photography for me is a hobby so I can let my heart rule my head :)

Even though I have the 24 105 I still look over in envy when I see a 24 70, but I have to admit I'd still be tempted to hold on to it, it is such a good walk around lens, master of none maybe but it's pretty good at most!

Still very interested in the tamron though....mind you the charts for the new 24 70 look epic, can't wait to see the two compared side by side with some real world images!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back