Dawei Ye wrote:
To be honest I don't think I'll get a 24-70 II if it doesn't have IS. f/2.8 is too slow for an event/wedding shooter like me, at least with IS it is usable, but without IS...no thanks!
I'm in the same boat, but I would imagine this lens is going to be hugely desirable for a lot of shooters who need a *sharp* lens in this range but don't care about IS. Landscape & PJ shooters are going to love it.
alundeb wrote:
The 28 1.8 is neither an especially cheap nor a very good lens. A Lot of lateral CA, and only the center sharpness is something to write home about, and only stopped down. If the 28 mm prime performs like a Leica, I will like it (pun intended).
To be perfectly fair, my 24/1.4 L II has a ton of CA. I think it's just the nature of wide, fast aperture lenses.
Ralph Conway wrote:
As far I see, it is reverse. But yes, the lenshood is mounted on the front so it will not cover the barrel :-(
That is working fine with 24-105 L. Maybe it just moves about 2 centimeters?
i mean reverse in the way the current 24-70 does.
front element extended at 24mm going to retracted at 70mm that allows the hood to be mounted on the barrel and can be long enough to still cover the 70mm end.
the hood on the 24-105 is poor in comparison (I have that lens)
deepbluejh wrote:
I'm in the same boat, but I would imagine this lens is going to be hugely desirable for a lot of shooters who need a *sharp* lens in this range but don't care about IS. Landscape & PJ shooters are going to love it.
Hello mates - If it is not less then $ 750 (what I guess it will be not) Canon helped me to do an decission. Back to 24-105. Thxs
deepbluejh wrote:
To be perfectly fair, my 24/1.4 L II has a ton of CA. I think it's just the nature of wide, fast aperture lenses.
That is a problem with wide, fast lenses as you say. And that is exactly why I am interested if this one does not have that problem. For example, the new Zeiss Distagon 25/2 has extremely little CA.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
i mean reverse in the way the current 24-70 does.
front element extended at 24mm going to retracted at 70mm that allows the hood to be mounted on the barrel and can be long enough to still cover the 70mm end.
the hood on the 24-105 is poor in comparison (I have that lens)
I would have loved to get a 24-70 IS instead of. But if there is no, the 24-105 is (again) my choice. It is great for what I do. One stop faster would be wonderful. But without IS - no way. I would love to have (3x) IS in any lense above 35mm. Camera is able to shoot at a 10th. I am not able to hold it.
I think the price for the zoom is crazy for basically what we have now, plus needing a different filter size! I don't see the need to update this lens without adding stabilization to it.
kewlcanon wrote:
Let me predict....somebody will say Canon drops the ball...should have IS, not only they don't have 40MP DSLR now the 24-70mm has no IS .
The camera forums are full of arm-chair quarterbacks. Legions of people who love to second guess camera companies and their decisions.
I personally think that Canon will ultimately do what is best for their interests and the interests of most of the photographers in the target market for a particular lens.
If the non-IS 24-70/2.8 II is $1900, then I fear to think what adding image stabilization would have done to the price. $2400 maybe? Either way, it's not hard to see why they didn't add it.
deepbluejh wrote:
The camera forums are full of arm-chair quarterbacks. Legions of people who love to second guess camera companies and their decisions.
I personally think that Canon will ultimately do what is best for their interests and the interests of most of the photographers in the target market for a particular lens.
If the non-IS 24-70/2.8 II is $1900, then I fear to think what adding image stabilization would have done to the price. $2400 maybe? Either way, it's not hard to see why they didn't add it.
deepbluejh wrote:
The camera forums are full of arm-chair quarterbacks. Legions of people who love to second guess camera companies and their decisions.
I personally think that Canon will ultimately do what is best for their interests and the interests of most of the photographers in the target market for a particular lens.
If the non-IS 24-70/2.8 II is $1900, then I fear to think what adding image stabilization would have done to the price. $2400 maybe? Either way, it's not hard to see why they didn't add it.
Putting my arm from the chairs rest ... is it $ 1900?
The 24-70 is about 1200 averadge. A new version at 1900 is dead before it is available in the shops. For that you get the best zoom ever. The second best for half. IQ of the old one was nice/o.c. could have been better) but not for additional $ 700. Than it really would be easier to offer/sell an IS version for about 2.400.
kewlcanon wrote:
Let me predict....somebody will say Canon drops the ball...should have IS, not only they don't have 40MP DSLR now the 24-70mm has no IS .
Not dropped the ball, but missed sales of 1 item of each to me
IF this is truly the next conception of the 24-70 2.8, Canon has made a few big mistakes. If Canon is serious about videographers (they've proven to be recently) then they must put IS in the new 24-70. No IS in a 2.8L lens is the biggest complaint I constantly hear from video crews and why people are dumping their 5D2's for 7D's and in some cases switching manufacturers. Not only that, there's nothing about a new 24-70 without IS that would pull me away from my current one. Not at that price. If it came out in the under $1400 range then maybe but an $1800 lens without IS is a complete waste. I really can't seen anyone from the 24-105 crew jumping over to this lens either if it didn't have IS and stellar image quality.
All that aside, I really hope Canon is paying a good bit of attention to Bokeh quality with the new lens.
Edit: The lens hood mounting on the front instead of the body is a big mistake as well. The current 24-70 is genius in regard to function for demanding pro situations.
- If it is not less then $ 750 (what I guess it will be not) Canon helped me to do an decission. Back to 24-105. Thxs
.
