deepbluejh wrote:
Focus limiter maybe? And Canon isn't going to make any high resolution press photos for prototypes. I think we can pretty well be assured this is a final lens.
It is most likely a lock to keep it from extending.
Look at the 70-300L, it has something very similar.
I'm not entirely sure why so many people are complaining about the new primes.
The current EF 24mm f/2.8 is 24 years old. The current EF 28mm f/2.8 is 25 years old. They're so old, they don't have USM because they pre-date that technology. Their optical formulas are so outdated, they're easily outperformed by modern zoom lenses. Hopefully these primes will actually outperform the L-zoom lenses like they should.
Canon is finally getting around to updating their non-L primes for full frame, something many people thought we'd never see. Updated versions of the 20mm, 35mm, and 50mm are no longer out of the question.
Producing consumer-level, cheap lenses for full frame is indicative of where Canon intends to take the full frame format. It looks to me like Canon is bracing for full frame to become more affordable in the near future.
Adding I.S. to these particular lenses show that Canon will not rule out adding I.S. on non-telephoto lenses.
stargazer78 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure why so many people are complaining about the new primes.
The current EF 24mm f/2.8 is 24 years old. The current EF 28mm f/2.8 is 25 years old. They're so old, they don't have USM because they pre-date that technology. Their optical formulas are so outdated, they're easily outperformed by modern zoom lenses. Hopefully these primes will actually outperform the L-zoom lenses like they should.
Canon is finally getting around to updating their non-L primes for full frame, something many people thought we'd never see. Updated versions of the 20mm, 35mm, and 50mm are no longer out of the question.
Producing consumer-level, cheap lenses for full frame is indicative of where Canon intends to take the full frame format. It looks to me like Canon is bracing for full frame to become more affordable in the near future.
Adding I.S. to these particular lenses show that Canon will not rule out adding I.S. on non-telephoto lenses.
I am confident that Tamron will bring a product to the table that is 90-95% as good (optics, focus performance, etc) as the Canon 24-70LII. It will also bring VC and cost probably around $500 less.
So it will be up to us to decide if paying the $500 premium for the Canon justifies weather sealing and that 5-10% extra "pop" or AF speed/accuracy.
SchnellerGT wrote:
I am confident that Tamron will bring a product to the table that is 90-95% as good (optics, focus performance, etc) as the Canon 24-70LII. It will also bring VC and cost probably around $500 less.
So it will be up to us to decide if paying the $500 premium for the Canon justifies weather sealing and that 5-10% extra "pop" or AF speed/accuracy.
The question in my mind is how many folks are going to buy a $1400 Tamron 24-70?
I sure hope Canon offers the 5DX or 5D III with the 24-70L II IS as a kit!
Hello Canon .... are you tuned in?
Jeff wrote:
I realize this looks like a pretty fancy image, but remember there were reports of 'several' iterations of the 24-70/2.8 II being tested. Until Canon releases the info, I wouldn't necessarily take this as gospel, however good the image appears (I acknowledge that it does appear 'real'). Also, as several have mentioned, if image quality is indeed a large step up from the original, it probably will sell like hotcakes, once the word is out, especially if it is so much lighter (the image resembles the build of the 16-35 II in many ways).
My question is this: What is the 'bump' on the top side of the image, above the distance scale (i.e. to the right of the model inscription)? None of my black L lenses have this (granted, I'm not a gear collector), but it sure looks like another switch of some sort. Lastly, the bottom edge of the AF switch that is shown looks PS'd, it just sort of disappears into the bottom of the image.
I don't know what the consensus is on these yet, but if real that's some pretty interesting news!
Finally they start updating the non-L primes! Although a 24 and 50 would be a much better place to start than 24 and 28, but all the same good news, indeed if true.
Currently, even for landscape apertures alone, you needed $1600 worth of L to get sharp edges and minimal distortion on 5D2 at 24mm. I wonder if the IQ will match the 24 1.4 II by say f/4 and up? Of course you do give up f/1.4 or T&S compared to the L's which aren't necessarily minor but.
The tamron 24-70 VC might be interesting too. And I wonder how the canon 24-70 II will compare with primes.
bobbytan wrote:
The 82mm filter is another tell-tale sign i.e. they have to make the barrel a little fatter because of the IS mechanism.
Yes! They are cool. Presenting an image that hides the truth and surprising all of us by making it lighter, better and more comfortable (IS) too. How would they be able to ask for 50% price add on else?
I do not think they think their customers are stupid.
It will turn out as "Outsch, we did a mistake, sorry. It is no 24-7ß 2.8 L II It is an 24-70 2.8 L IS of course!
deepbluejh wrote:
Err... can't read Japanese, but the two IS primes make no sense to me. Who is going to buy a 28/2.8 IS over a 28/1.8? Especially when the latter will most certainly be cheaper.
I do agree they need to revise some of their more pedestrian, non-L primes. However I don't think adding "IS" to everything is the way to go. People buy these lenses because they are cheap. You can expect enough of a price hike without IS, but with it I think you push the price too high for the target market.
well the 28 1.8 has pretty mediocre IQ and if you don't really need more than f/2.8 who would buy the old 28 1.8?
that said I'd have updated the 50 1.4 with real USM way before I bothered with the 28, the 24mm and 50mm were the two most critical IMO.
).
.