I've just had a good look over the dutch leak site and there's no mention of a 24 II L, but they are listing a 35 II L and a 200mm f2.8 II L. In the case of the 35mm, they are listing both the mk I and mkII versions.
Well, the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 did drop about 200 euro's in price in the last year.
Then again, Konijnenberg is known (like other shops) to post rumors on their site, true or not.
David Baldwin wrote:
"Replacing core primes and zooms with higher resolution lenses more suitable for the newer 50-65MP FF sensors that are coming over the next few years.
gazzajagman wrote:
I've just had a good look over the dutch leak site and there's no mention of a 24 II L, but they are listing a 35 II L and a 200mm f2.8 II L. In the case of the 35mm, they are listing both the mk I and mkII versions.
cineski wrote:
Hey Ed, why don't you come with me and shoot a low light, no flash allowed wedding in a huge Catholic church and see if ya have that opinion anymore?
Sure, no problem. I wouldn't bother using a 24-70 in that case though. ;-)
IS in general is a crutch for a lack of talent, IMNSHO. People got great shots back in the day w/o it, and still do. The IS fanboys seem to think it's some sort of 'required' part of a lens. I could see it on 300mm+ focal length stuff, but shorter than that, not worth it, both from a cost/weight/quality loss perspective.
the 24-70 is already plenty large/complex/expensive. IS would only make it worse in those regards with little to no benefit.
The current 35L can't be calibrated very precise because it misses a chip that allows for software calibration. Calibration has to be done by adjusting the actual hardware (in rudimental steps). So my guess is Canon will provide the 35L II with such a chip, maybe update its AF algorythms also and put a weather sealing on the mount. I doubt they will make any big optical changes. Lowering the CA's would be nice though
BTW The posted link is from a reseller in the Netherlands that seems to have a habit of including updated/new items months before their actual releases. They did it with the new 18-200mm.
Daan B wrote:
BTW The posted link is from a reseller in the Netherlands that seems to have a habit of including updated/new items months before their actual releases. They did it with the new 18-200mm.
Just out of curiosity (I see you're from the Netherlands as well), what will this company say if you call them up and ask them about the 35 MKII on their site?
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Sure, no problem. I wouldn't bother using a 24-70 in that case though. ;-)
IS in general is a crutch for a lack of talent, IMNSHO. People got great shots back in the day w/o it, and still do. The IS fanboys seem to think it's some sort of 'required' part of a lens. I could see it on 300mm+ focal length stuff, but shorter than that, not worth it, both from a cost/weight/quality loss perspective.
the 24-70 is already plenty large/complex/expensive. IS would only make it worse in those regards with little to no benefit.
Well, IMNSHO of course, IS is as much a crutch as AF--I assume you don't use that either for sake of talent and all. As for "people got great shots back then", they sure did--but now they can get shots they missed, all without the use of a tripod--convenient, eh? As for additional weight, current IS systems are so light its hard to even notice the difference and if you do 3-4 stop gain makes it negligible..the same applies to additional cost. As for loss of quality--really? Are we still playing that card? Not even one of the sharpest zoom lenses (70-200 f/4 IS) ever produced could change your mind? Boy oh boy.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
IS in general is a crutch for a lack of talent, IMNSHO. People got great shots back in the day w/o it, and still do.
People got great shots in the 1800s too, which means every technological advance in photography since then would also be a crutch, following your logic.
I guess holding a camera very, very still while taking a photo is a talent of sorts, but when "talent" is mentioned in the context of photography I think more along the lines of composition, exposure, lighting, etc. In that sense, IS doesn't even influence any of those considerations except for allowing you to handhold at lower shutter speeds. Is that such a bad thing?
The way I see it, anything that helps me get a shot I would otherwise not get is a desirable feature. IS is one such feature. Nevermind putting IS in the 24-70L (which I think is a great idea); how about putting it into the 16-35L and/or 17-40L? If I want to shoot indoors in a dimly lit church, what better way to do that than to have a wide-angle with IS? And before you cry, "Tripod!" remember that a tripod isn't always convenient or even possible to use. Besides, if you can't get the shot handheld then a tripod is just a crutch anyway, right?
