AGeoJO wrote:
While the resolving power of that lens is nothing short but amazing, I still believe that incorporation of IS would make it a really superb lens, a slam-dunk lens, if you will. Maybe Canon thought that the IS would increase the price too much? At this point, what's an additional 10% more or something like, $300 or so for including an IS system. I know it is a moot point now but still why stopped short of making an incredible, and really superb lens, Canon? Why?

Maybe they also wanted to reduce weight and with the IS they would be back up over 2 pounds. ?

Good to hear it's this sharp, only question now is it's bokeh.

Beating the TS-E24II in resolution is insane!

LightShow wrote:
Good to hear it's this sharp, only question now is it's bokeh.
+1

SKumar25 wrote:
The price will come down. This is the initial price, as with every other Canon product, the price comes down over time. Will not surprise me if Canon rebates this within 6-12 months.



With a glowing review like that I would not count on it. Its gonna be tough to get also. Well, the high price will surely keep demand much lower than it could be. Had the lens cost $1200-$1500 the lens would probably never be in stock.

Sneakyracer wrote:
SKumar25 wrote:
The price will come down. This is the initial price, as with every other Canon product, the price comes down over time. Will not surprise me if Canon rebates this within 6-12 months.



With a glowing review like that I would not count on it. Its gonna be tough to get also. Well, the high price will surely keep demand much lower than it could be. Had the lens cost $1200-$1500 the lens would probably never be in stock.

I agree about the high price keeping demand down. I shoot professionally and I still am not tempted by this lens. Not that it doesn't look amazing, I just have no temptation at the current price. For $1200-1500, I'd have one in the mail asap.

LightShow wrote:
Good to hear it's this sharp, only question now is it's bokeh.

+1

Lio.

So at least it is even sharper than the 70-200 II at 70mm. And sharper than the 24 TSE 3.5 Macro. Hell! The 70-200 II was the sharpest zoom , much sharper than many primes, as far as I remember. Looks like this lens is even sharper than ANY prime in its range ...
... right? That just means, they have developed new technologies to increase lenses capabilities. It will not need long those technologies finds their way into primes. Good times for us again.

Sad, they did not got handled to add an IS for now.

Ralph

AGeoJO wrote:
While the resolving power of that lens is nothing short but amazing, I still believe that incorporation of IS would make it a really superb lens, a slam-dunk lens, if you will. Maybe Canon thought that the IS would increase the price too much? At this point, what's an additional 10% more or something like, $300 or so for including an IS system. I know it is a moot point now but still why stopped short of making an incredible, and really superb lens, Canon? Why?

It is a shame, I agree. It was asked for by soooo many people. I guess it's a grey area though. A 70-200 is obvious - you need IS. With 24-70 it's going to be useful for some and not useful for others.

Personally I'd take the extra weight and pay the extra price for the IS since I shoot in dark churches all the time and sometimes it would be useful, but many people buying this won't. I suppose their view was ... well, you can get away with 1/60th at 70mm if you're careful so it's not necessary, although I find I need 1/80th+ to really be guaranteed no shake.

All that said I'm very pleased with the resolution report. It's exactly what I was looking for as I've never loved the version I of the lens - especially in the corners - and we know copy to copy variation isn't amazing. Looking forward to seeing the other reports. I can see a purchase early next year

Ralph Conway wrote:
It will not need long those technologies finds their way into primes. Good times for us again.
Ralph

I wondered the same. Their recent lenses seem to have really pushed the boundaries and I would also assume primes will be significantly sharper too, and more consistent copy to copy.

Bad times really - more money to spend

PhilDrinkwater wrote:
Ralph Conway wrote:
It will not need long those technologies finds their way into primes. Good times for us again.
Ralph

I wondered the same. Their recent lenses seem to have really pushed the boundaries and I would also assume primes will be significantly sharper too, and more consistent copy to copy.

Bad times really - more money to spend


I should have said "good times for dreamers like me"

Ralph Conway wrote:

I should have said "good times for dreamers like me"


Haha maybe!

Personally I can't wait to get my hands on the new 24-70. It'll be in my New Year Ordering List. However, I'll leave it a while to see how it gets on first.

I hope it'll be everything that it seems.

marcus riley wrote:
Sneakyracer wrote:
SKumar25 wrote:
The price will come down. This is the initial price, as with every other Canon product, the price comes down over time. Will not surprise me if Canon rebates this within 6-12 months.



With a glowing review like that I would not count on it. Its gonna be tough to get also. Well, the high price will surely keep demand much lower than it could be. Had the lens cost $1200-$1500 the lens would probably never be in stock.

I agree about the high price keeping demand down. I shoot professionally and I still am not tempted by this lens. Not that it doesn't look amazing, I just have no temptation at the current price. For $1200-1500, I'd have one in the mail asap.

The Nikon version is $1900.

Keep dreaming that it will be 12-1500.

Besides, the original I believe was much higher than its current price. It's important to remember that the original is an old lens, and that the price currently is reflecting the vintage, and also the impending new lens.

I still wonder,
why no IS ?? That would have pulled a lot of people from both the mark-1 and the 3rd party camps (myself included).
the 24-105 has it, tamron has it, the price could well cover the cost of the IS module.
you've got to have a real good reason to do all that right and have no IS.
saty

If that's the case, i may have to sell the 24 TS-E II. what a great lens. but i don't use the tilt/shift enough to justify keeping it, and now with a 24mm that competes with it from a resolution standpoint, boy, i could pick up the 24-70 II for a little $$ more. many positives, few cons. could always rent the ts-e when i need it...

exciting times.

clarkia wrote:
If that's the case, i may have to sell the 24 TS-E II. what a great lens. but i don't use the tilt/shift enough to justify keeping it, and now with a 24mm that competes with it from a resolution standpoint, boy, i could pick up the 24-70 II for a little $$ more. many positives, few cons. could always rent the ts-e when i need it...

exciting times.

Yeah, really, if you dont use the sift and or tilt constantly there is no need to lug that lens about.

I for one LOVE the 24 TS-E and the lens movements are actually critical for the images I make. I have had the old version for years and now have the new one. Im glad Canon has kept upgrading and adding to the TS-E line.

I actually had the old 24-70 2.8 and sold it. Ended up with primes in that range for critical work and the 17-40mm for a walkabout, travel type zoom since it was much smaller and lighter.

I now only lug the 24 TSE, 40mm 2.8 and the 70-200 for my landscape travels.

That said, Im glad that Canon improved the 24-70. Its great to have the option and many people live by that zoom range. Specially portrait, wedding and event photographers.

The Canon lens line i ready to receive with open arms a 40+MP DSLR, bring it!

RobertLynn wrote:
Keep dreaming that it will be 12-1500.

Besides, the original I believe was much higher than its current price. It's important to remember that the original is an old lens, and that the price currently is reflecting the vintage, and also the impending new lens.

Traditionally, Canon had their L grade mid range zoom (e.g. 28-70L) and WA zoom (e.g. 17-35L) priced in the same range. However, currently 16-35L II is $1,700 while the new zoom is $600 more, in fact it is introduced in the price bracket of 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. That in itself is a departure from the the traditional price relativity. Now, one could assume the 24-70L II price will soon start to slide down to the 16-35L II price, so things will be back to "normal", however, I am not so sure of that.

Either way, my feeling is that you shall see $150 rebates on that lens by Christmas, so even if you are inclined to blow $2,000 + on a mid range zoom of that type, might as well wait a couple of months for the price to drop some, and also there could be early glitches with the lens, firmware updates, recalls and all that stuff which has become kinda common with the latest offerings by Canon.

satybhat wrote:
I still wonder,
why no IS ?? That would have pulled a lot of people from both the mark-1 and the 3rd party camps (myself included).
saty


There have been a number of examples where 'adding IS' has reduced resolution. (Not that you can add IS, it's part of the original optical design of a lens). The Tamron 17-50 and Canon 70-200 f4 come to mind (and yes, there are reliable numbers, not impressions, showing the IS versions of those two have slightly lower resolution than the non-IS versions).

I think it's very possible Canon looked at various designs and decided "we'd rather have the resolution rather than the IS" because it may not have been possible to have both. Manufacturers have to make the same decision about distortion sometimes: correcting distortion can significantly reduce resolution.

I'd like IS. But if I was Emperor and had to choose between amazing resolution and good resolution plus IS, I'd have gone for amazing resolution. I certainly understand some people would rather have the IS, though.

The comment about the primes is big- however, many of those primes are also faster than f/2.8, so I'm not sure I see the 24-70 II replacing my 35L anytime soon...but that doesn't mean I'm still not looking at my lens lineup right now and saying "hmm, do I really use all these lenses? Maybe I should sell a few and replace them with that new 24-70L II"

And as others have stated, does this mean some of the primes are going to be upgraded soon?

While people have complained about prices, as well as some of the recent Canon body releases, I have to say that the 70-200 MKII, 70-300L, 40mm 2.8 STM, and for us croppers, the 15-85mm, have all been very solid lens releases in the past few years for Canon. And this new 24-70 seems to be continuing that trend...

So a 2 lens kit that covers pretty much anything is now a reality? 24-70 II and 70-200 II

AGeoJO wrote:
While the resolving power of that lens is nothing short but amazing, I still believe that incorporation of IS would make it a really superb lens, a slam-dunk lens, if you will. Maybe Canon thought that the IS would increase the price too much? At this point, what's an additional 10% more or something like, $300 or so for including an IS system. I know it is a moot point now but still why stopped short of making an incredible, and really superb lens, Canon? Why?

Agreed. There are a lot more people clamoring for IS on that zoom then an increase in resolving power. Which feature opens up more possibilities on a general use zoom?