surf monkey wrote:
danZphoto wrote:
B&H is backordered 1,000 units.
No price reduction this week, at least.

Wow. There must be a lot of deep pockets out there.
How do you find out about B&H?

Call and ask!

netexpress wrote:

The new 24-70 II lens is a photo-journalist staple.

For 21 years, I worked as a photographer at one of the larger papers in the country. I almost never used the mid-range lens. Once macro was put into it, I stopped carrying the prime macro, but still didn't use the lens very much. When we went digital, the APS-C sensors eliminated the wide end, but made the long end a little more useful. But It's just an iffy, wishy-washy perspective overall. And the Mk I was just too damned fragile to leave on a camera.

When I left the paper, I started using the 24-70 a lot more for events and the like, the kind of pictures I would never have to make as a photojournalist. My copy is exceptionally sharp, right after it's been to CPS. So, the lens always get's returned to a cushy, protected and comfortable spot as soon as I'm finished using it, and it's never left on the camera. Sort or limits it's usefulness, no?. Too delicate and unreliable. So...I've ordered a Mk II. What suckers we are. Shouldn't Canon have made these lenses right, the first time?

A lot of folks try to be nice and only say sweet things about Canon, but let's be realistic. Once film disappeared, so did lens quality. It's only been with the advent of higher resolution sensors that we've been demanding better lenses again. I had 2.8 zooms back in the 80's that were exceptional: Durable and sharp. These lenses were left on my cameras all the time, got knocked around, and held sharp. Granted, there was no IS mechanism inside, and the AF sucked early on, but I wasn't sending them in for service all the time as I am now.

I love the new II series lenses, but I'm not happy about having to buy something that should have been there already. The only real improvement is the AF. There has been a steady improvement there, and the II lenses raise the bar yet again.

I leave my 24-70 on a camera all of the time and wheel it around In a pelican with no trouble.

trumpet_guy wrote:
Yes, I have questions about its landscape performance. The version 1 of this zoom performed
best at portrait distances.

i hope it won't go to pieces at landscape distance, this guy's samples look awfully blurry!

http://www.ceehere.com/Photography/Lenses/Canon-EF-24-70mm-128L-II-USM/25336386_fbrsm8#!i=2083262400&k=ftRQxSP

photomadnz wrote:
But in saying this, its no sharper then a good copy of the 24-105mm

I find that hard to believe. I have used two different 24-105mm lenses and consider it the worst of the Canon's L lenses. By far.

Todd Klassy wrote:
photomadnz wrote:
But in saying this, its no sharper then a good copy of the 24-105mm

I find that hard to believe. I have used two different 24-105mm lenses and consider it the worst of the Canon's L lenses. By far.

same here, tried three copies (24-105), all were the same, all mediocre on FF at the wide end, this one, photo samples above not withstand (i think something must have been done wrong there, hope), i believe this (24-70 II) will blow the 24-105 away

So $2300 right now. What would it have been with IS?

70-200 2.8 non IS = $1340
70-200 2.8 IS II = $2500

24-70 2.8 II non IS = $2300
24-70 2.8 II IS = ~$4400

Canon will probably just extrapolate out the 70-200 price levels.

ggreene wrote:
70-200 2.8 non IS = $1340
70-200 2.8 IS II = $2500

Canon will probably just extrapolate out the 70-200 price levels.

You cannot compare the price of the very old non IS 70-200 to the mk II, it should be compared to the price the mk I IS was at the time it stopped manufacture and that was around $1900. I think there was always around a $500-600 difference between them.

I what universe do you think IS is worth $2K or that Canon would charge you that amount?

ggreene wrote:
70-200 2.8 non IS = $1340
70-200 2.8 IS II = $2500

Canon will probably just extrapolate out the 70-200 price levels.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
You cannot compare the price of the very old non IS 70-200 to the mk II, it should be compared to the price the mk I IS was at the time it stopped manufacture and that was around $1900. I think there was always around a $500-600 difference between them.

I what universe do you think IS is worth $2K or that Canon would charge you that amount?


Take it easy. He was obviously being sarcastic.
I agree with you PP, add $600 and you get a $2900 standard zoom!!! Woo-hoo.

I am pretty sure that there are a few individuals on this board who'd pay $4,400 for 24-70 f/2.8L IS.......however, on the whole, Canon wouldn't sell too many of those.

IMO Canon reckons they can sell 24-70L II for $2,300 whether it has IS or not.
Therefore, in order to squeeze a few $$ more out of that model sales, they have stripped it of IS.
If they put IS in it, the market at large still couldn't bear much more than $2,300 per unit.....so why bother with the provision of IS in 24-70L II ?

Why does everyone insist on acting like IS is like some lens add-on, rather than an optical element that has to be designed into the optical formula, and which can add some adverse effects or complicate the remainder of the design?

None of us know, including me, but it is certainly a possibility that Canon had the option of putting out an IS lens with good resolution or putting out a non IS with great resolution and chose the latter course.

This is the kind of decision lens design teams have to make every day - everything in optics involves trade-offs. It's just like the distortion at the wide end. It's easy enough to correct the optical formula for distortion, but the simple correction decreases resolution and can increase astigmatism. The designer decides which is most important for the purpose the lens is intended for.

I hate to find myself defending a camera manufacturer. It just doesn't feel natural. But sometimes it's not a plot.

RCicala wrote:
Why does everyone insist on acting like IS is like some lens add-on, rather than an optical element that has to be designed into the optical formula, and which can add some adverse effects or complicate the remainder of the design?

None of us know, including me, but it is certainly a possibility that Canon had the option of putting out an IS lens with good resolution or putting out a non IS with great resolution and chose the latter course.

This is the kind of decision lens design teams have to make every day - everything in optics involves trade-offs. It's just like the distortion at the wide end. It's easy enough to correct the optical formula for distortion, but the simple correction decreases resolution and can increase astigmatism. The designer decides which is most important for the purpose the lens is intended for.

I hate to find myself defending a camera manufacturer. It just doesn't feel natural. But sometimes it's not a plot.

Sounds logical until you ask why then the APS-C versions of the 24-70, all have IS? The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a stellar lens and having IS has not harmed it and the price while many complain is still only $1K. Sigma and Tamron have also done similar. Yet in the FF version on Tamron has pursued VC. Is the 24-70 VC a worse performer than the 28-75 and how could we prove VC was the cause even if it were?

I refute that IS has a detrimental effect on IQ, and most arguments for such degradation come from the poor old 300 f/4L IS not being as sharp as the non IS version. Maybe back then they didn't get it quite right, but I don't think it's the case now. All the superteles with IS were easily as sharp as their non IS predecessors and we only have to look at the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to see the IQ vs IS argument evaporate.

I cannot work out Canon's logic as why would one need a 24/28 f/2.8 with IS, but not a 24-70 zoom. As for it pushing up the price, by that argument the 70-200 II should be $3.5K, yet is the same price give or take a $100 as the 24-70.

I think active IS can have an impact on bokeh, but then its better than blurry subjects.

I assume canon couldnt make a light, small and cheap enough IS version that had good enough IQ.

Or they want to sell you it in a few years time...

RobDickinson wrote:
I think active IS can have an impact on bokeh, but then its better than blurry subjects.

I assume canon couldnt make a light, small and cheap enough IS version that had good enough IQ.

Or they want to sell you it in a few years time...

Hard to imagine the 200 f/2 bokeh being better sans IS. The older version is better because it can do f/1.8

Pixel Perfect wrote:
RobDickinson wrote:
I think active IS can have an impact on bokeh, but then its better than blurry subjects.

I assume canon couldnt make a light, small and cheap enough IS version that had good enough IQ.

Or they want to sell you it in a few years time...

Hard to imagine the 200 f/2 bokeh being better sans IS. The older version is better because it can do f/1.8

That example has a significant didactic value.
I believe 200 f/1.8 has a somewhat better intrinsic sharpness as tested on an ISO chart under perfect conditions.
However, 200 f/2 IS has better effective or operational image sharpness, plus 200 f/2.0 IS will be instrumental in a higher rate of better captures. Why is that so ?
The reasons reside in an all around design advancement of 200 f/2 IS relative to the much older 200 f/1.8.

The new lens incorporates...

*4 stop IS
* better flare resistance
* faster AF
* lower weight
* shorter MFD, etc etc.

All those new design features make 200 f/2 IS a better tool, and better photography tools lead to better results, generally speaking.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Hard to imagine the 200 f/2 bokeh being better sans IS. The older version is better because it can do f/1.8


What I am saying is that the 200/2 bokeh will be better with the IS system inactive (or not very active) compared to when its trying to fix 4 stops worth of motion. This is demonstrable. And probably one reason why people thing Is lenses have poorer IQ/bokeh.

RCicala wrote:
Why does everyone insist on acting like IS is like some lens add-on, rather than an optical element that has to be designed into the optical formula, and which can add some adverse effects or complicate the remainder of the design?

None of us know, including me, but it is certainly a possibility that Canon had the option of putting out an IS lens with good resolution or putting out a non IS with great resolution and chose the latter course.

This is the kind of decision lens design teams have to make every day - everything in optics involves trade-offs. It's just like the distortion at the wide end. It's easy enough to correct the optical formula for distortion, but the simple correction decreases resolution and can increase astigmatism. The designer decides which is most important for the purpose the lens is intended for.

I hate to find myself defending a camera manufacturer. It just doesn't feel natural. But sometimes it's not a plot.

They may have had this option. We know that Tamron put out a very fine lens with VC. We know that the 70-200 IS versions are both supremely sharp. Based on that, I think we can all agree that they could have produced a sharp 24-70 with IS, although it may have been harder. I think people are upset not because they didn't do it, but because the want such a huge premium for a lens that doesn't offer what is becoming a standard feature.

GC5 wrote:
RCicala wrote:
Why does everyone insist on acting like IS is like some lens add-on, rather than an optical element that has to be designed into the optical formula, and which can add some adverse effects or complicate the remainder of the design?

None of us know, including me, but it is certainly a possibility that Canon had the option of putting out an IS lens with good resolution or putting out a non IS with great resolution and chose the latter course.

This is the kind of decision lens design teams have to make every day - everything in optics involves trade-offs. It's just like the distortion at the wide end. It's easy enough to correct the optical formula for distortion, but the simple correction decreases resolution and can increase astigmatism. The designer decides which is most important for the purpose the lens is intended for.

I hate to find myself defending a camera manufacturer. It just doesn't feel natural. But sometimes it's not a plot.

They may have had this option. We know that Tamron put out a very fine lens with VC. We know that the 70-200 IS versions are both supremely sharp. Based on that, I think we can all agree that they could have produced a sharp 24-70 with IS, although it may have been harder. I think people are upset not because they didn't do it, but because the want such a huge premium for a lens that doesn't offer what is becoming a standard feature.

With almost the same cost as the 70-200 II, I don't see how there wasn't the room for IS cost wise.

GC5 wrote:
RCicala wrote:
Why does everyone insist on acting like IS is like some lens add-on, rather than an optical element that has to be designed into the optical formula, and which can add some adverse effects or complicate the remainder of the design?

None of us know, including me, but it is certainly a possibility that Canon had the option of putting out an IS lens with good resolution or putting out a non IS with great resolution and chose the latter course.

This is the kind of decision lens design teams have to make every day - everything in optics involves trade-offs. It's just like the distortion at the wide end. It's easy enough to correct the optical formula for distortion, but the simple correction decreases resolution and can increase astigmatism. The designer decides which is most important for the purpose the lens is intended for.

I hate to find myself defending a camera manufacturer. It just doesn't feel natural. But sometimes it's not a plot.

They may have had this option. We know that Tamron put out a very fine lens with VC. We know that the 70-200 IS versions are both supremely sharp. Based on that, I think we can all agree that they could have produced a sharp 24-70 with IS, although it may have been harder. I think people are upset not because they didn't do it, but because the want such a huge premium for a lens that doesn't offer what is becoming a standard feature.

the original 70-200 2.8 IS was sharp but not supremely sharp, it was the least sharp of all the original versions
and the 70-200 designs tend to be easier to design well than 24-70 type designs so it is possible that putting IS in it may have prevent it from reaching truly prime levels, at least perhaps