EB-1 wrote:
I really hope so on the 24-70. I will be all over it x2.
EBH
Why? Is there something wrong with the present version? I've been thinking of replacing my 24-105 with the 24-70 since I recently acquired a 100mm Zeiss and don't really need the 71-105 part that much any more.
I recently sold my 24-70/2.8L because I use the 24-105L a lot more. If the rumoured 24-70/2.8L II has IS, I'll be an early adopter; otherwise, I'll be a not'dopter.
I really hope the 24-70 has IS. I just don't see why Canon would release a II version no IS... It's already one of the top lens they offer in the non-IS lineup.
I have both lenses. I can't really see much of an update to the 35L, outside of weather sealing and the new coating used on the 8-15L fisheye.
As for the 24-70, if they added IS it might be useful for some. I've been very happy without IS. I would guess the price would be roughly $2000 with IS - not worth the upgrade for me.
were i still a canon shooter (and not owning the 35L), i'd be interested in any possible 35L announcement only inasmuch as i'd snap up a 35LMK1 as soon as a Mk2 were announced. new coatings and a different looking barrel design alone would be enough for canon to charge $1900 for a 35LII.
I have both lenses. I can't really see much of an update to the 35L, outside of weather sealing and the new coating used on the 8-15L fisheye.
As for the 24-70, if they added IS it might be useful for some. I've been very happy without IS. I would guess the price would be roughly $2000 with IS - not worth the upgrade for me.
Without IS it would be pretty much an ordinary lens, regardless how much of an improvement the optical part would be. If Nikon felt necessary to put in a VR in their 16-35mm lens, it would be a major omission for Canon not to put in IS in a new 24-70mm lens, soon or later. Period.
The 24-70/2.8 has corner issues partly from field curvature, so you need to stop down more than always desirable for subjects such as landscapes. It is a bit better than the 24-105, especially at the wide end so I do prefer it. A new f/2.8 lens should have better performance at larger apertures (especially at the periphery), a little less CA, and improved internal construction for durability.
I'll be disappointed if a 24-70 Mk II lacks IS. In available light classrooms and music venues, I can get away with 1/40th on the 16-35/2.8, and sometimes even slower than that with the 70-200/2.8L IS II. But for the invaluable medium range, the 24-70/2.8 is often impossible for me to consistently handhold with acceptable results. The 24-105/4 is not fast enough to use indoors. It's always a crapshoot with subject motion at such slow shutter speeds anyway, but IS at least gets photographer motion out of the equation.
The 17-55/2.8 EF-S lens is a joy by comparison - and the only reason I keep a 7D around. It'd be nice to have a 24-70/2.8 with IS to use on the FF and APS-H camera bodies.
