Why people want a new lens to cost 2500 is beyond me.
If you want Canon to be a trend setter and an innovator,
release your mythical lens at the price point Nikon has their non-mythical lens.
And for everyone that thinks the Nikon one has no flaws...it does. If the grass is that much greener, switch. Don't give me the "it's too much to switch", because that cost would be mitigated by the higher cost of a new product from Canon.
I'm not picking on you, I'm not saying it's not okay to be a gear head. I'm just saying that if you're going to wish for something, why not make it cheapish in price?
RobertLynn wrote:
Why people want a new lens to cost 2500 is beyond me. [...] I'm just saying that if you're going to wish for something, why not make it cheapish in price?
People do not want a new lens to cost 2500. They want a better lens: Better IQ, IS and possibly with internal zoom as well. They are just being realistic in knowing that if they'll get it, the price will be high.
Yakim Peled wrote:
People do not want a new lens to cost 2500. They want a better lens: Better IQ, IS and possibly with internal zoom as well. They are just being realistic in knowing that if they'll get it, the price will be high.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
You're effin' dreaming if you think we're getting internal zoom, and IS in the same lens.
The thing would be like damn near the size of a 70-200.
RobertLynn wrote:
You're effin' dreaming if you think we're getting internal zoom, and IS in the same lens.
The thing would be like damn near the size of a 70-200.
Well, I did wrote earlier that internal zoom is last on my personal wish list. I understand that internal zoom causes an increase in size and weight and for me it is fine. Nevertheless is doubt if it will be anywhere near the size of a 70-200 (I assume you refer to 2.8 variants, right?).
Yakim Peled wrote:
Canon is a huge company. If they decide to make a great 24-70/2.8 IS (superb IQ on FF, internal zoom, IS etc.) I have zero doubt that they can. The only question is if they want or, more precisely, if their marketing managers think there's a market for one.
The reverse zoom is one of the best things about the 24-70, if not the best one. Makes the most out of the lens hood.
stanj wrote:
The reverse zoom is one of the best things about the 24-70, if not the best one. Makes the most out of the lens hood.
O.K. , O.K. , I give up. Canon, keep the current reverse zoom. I'll be O.K. with that. Just give us better IQ and don't forget to add IS. Are we cool now?
The only people who seem to not like the so-called external zoom factor of the 24-70 are also the ones you see using the lens without the hood. Put the hood on and you hardly even know the lens is growing as you zoom towards wide. I remember shooting with that lens and the original 1Ds back stage at the Tonight Show when I first noticed that unheralded feature, and quietly smiled to myself how genius that was. Stan has it right. It's one of the best design features of that lens. Unfortunately, the worst ones are the plastic internal guides for the zoom mechanism that will gradually fail on every single lens - sooner or later. The image quality from about 28 to 40 mm was always pretty good, even on a 21mp camera, but, overall, not in the league of, say the 70-200 II.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Well, I did wrote earlier that internal zoom is last on my personal wish list. I understand that internal zoom causes an increase in size and weight and for me it is fine. Nevertheless is doubt if it will be anywhere near the size of a 70-200 (I assume you refer to 2.8 variants, right?).
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yep, those are the lenses I'm referring to.
Fully extend the barrel of your 24-70, and that's going to be the size of an internal zooming one I imagine. Round-a-bout.
So many people bitch about the size of that lens now...imagine if...
ct8282 wrote:
I have heard rumours of the the 24-70 f2.8L mk2 with IS. .....
What year was this thread started?
With 4 pages of posts and rumors about a mk2 of a lens that doesn't even exist... it sounds like the same old rumor that has been going around for at least the last 3-4 years.
Gunzorro wrote:
How much weight do you want to hold, and how much do you want to pay? I'm sure the answers to those questions helped determine the original verison. I still love mine and prefer to have no IS and a $1300 lens, compared to IS and an $1800 lens. IS is nice, but not so critical on shorter focal lengths.
So you will buy a new 24-70 II and a new stabilized prime lens for when you really need it...
A 28 1.8 II or a 28 1.8 IS would have been great. A 35 1.8 with or without IS would have been great. Stabilized 2.8 primes... err, ok, I guess. I can see a use for them for full-frame users, but they'll have to have pretty darn attractive pricing to get my dollars.
That doesn't surprise me, as you can see from my earlier post in this thread.
What does somewhat surprise me is Canon's move to a positive-lead type lens (like the 24-105 mm and all current third-party trans-standard f/2.8 zooms) instead of the negative-lead type (as used for the current Canon 24-70 mm, the Nikon 24-70 mm, and the Nikon 17-55 mm f/2.8 for DX). This suggests cutting weight and size was perhaps an even greater priority for this lens than improving image quality, though I expect a strong improvement in image quality too.
S Dilworth wrote:
That doesn't surprise me, as you can see from my earlier post in this thread.
What does somewhat surprise me is Canon's move to a positive-lead type lens (like the 24-105 mm and all current third-party trans-standard f/2.8 zooms) instead of the negative-lead type (as used for the current Canon 24-70 mm, the Nikon 24-70 mm, and the Nikon 17-55 mm f/2.8 for DX). This suggests cutting weight and size was perhaps an even greater priority for this lens than improving image quality, though I expect a strong improvement in image quality too.
1. What is positive-lead type and negative-lead type?
2. Tamron just released a 24-70/2.8 VC.
Yakim Peled wrote:
2. Tamron just released a 24-70/2.8 VC.
Tamron operates under very different constraints than Canon or Nikon, and nowhere are those differences starker than in the 24-70 mm f/2.8 class of lens. For Canon and Nikon, this lens is the cornerstone of a professional lineup. They expect professional photographers to use these lenses day-in and day-out for event coverage, photojournalism, studio work, etc. As such the optics must be really top-notch, and just as importantly, the mechanics must be bulletproof and the autofocus perfect. Since about 100,000 of these lenses are sold every year to photographers with very high expectations, there is no room for risky experimental technology or half-baked solutions.
In contrast, Tamron makes much cheaper lenses with reverse-engineered focusing and injection-moulded plastic construction (the latter is the "big idea" around which Tamron is based). The lenses are aimed at enthusiasts who don't earn a living by taking photos. These people want nice optics, but they don't want the expense associated with a magnesium-alloy build, and they'll probably use the lens a few dozen times a year, for three years, before upgrading or quitting photography. In all likelihood, the lens will never get wet, never be used in −20° Celsius, never be subjected to prolonged vibration or a serious bump, never be carefully tested to meet an expected quality standard, etc.
Tamron operates under very different constraints than Canon or Nikon, and nowhere are those differences starker than in the 24-70 mm f/2.8 class of lens. For Canon and Nikon, this lens is the cornerstone of a professional lineup. They expect professional photographers to use these lenses day-in and day-out for event coverage, photojournalism, studio work, etc. As such the optics must be really top-notch, and just as importantly, the mechanics must be bulletproof and the autofocus perfect. Since about 100,000 of these lenses are sold every year to photographers with very high expectations, there is no room for risky experimental technology or half-baked solutions.
In contrast, Tamron makes much cheaper lenses with reverse-engineered focusing and injection-moulded plastic construction (the latter is the "big idea" around which Tamron is based). The lenses are aimed at enthusiasts who don't earn a living by taking photos. These people want nice optics, but they don't want the expense associated with a magnesium-alloy build, and they'll probably use the lens a few dozen times a year, for three years, before upgrading or quitting photography. In all likelihood, the lens will never get wet, never be used in −20° Celsius, never be subjected to prolonged vibration or a serious bump, never be carefully tested to meet an expected quality standard, etc....Show more →
And why you consider IS a risky experimental technology or half-baked solution?
Yakim Peled wrote:
And why you consider IS a risky experimental technology or half-baked solution?
Well, I should be clear: I don't think it's possible to argue that stabilisation per se is an experimental or half-baked thing. It has worked pretty well on many lenses.
But it's certainly possible that adding stabilisation to a full-frame f/2.8 trans-standard zoom lens would require a leap of technology that would amount to a significant risk. For example, Tamron deemed it necessary to try a moving-coil stabilisation system on its new lens, a technology Tamron has never used before. What if it's a dud? For Canon (or Nikon) that would be a very big deal: loss of sales, loss of reputation, significant costs for warranty repair, etc. For Tamron, the problem might never really surface, since so many Tamron owners use their lenses only sparingly.
(I own a Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 non-VC, by the way. I think it's a clever little piece of work. But it has dog-slow focus, flimsy build (relatively speaking), and dubious compatibility with future cameras. I tried the VC version in a shop and it took at least a second for the stabilisation to settle down. What use would such a thing be to a wedding photographer, for example? This isn't technology that Canon would feel comfortable putting in a lens aimed at outright pros. It's great if you're a hobbyist taking photos of a seaside bench at dusk.)
