I have a 24-105L and I'm keeping it. If the 24-70/2.8L II lives up to its growing rep, I'll probably add one. I sold my 24-70/2.8L Mk I last year because it wasn't getting used.
Waiting for the new 3k body and will see if this lens is a bundle option. Whichever body/lens combo I decide (24-105 or 24-70 I or II), it should be a nice upgrade over my current 40D/17-55.
Daan B wrote:
No IS (I told you so ). Still the external zoom barrel. Plus a huge cost.
The MTF charts look very promising. Looks like a killer lens optically.
Who's going for it?
I've owned both good & bad copies of the old 24-70 (both since sold), and I currently have one copy of the 24-105 which I use for studio work mostly at F8.
Killer optics mean nothing attached to a weak autofocus system .. personally I'm not spending another nickle on any Canon lenses until they offer a prosumer FF body with reliable focus. And if they don't do that soon I'm moving to the dark side
MSRP has been confirmed: $2300 USD. Availability: April.
I was thinking Canon would simply match the price of the Nikon offering at around $1900, so I am blown away by the $2300 price. They are nuts! (And don't get me started on their new primes.) Then again, it does everything I really wanted the II to be: smaller, lighter, better.
Depending on when the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC comes out, I will probably wait for it to be reviewed. My guess is that the Tamron will meet or exceed this Canon in some respects for about 45% the cost.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
I've owned both good & bad copies of the old 24-70 (both since sold), and I currently have one copy of the 24-105 which I use for studio work mostly at F8.
Killer optics mean nothing attached to a weak autofocus system .. personally I'm not spending another nickle on any Canon lenses until they offer a prosumer FF body with reliable focus. And if they don't do that soon I'm moving to the dark side
very excited to see field photos with the 24-70mkII - the reduction in size/weight is a welcome bonus & if the image quality improvements come close to what the MTF charts suggest, we're in for a treat - regardless of the $2300 price tag. for the usefulness & convenience of the range, it'd be a worthwhile investment for many pros I'd imagine..
for myself personally, i'd rather have a great go-to lens for $2300+ than a mediocre lens for $1500 new or $1100 used. $1100 is a lot of money, just like $2300 is a lot of money - but i'm positive i could drop $6000 on a new 200f2LIS & never once think it wasn't worth every penny.
i understand that there's a fair amount of sample variation between lenses, but every copy of the orig 24-70 i've ever touched lasted less than 2 weeks.. duller/flatter washed-out looking images lacking critical sharpness wide open even when paired with a 1Ds3/5D2 than even what the 17-55IS is capable of in the right hands.
PetKal wrote:
$2,300 ?
I had a hard time justifying that kind of a price for 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII.
Canon can take that plastic miracle zoom and procreate themselves with it.
I'll just continue to use my good old 28-80L.
I'm with you on that. The 24-70 version I has generally sold here for around $1850. Bearing in mind that our dollar is worth more than the US$, I can't imagine what the V II will cost here - or who will buy it.
For me, the lack of IS is a deal breaker. I have the original 24-70 but, at my age, camera shake is a problem so I now use the 24-105 as my walk around and only get out the 24-70 for tripod work - or on very bright days. I'd love an f/2.8 walk around, and would pay for it, but unfortunately this new lens is not it.
kaycephoto wrote:
very excited to see field photos with the 24-70mkII - the reduction in size/weight is a welcome bonus & if the image quality improvements come close to what the MTF charts suggest, we're in for a treat - regardless of the $2300 price tag. for the usefulness & convenience of the range, it'd be a worthwhile investment for many pros I'd imagine..
for myself personally, i'd rather have a great go-to lens for $2300+ than a mediocre lens for $1500 new or $1100 used. $1100 is a lot of money, just like $2300 is a lot of money - but i'm positive i could drop $6000 on a new 200f2LIS & never once think it wasn't worth every penny.
i understand that there's a fair amount of sample variation between lenses, but every copy of the orig 24-70 i've ever touched lasted less than 2 weeks.. duller/flatter washed-out looking images lacking critical sharpness wide open even when paired with a 1Ds3/5D2 than even what the 17-55IS is capable of in the right hands. ...Show more →
Don't disagree but, "for me", a lens without IS is not a great "go to" lens.
coranda wrote:
Don't disagree but, "for me", a lens without IS is not a great "go to" lens.
valid point - i think Canon will for sure hear many complaints about the choice to leave out IS on this iteration of the lens.. that said, for event/wedding work at least, the minimum shutter speeds I'd work with would negate the need for IS & one of the main complaints users had about the orig 24-70 was weight/size (this stuff is always secondary to image quality for me). so i should prob re-phrase my orig statement to: "i'd rather have a great go-to lens for events for $2300"
can't say for sure what Canon's thinking was, but for a lot of people looking for a travel/walk-around all-purpose lens, there's the solid 24-105L at a much more palatable price-point. better colours/contrast (in my exp) than the 24-70, good IS, relatively-light..
The 24-70 mk II intro makes clear what I already told you with the introduction of the 1Dx: Canon management is poisened by its succes the last decade and is trapped into the tunnelvision of being the marketleader that can dominate the market with gradual upgrades rather than manage more radical change that the market demands at the moment. As good as the new mk II standard will be, expect almost (sic!) 70-200/2.8L IS mk II quality, it's not what the new pro standard should have been.
When the 24-70 was introduced, the mainstream pro camera was a 1.3x 1D series body. Full frame was for the enthusiast, the wedding pro and studio shooter. Now that the 1Dx has become full frame I predict the market wants more length above the 70mm. Also the neglect for the demand of IS in the fast pro standard zoom for just marketing reasons and a price tag almost twice as high as the current one works revolting on a great part of the market.
The 28 IS and 24 IS lenses are even stranger. What motivated Canon marketing to fill in these niche gaps in the product line? Do we need a non-L quality lens just in between the 35/1.4 and the 24/1.4L mkII? Are their masses of APS -C shooter interested in a prime alternative to the 17-55/2.8 IS? Admitted, the addition of IS makes it a perfect fit in between these two and the price fits as well, but I don't think the market for this lens is great. The 24/2.8 is even more beyond me. I liked the classic version for it's price performance ratio, but it wasn't a top secret that this was one of the least sold EF lenses because of all of the overlap with other 24 lenses in the bag of the enthusiast photographers. Here again IS could be a buying decision, but my bet is Canon did it wrong with their marketing. Just like they did it wrong more often lately. I made my point clear enough with my comments at the introduction of the 1Dx already. The next disappointment for a lot of EOS adapts is around the corner. Most of you know what I am hinting at.
I do not doubt that any of these lately introduced products is great by itself. I am sure most of these photographic tools will give lots of EOSfun But they are just not shots in the bull's eye. And we know that these are a result of wrong marketing tactics. Lately Canon makes me feel like my eldest son, always good for A's in his classroom, coming home with his schoolreport with B's and C's because he had the wrong focus for a while. I know he can do better. He knows himself he can do better, so I helped him with some micro adjust .
We know Canon can do better. They are one of the greatests patentholders worldwide. As customers we want a share of that! We want faster (2.0) zooms, no matter if they are bigger and more expensive. We want IS in our favorite focal lenghts (50, 85, some zooms). Now that all pro models got full frame, we want pro grade fast 2.8/28-105L range zooms. We want cheaper glass instead of more expensive mkII. It's crisis time in great parts of the world, people want to spend less, not more! We want cameras with built in GPS. We want social media connectors in the camera. We want better software as an extension of our cameras and other photographic instruments. We want new ergonomics, radical redesigns. We want full frame compacts. We want more compact D-SLRs, it can be done without losing grip and ergonomics (Olympus did it in the 70-ies to bulky film SLRs). There is so much to be done. There is enough for a white paper on the next decade. We want more creativity in camera and lens design.
But we don't want no gradual upgrades like the 24-70L mkII anymore
Leap frog Canon! Or else the money machine will start to stutter. The money machine that did so well because Canon listened better to the market than any other company in the photomarket the last decade.
eosfun wrote:
Leap frog Canon! Or else the money machine will start to stutter. The money machine that did so well because Canon listened better to the market than any other company in the photomarket the last decade.
Let's have EOSfun
I agree with what you wrote, EOSfun.
This new 24-70L MkII just looks like a lens which the MkI should have been ten years ago.
I'll be keeping my nine year old 24-70L it still serves my needs, and will passing on the 24-70L Mkll. Guess that gives me an additional $2300 for the 5DMklll when it arrives
). Still the external zoom barrel. Plus a huge cost.
(troll comment)