Have been on pre-order for sometime now. I'm really looking forward to it's release! And here I thought that your thread was going to claim that you had one in your hands..I hope soon.
Does this extend out when you zoom, or is it of fixed length similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II IS? I hate to pay $2,300 for a lens that extends and doesn't have IS.
Chumma wrote:
Does this extend out when you zoom, or is it of fixed length similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II IS? I hate to pay $2,300 for a lens that extends and doesn't have IS.
extends (if it didn't then it would always be very long which would be way worse IMO)
From all the previous reports when the lens was first announced, it was made pretty clear that there's both no image stabilization and, unfortunately, the new lens does not extend when going toward the wide end of the focal range. This is too bad as the previous ingenious design maintained a much more optimum lens shading throughout the range. Now you're going to be better off on the wide end and less on the tele end. One of the stated goals was to keep the lens size from growing too big without compromising optical performance, and these were two of the trade-offs that came with that decision.
Even this lens might be optically excellent from the MTF charts, it was a misconception of Canon to sell it for $2300. Similar to the 5D III, Canon tried to milk the cow (= customer) so to speak, disregarding what competition might do. And competition wasn't sleeping at all - Canon got a wakeup call with the D800 and around the same time with the Tamron 24-70 with image stabilization. I believe the only way out of this in regard to the lens could be done with a last minute correction of Canon's 24-70. In fact, whoever already got the new Canon 24-70 II for testing should keep it since it likely becomes a rarity soon when the other redesigned model is coming out. I wouldn't be surprised to see IS in it and a more reasonable price tag.
retrofocus wrote:
In fact, whoever already got the new Canon 24-70 II for testing should keep it since it likely becomes a rarity soon when the other redesigned model is coming out. I wouldn't be surprised to see IS in it and a more reasonable price tag.
That is unlikely in the extreme because Canon is not in the habit of changing horses mid-race, just because someone else has come up with a feature or or two which the Canon lens doesn't have.
There are reasons for that:
(1) Canon is an inert and heavily administered enterprise.....they just cannot stop and turn on a dime even if they'd want to do so.
(2) Their corporate culture encapsulates them in the belief that their more expensive product will sell better because of its superior quality and the Canon brand. You can call that "corporate arrogance".
(3) I think they are overestimating the collective purchasing power of N. Americans at this time. Their top end gear is becoming increasingly unaffordable in N. America.
(4) In pricing the new 24-70 II they might have wanted to ride the wave of a very enthusiastically received 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII, therefore they've probably felt the market will go for another "excellent" zoom similarly priced.
Now, will the 24-70 II zoom really be excellent and worth that silly high price ? Naturally, we can not discuss its real optical performance yet because the lens is still a specification sheet only. However, what we do know is the following:
* The lens has no IS which the large segment of the market has been expecting, yet inexplicably, they provide IS on their inexpensive kit lenses and some other "consumer" grade but expensive WA lenses.
* The lens is most likely made of various plastics, from the barrel shell to the innards, on a mass production line which may resemble the Tonka toy fabrication. That sort of quality might have been tolerated in a $1,300 lens, but IMO not in a $2,300 lens. If Canon need guidance on what a lens in that price range should be built like, they can easily just take a look at the Zeiss lenses. However, they know very well what they do and why they do it, and it just their corporate arrogance again which leads them to make the assumption that Canon photographers (their customers) are unwavering suckers who will be lining up to place preorders for 24-70 II even at $2,300 a pop. Well, I can't speak for the rest of you, but this "sucker" will not fall for it this time around.
I agree with Peter; we can forget about seeing IS in the new 24-70mm II lens. The pricing, on the other hand, can be a little lower than originally announced. Or, I certainly hope so. For sure if you wait a couple of months after the lens has become available and the price will adjust itself more to the supply/demand situation.
Peter, I agree if Canon is pushing to release the lens really in the next few months. IS would mean a total redesign of the lens, and I am not sure if Canon has such design in the drawer yet. I was just assuming that they had, in this case it could be done in maybe 6 months.
I also believe that there is a number of people who would buy this lens for $2300, but it will be a minority of photographers in this current economy. Not sure who would pay more than $1200 just to have a tiny bit better performance when comparing both MTF charts of both lens versions. In case I would need this improved performance, I would rather buy a prime lens in the first place for this money.
I picked up an original UA date code before they were all out. Could not be happier. Sharp across the board and any aperture, fast-accurate focus, the proper hood orientation. Try as I might I cannot figure out how the new one will be worth a grand extra?
I've been waiting since when it was first announced.
