Hmm..So Canon has announced a new 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM lens like all the rumors were speculating for months now, but where's the 'IS' stamp? No Image Stabilization on this new lens, i'm sort of let down. For folks who are shooting with cropped sensors, they at least have the nice option of the 17-55mm F/2.8 IS (around the same focal range). Oh and the starting price is just under $2300 found below.
New Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM Zoom Lens
John
I believe the zoom mechanism on the 24-70 II is still external, though it does extend in reverse to how the original lens worked. I actually prefer the old way as you have much better lens hood coverage on the tele end.
Emm
Post author@Danny - I like the range of the 24-105mm F/4L IS, and the IS works great. You can use it off a rig too, which makes it more versatile. It won't have the same build quality, weather proofing, or look as the F/2.8, but I don't always shoot too shallow.
Danny
My thought is if I go with the better glass on my gini rig, I should be ok for stabilization. Your thoughts? Or do I go with the 24-105 F4 and use a couple of primes in low light - 35mm f2.0, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8 and save some money?
Emm
Post author@Tate - For one they changed the way the lens Zooms in and out. If you've used a 70-200mm F/.28L lens before, you see that all the zoom happens internally. The lens does not get longer or shorter. The original 24-70mm F/2.8L gets longer or shorter when zooming in and out. This movement of the lens can also be more prone to dust and moisture. The new 24-70mm F/2.8L is completely sealed and zooms internally, and also has a much larger element.
Tate
Anyone know why the price is $1000 more than the original with no real, compeling difference?
Scottrellwi
Maybe if everyone stops buying $2000 lenses they will stop raising already ridiculous prices. Oh, $1200 for last years lens...what a bargin!
I just wish the EF-S lenses were a little nicer. I rented the Canon 17-55 f2.8, and it wasn't built nearly as good as I expected for over $1000. Very plasticky.
Neil
I would never compare Canon to Tamron, Sigma etc. it's just not a fair comparison. I do however tip my hat to these non-Canon manufacturers for at least giving consumers alternate and cheaper choices. The Canon L lenses are clearly better than the equivalent Sigma or Tamron choices but in my opinion they are not better in a way that makes the price almost double.
Chris F
Gotta remember quality, though. Not sure about how Canon compares to third parties, but I originally had a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC, and now have a Nikon 17-55 2.8. The Nikon just embarrassed the Tamron in every possible way. I only keep the Tamron around for video because of the VC.
Neil
Price is kind of nutty if you ask me and then insult to injury no IS.
For anyone looking for a good standard zoom that has a constant f/2.8 AND IS I would consider the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS if you have a crop sensor camera.
As for the full frame folks who don't seem to be getting much love from Canon these days... You may want to wait for the awesome new Tamron 24-70 that was announced yesterday.
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/06/tamron24-70_2p8_divcusd
Constant f/2.8 throughout the range AND (drum roll) VC i.e. Image Stabilisation! No word yet on release date or price but I'd be stunned if it wasn't a lot less than Canon's 24-70.
Gman
Think these releases mean anything in terms if a release of a new 5d in coming weeks
Rob S.
Add to that the price of a bunch of new 82mm filters. I would have been interested if they actually just added IS to the old model and left it 77mm. Instead, Canon adds IS to a bunch of non-L primes. Kind of odd.
Derek
At that price, I'll take two! LOL