Do you think canon is releasing new version of EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM?

[gandhi]

I have been seeing double dip price drop for the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, do you suspect Version III coming into the market very soon due to which they are trying to get rid of these old lenses?

[Joel Eade]

I clicked on the links from TDP news page, put one in my cart and tried to check out but the price remained at 1999.99

[Joel Eade]

I doubt a new version is on the immediate horizon since the current version (II) is not very old.

[DavidEccleston]

"These old lenses" were introduced September 2012. No, they're not being replaced.

[neuroanatomist]

LOL. No, they're not going to replace the one-year-old 24-70/2.8L II with a MkIII version of the lens. Although this price drop will likely fuel speculation that an IS version of the 24-70/2.8 is coming soon, I doubt that's true, either.

What this means is that Canon and retailers want to move stock, to meet sales targets for the year, free up warehouse space for holiday stock, etc. Last year at this time, the price of the 70-200/2.8L IS II dropped to under $2K. Then it went back up to $2500.

[Kayaker72]

I clicked on the links from TDP news page, put one in my cart and tried to check out but the price remained at 1999.99
The first $300 appears to be a discount Adorama, Amazon, etc are doing bringing the sale price to $1,999. I believe the second $300 is a mail in rebate to get a $300 AMEX card.

Regarding a new version...there could be a 24-70 f/2.8 IS coming. But I am not holding my breath. I certainly do not think that this is foreshadowing a replacement to the current lens. If anything, I think either we won't get the mail in rebate, this is a technical glitch, or today is just our lucky day. :D:cool:

EDIT: Just saw John/Neuro's response. As usual, both logical and likely. On the technical glitch side, Amazon has at times listed it as out of stock to limited stock. For the price they have jumped around from $2,299, to "See Price in Basket" (which turned out to be $1,999) and then back to $2,299. Last time I checked (a minute ago) they were back to listing it as $2,299 with 1 lens in stock.

I am not sure what is going on...but if they are clearing out warehouses leading up to the holidays, I hope they need a lot more space :).

[gandhi]

Now, I will calm down. I bought this lens on Amazon 3 days back and I thought I am the lucky and Smart guy and now I see these rebates everywhere...

[gandhi]

The Price is $1999, but you will get $300 rebated and 4% reward so the effective price will be around $1600 which is like $700 less than the introductory price.

[Joel Eade]

The first $300 appears to be an discount Adorama, Amazon, etc are doing bringing the sale price to $1,999. I believe the second $300 is a mail in rebate to get a $300 AMEX card. Regarding a new version...there could be a 24-70 f/2.8 IS coming. But I am not holding my breath. I certainly do not think that this is foreshadowing a replacement to the current lens. If anything, I think either we won't get the mail in rebate, this is a technical glitch, or today is just our lucky day. :D:cool:
That's almost a bait and switch.....you still are spending $2K and then you get a new credit card with $300 credit....I wish they would just sell it straight out without gimmicks. I certainly don't want a new AMEX card:mad:

[Kayaker72]

That's almost a bait and switch.....you still are spending $2K and then you get a new credit card with $300 credit....I wish they would just sell it straight out without gimmicks. I certainly don't want a new AMEX card:mad:

It is a gift card, but regardless, I agree. Instant rebates are much better. Until the retailers dropped the price, I had largely been ignoring this round of rebates. Some of which are instant...others are gift cards. I hate the idea of cutting out the UPC Barcode and having to mail it in. But, for $300, I'll do it.

Here is Adorama's website (http://www.adorama.com/pdfs/rebates/adorama_canon_10_mir.pdf) with the mail in rebate information.

[HDNitehawk]

I have been seeing double dip price drop for the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, do you suspect Version III coming into the market very soon due to which they are trying to get rid of these old lenses?

I believe so. The new 24-70mm f/2,8 III IS is about to be released. It has twice the resolution to handle the new 80mp camera that Canon is releasing next year. Also the price of the new lens and camera will be about $15K.

Now for the inaccurate part of my post. I think anybody that wants one should grab it now before the price goes back up.

Side Note (This is the most activity I have seen on a TDP thread in a very long while.)

[Always Looking]

I just tried to purchase through Adorama and was very surprised to learn they were going to charge me 7% tax on $1999 (NJ resident). I suspect Adorama has a warehouse in NJ or something like that. Next I tried the Amazon link above, the lens was $2299 (yes I tried the "more buying choices" on the right), not sure if I was forced to pay tax or not. I will pay close attention in the near future, I'd be very happy to get this lens in the near future for $1699 net cost to me.

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, Adorama does have their main warehouse in New Jersey, so New Jersey residents will pay state sales tax on purchases.

Amazon is now starting to collect sales tax on behalf of more and more states. I know they start doing it for Massachusetts on November 1.

[Kayaker72]

Been following a thread over on CR (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17495.msg324645;topicseen#new) on UV filters for the 24-70 II. Seems like it may be relevant to several of us here at TDP.

The two most informative items to come out of it for me were:

From our favorite Neuroanatonist, the XS-Pro (3.4 mm thick) mount, the F-Pro mount (5 mm thick) nor those two filters stacked resulted in additional vignetting on the 24-70 II. John, given your observations, is there a reason to select the XS-Pro ($119) over the F-Pro ($79)?
A good link (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters) on filters from Roger Cicala. In addition to the $30 price difference, this post has me leaning toward the F-Pro.


BTW...I am one of the people that jumped at this sale today. It is ironic, as I've been evaluating a lot of lenses lately and had just yesterday convinced myself, after looking at my own photos and test charts, that the 24-105 is unfairly maligned by a lot of folks (mostly on CR) and was a very solid lens.

Now I just have to figure out how I am going to pay for it....:confused:

[HDNitehawk]

Congrats Brant, it is an awesome lens.

I quit buying expensive filters, although I still have a large collection. When I am using the camera I take the filters off and put them back on afterwards. The only pictures I have the filters on anymore are the ones taken very quickly.

I know you asked John but I would prefer the XS-Pro with MRC-Nano rather than the F-Pro.

[Steve U]

Good for you Brant, great pick up at that price.

[Kayaker72]

Congrats Brant, it is an awesome lens.

I quit buying expensive filters, although I still have a large collection. When I am using the camera I take the filters off and put them back on afterwards. The only pictures I have the filters on anymore are the ones taken very quickly.

I know you asked John but I would prefer the XS-Pro with MRC-Nano rather than the F-Pro.

Thanks Rick (EDIT-and Steve!)...I've been debating whether I even need to upgrade anything for awhile. I've been looking at some prime lenses, the 70-200 II, the 24-70 II, etc. Then this happened and along came my answer.....:D

I should have made it an open question. I do have one MRC-Nano filter and it does seem to stay a little cleaner than my MRC filters. At least, I don't recall having to clean it as often. I had thought this was just my perception, but I've recently read other people making similar claims (so it must be true).

Why are you taking your filters off? This is an open question. A post caught my attention the other day where I saw that Jonathan Huyer takes his filters off for night scape photography. I'll be posting a few photos I took this weekend of "Water Fire" in Providence, RI. I have several shots I like, but I am noticing a slight halo around the fire. Is that the type of effect you are trying to avoid by removing your filter?

[HDNitehawk]

Thanks Rick (EDIT-and Steve!)...I've been debating whether I even need to upgrade anything for awhile. I've been looking at some prime lenses, the 70-200 II, the 24-70 II, etc. Then this happened and along came my answer.....:D

I should have made it an open question. I do have one MRC-Nano filter and it does seem to stay a little cleaner than my MRC filters. At least, I don't recall having to clean it as often. I had thought this was just my perception, but I've recently read other people making similar claims (so it must be true).

Why are you taking your filters off? This is an open question. A post caught my attention the other day where I saw that Jonathan Huyer takes his filters off for night scape photography. I'll be posting a few photos I took this weekend of "Water Fire" in Providence, RI. I have several shots I like, but I am noticing a slight halo around the fire. Is that the type of effect you are trying to avoid by removing your filter?


I prefer the MRC-Nano because I have both versions and I think the MRC-Nano versions give a bit better IQ. Both are good filters.

I take the filters off because of the small improvement in IQ. Any glass you put in front of your lens will degrade the image, even if it is slight. This is true of any filter you use no matter how much you spend or how great it is.

I have had a DSLR now for five years. I know the reasons to have the filters to protect the lens, it keeps it clean and it helps with weather sealing. If I look back only once did I drop a lens and then filter didn't matter. I seldom take pictures when it is raining or I am in a dirt storm. So overall the protection the filters provide is minimal, at least for me. The big selling point for me is that my most prized lenses, the supertele's have no filter at all. They run naked and I have never had a problem.

So now I leave both the threaded filter and the lens cap on. I just unscrew the filter drop it in my pocket and go. If it is raining or I am in a dusty place I might leave it on. If I have an accident with a lens, that is why I pay for a gold CPS membership.

If I looked at it as insurance to protect my lens and compared to the cost versus the value over 5 years for repairs I have done no repairs that the filter would have protected or stopped. I have spent well over $1000 for filters, as insurance goes they do not pay off.

[Steve U]

They run naked and I have never had a problem.



Very progressive of you.:cool:

[ahab1372]

Congrats Brant, it is an awesome lens.

I quit buying expensive filters, although I still have a large collection. When I am using the camera I take the filters off and put them back on afterwards. The only pictures I have the filters on anymore are the ones taken very quickly.

I know you asked John but I would prefer the XS-Pro with MRC-Nano rather than the F-Pro.

XS-Pro vs F-Pro is just the thickness of the filter ring, both should ( or could be) available in MRC Nano. Using XS-Pro filters allows for more stacked filters (for example if I'm too lazy to take of the clear filter before I add a ND or CPL, or if I want to combine CPL and ND). If you think it is unlikely that you stack certain types of filters, or if the lens is not prone to additional vignetting with stacked filters, you might as well choose the F-Pro version. Might be slightly easier to handle as well.

[HDNitehawk]

F-Pro vs F-Pro is just the thickness of the filter ring, both should ( or could be) available in MRC Nano. Using X-pro filters allows for more stacked filters (for example if I'm too lazy to take of the clear filter before I add a ND or CPL, or if I want to combine CPL and ND). If you think it is unlikely that you stack certain types of filters, or if the lens is not prone to additional vignetting with stacked filters, you might as well choose the F-Pro version. Might be slightly easier to handle as well.

A quick check on B&H for a 82mm filter the MRC Nano was only available on the XS-Pro. The $79 filter Brant mentioned had only the MRC coating.
Possibly they would be available somewhere else.

[ahab1372]

You are right, it is not always obvious if a filter in a certain configuration is just not available at the seller, or not at all. I did not find the B+W website to be helpful at all the last time I checked.
Adorama does not have the F-Pro Nano either.

[neuroanatomist]

I got the XS-Pro Nano, not knowing about the lack of vignetting with the thicker F-Pro mount. Although I don't notice any IQ difference between the MRC and Nano filters, the latter are easier to clean, reason enough to get them, IMO (but not reason enough to replace existing filters, which are still plenty easy to clean). I'd get the XS-Pro again today. The issue Roger mentions, he was clear that it's rare and only with cheap/knock-off slim filters - B+W and other reputable brands have no issues.

I haven't noticed any IQ degradation with a filter, the exception is with a strong backlight certain lenses flare badly, taking a big contrast hit (70-200/2.8L IS II, I'm looking at you...or through you, as the case may be). The filter is easier to clean than a front element, and I worry less about doing so, even if a front element replacement costs only a little more than one of those expensive filters, a DIY 'fix' doesn't get much easier than a few keystrokes and trackpad taps.

While it's true that the superteles don't have a front filter, they have one internally - and Canon says to leave a filter or the gelatin holder (which is optical glass) in place. More importantly, from a protection standpoint I really don't think it's a valid argument to compare the protection offered by the 1.65" shallow petal hood of my 24-70/2.8L II with the 8" deep hood of my 600/4L IS II, which is big enough to hold a pair of 24-70/2.8L II *lenses*, fully extended with room to spare. My 24-70 II's business end gets touched by the kids, brushed with leaves as I walk with the camera on the BR strap or SpiderPro holster, etc. Last week on a hike, the notch of the petal hood 'helpfully' guided a branch right onto the front of the lens. The Nano filter was unharmed, and I don't know that I'd be saying that about a bare front element.

[neuroanatomist]

Ps. Congrats on the lens, Brant. It's a FF camera's best friend! :D

[HDNitehawk]

In case someone is wondering about the difference in the XS and F designation;

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/faq/bw.htm#qu26
26. What are the differences between the various B+W filter mounts?
F-Pro: Compared to the earlier standard mount introduced in 2001, the F-Pro mount has become thinner. Now it can be used with wide angle lenses, including most 24mm focal lengths on a full frame body, without vignetting. Another advantage of the F-Pro mount is it's modified retaining ring, which is no longer threaded in from the front, but holds the filter glass in place from the back. When removing a filter or lens hood that has been screwed on too tight to the filter, the retaining ring is not at risk of loosening. Diopters are mounted in the older mount due to glass thickness.
XS-Pro Digital: This mount is especially suited for DSLRs with wide angle lenses. This mount will avoid vignetting with most 17mm lenses on a full frame body. Some report success with lenses as wide as 16mm. It has a front thread for additional accessories such as lens caps or hoods. All XS-Pro Digital mounts are made of brass and are matte black to prevent reflections. Only UV, Clear, and Käsemann Circular Polarizers are offered in this mount, with the latest MRC nano coating. ALWAYS SHOOT A TEST TO CONFIRM WITH YOUR EQUIPMENT.
Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC) with Nano Technology
The nano coating is an outer layer of protection that comes standard with all XS-Pro Digital MRC filters. The nanotechnology based characteristic (lotus effect) produces a better beading effect with water making the cleaning of this filter even simpler and faster than ever before. MRC nano has an improved outer (8th) layer over regular MRC.
Slim-Line: This mount is for wide angle lenses. They do not have a front accessory thread to avoid vignetting with lenses as wide as 17mm in 35mm format. Some report success with lenses as wide as 16mm. A slip on cap is supplied with Slim filters, sizes 49mm through 82mm. ALWAYS SHOOT A TEST TO CONFIRM WITH YOUR EQUIPMENT.
Extra-Wide: The diameter of the front portion of an EW "oversized" filter mount is much larger than the male thread that is screwed into the lens. As a result, the corresponding filter glass is also larger. When mounted to a wide angle lens with an angle of view of 110 degrees or even 120 degrees, vignetting is not an issue. Available in 62mm thru 110mm, EW filters should be used without a lens hood as vignetting may occur.
Digital-Pro: The term "Digital-Pro" refers to the use of a brushed chrome ring as opposed to the standard black ring. There is no optical difference when comparing similar glass types. Digital-Pro filters may be used with both film and digital cameras.
HSB: Various lenses for Hasselblad cameras are equipped with bayonets for the attachment of filters and lens hoods. The advantage of a bayonet mount over threaded filters is quick attachment and removal. All HSB mounts are discontinued.
Series: Filter glass, in mounts without threads, are placed into special holders and are held in place with a retaining ring or lens hood. Available in series 7, 8, 9. Series 93 (9a) for Hasselblad is discontinued.
Drop-In: This mount is for use with the Schneider 28PC shift lens (http://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogSearch.aspx?Searchstr=06-039789&SCID=-1). 74mm Drop-In filters require the use of the 67EW drop-in filter holder with lens hood (65-060013 (http://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=179&IID=5204)).
Bayonet: Bay 1 is for Rollei and Yashica twin lens cameras. Bay 2, 3, and 6 are for Rollei twin lens cameras. Lens position prohibits placing a filter on the viewing and taking lenses at the same time. Rollei and Yashica Bayonet mounts 1,2 and 3, are discontinued.
Here is a quick guide to the thicknesses of the different mounts:





Mount Name




Mount Color




Non-Polarizers




Polarizers




F-Pro (front threads)


Black



5mm

7mm




Digital-Pro (front threads)


Brushed Chrome



5mm

7mm




Slim-Line (no front threads)


Black



3mm

*5mm




XS-Pro Digital (front threads)


Black



3mm

4mm




Extra-Wide (front threads)


Black



Call

Call




*All B+W Filter mounts are made of brass except the Slim-Line Circular Polarizer mounts which are made of aluminum for manufacturing reasons.
Additionally, please refer to the following PDF (http://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/filters/Mounts.pdf) for more info. For XS Pro Digital information

[HDNitehawk]

It is true that in most situations you will never notice a drop in IQ with a good B+W filter. There are certain situations where I have noticed the difference and most of the time it is when I am doing Macro, Landscapes and some Wildlife. Pixel Peeping is required and it is one of my bad habits.

A thing to consider would be how you handle your equipment. John mentioned getting brushed with leaves when he is carrying it on a BR strap. If I put the lens at my side the cap and filter are back on. If a person likes to walk with the camera at ready like this I think a filter would be a good idea.

I think that the front element of lenses is a bit tougher than we give them credit. I know I am over cautious with my lenses. From what I have seen though I think the front element is tougher than the filter, if the filter doesn't get damaged in a hit I doubt the element would either.

I have been doing it this way over a year now, all my lenses front elements still look brand new.

[peety3]

I felt that I noticed a drop in IQ with a B+W UV filter, so I took mine off and I keep it for harsh conditions (sailing trips, shoots in the rain, etc.). I think LensRentals did a comparison once between the cost of putting a filter on every lens vs. the cost of front element repairs; front element repairs were noticeably cheaper averaged out on a per-lens basis (they have a great sample size in this case). Then I read their blog post, http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters, and decided I'd leave those filters on the shelf except when I needed them for sealing purposes in harsh conditions. Just my $0.02 of course.

[Joel Eade]

Speaking of LensRentals look at the latest blog entry.....another argument for not using filters? http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters

[HDNitehawk]

Speaking of LensRentals look at the latest blog entry.....another argument for not using filters? http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters

Roger must have taken lessons from Yahoo News. He gave us only half of the story. He had the problem with certain filters but he didn't name names. (at least I didn't see names)

[ahab1372]

Speaking of LensRentals look at the latest blog entry.....another argument for not using filters? http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/10/bad-times-with-bad-filters
for sure another argument for not using cheap filters

[neuroanatomist]

for sure another argument for not using cheap filters

Did we need one? ;)

[HDNitehawk]

for sure another argument for not using cheap filters

He also said "thin" filters. Those of us that own the 16-35mm L might think twice before we use the ultra thin CPL's and filters we used on that lens on our 24-70mm II.

[neuroanatomist]

He also said "thin" filters. Those of us that own the 16-35mm L might think twice before we use the ultra thin CPL's and filters we used on that lens on our 24-70mm II.

It wasn't cheap or thin, it was cheap and thin. I have no issues with the B+W XS-Pro thin mount filters on either my 24-70/2.8L II or my 16-35/2.8L II.

[HDNitehawk]

It wasn't cheap or thin, it was cheap and thin. I have no issues with the B+W XS-Pro thin mount filters on either my 24-70/2.8L II or my 16-35/2.8L II.

I do not have that version, mine is a B+W 82mm UV Haze Slim MRC 010M Filter.
I am not sure XS-Pro version was available yet when I bought mine. It has been a few years.
I am sure some have had filters for years that they swapped over to the new lens.

Roger didn't name names or brands, I wish he had named brands and models.

This was Roger's final word on it and the word "and" was not used.

"My suggestion, though, is that you stay away from ultra-thin filters on these lenses, especially discount ultra-thin filters. If you look across the front of your lens from the side, you can get an idea how far up the center of the lens bulges. Then look at the back side of your filter and see how far the glass is from the bottom of the threads. If those two distances seem similar – well, be careful!"

[Kayaker72]

Bringing this back around to the OP.

It looks like all of the retailers have raised the price back up as of yesterday, maybe even Thursday. Given that this wasn't a prolonged price drop, either they cleared the inventory they wanted very quickly or there was a glitch in the pricing at Amazon and B&H/Adorama followed. Given that the price reduction was $300, the same as the current mail-in rebate, I am thinking someone mistakenly applied the mail-in rebate as if it were an instant rebate.