Three new Lenses Announced: 24-70 f/2.8, 24 f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8

[Kayaker72]

So, three new lenses were announced. The long awaited 24-70 f/2.8 II, and two new non-L primes: 24 f/2.8 IS and 28 f/2.8 IS.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...ef_lens_lineup

and http://www.the-digital-picture.com/P...-USM-Lens.aspx

Judging from the MTF charts, these are all optically improvements over the existing lenses, perhaps significant improvements.

I am glad to see IS in wide angled primes and to see Canon updating any of it's non-L primes (not the two I would have picked). But to me, this is all very odd. The 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have IS, but the primes do? The primes are at f/2.8? And all of this for a good amount of cash: the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II at $2,299, and the primes at $849 and $799.

Can't say that I feel like rushing out and buying any of these. I am not the target market for the 24-70 f/2.8, so hopefully the pro/FF photographers enjoy the reduced weight (also in your wallet!) and better IQ. If the primes drop to ~$500-$600 and are reviewed exceptionally well, I'd think about one.

[ChadS]

I'm surprised the 24-70 does not have IS. To get IS in an L zoom you've got to go to the 28-300 or 70-200 lenses. In primes you've got to go all the way to 200 mm. And yet the ef-s 17-55 has IS as do several non-L primes and zooms. That seems like a hole in the lineup to me.

[Sean Setters]

I'm surprised the 24-70 does not have IS. To get IS in an L zoom you've got to go to the 28-300 or 70-200 lenses. In primes you've got to go all the way to 200 mm. And yet the ef-s 17-55 has IS as do several non-L primes and zooms. That seems like a hole in the lineup to me.

I'm surprised (and disappointed) that the new 24-70 doesn't have IS. And, actually ChadS, the two new primes released both have IS (24 & 28). :-)

EDIT: Ah, you're right Neuro. I should stop posting before I have my coffee in the morning.

[clemmb]

I'm surprised the 24-70 does not have IS. To get IS in an L zoom you've got to go to the 28-300 or 70-200 lenses. .

Don't forget the 24-105 has IS.
I am shocked the new 24-70 does not have IS. Looks like Tamron beat them to it with their new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. I am interested in the IQ of this lens

[Sean Setters]

Don't forget the 24-105 has IS.
I am shocked the new 24-70 does not have IS. Looks like Tamron beat them to it with their new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. I am interested in the IQ of this lens

Yep, if Tamron's image quality holds up, then it indeed beat Canon to the punch line...with a better punch line. Not yet having seen a sample image using either lens, though, we'll just have to wait and see.

[bob williams]

Wow, How did Canon fowl this up? Surely they are listening to some photographers, Im just not sure which ones. Like most of the folks on TDP, I too was surprised and dissapointed that the new 24-70 didn't have IS; and at $2k+, who are they going to sell this beast too? So I started thinking:

1. 95% of all my shooting is done from a tripod when it is usually recommended to turn IS off. Even If I am not shooting from a tripod, I usually stabilize from something else such as a monopod, sandbag or the hood of my truck.

2. IQ has become the defining benefit of all of my lens choices. I don't care how heavy, what features it has or even what the filter size is as long as it is capable of producing high quality resolution---I am willing to practice and develop new skills to overcome "feature shortcomings" as long as the IQ is top notch.

So, I would actually consider this new lens if I was convinced that the IQ was $1000 better than the old 24-70 ( I'll have to see this to believe it).

I have been shopping for a good walk around and was really hoping that the new 24-70 would meet that need. I have had a 24-105L but I wasn't satsified with the the IQ or the maximum aperature---so I sold mine to my boss, which is why I am back in the market for a walk around lens. For now, My walk around lens is a 50L or my 100-400 if I am hoping to find critters. Until, someone else really impresses me with the new 24-70, I am going to have to pass and seriously consider an old 24-70.

Just my 2cw

[Dr Croubie]

Until, someone else really impresses me with the new 24-70, I am going to have to pass and seriously consider an old 24-70.

I'd be hanging out for the reviews of that new Tamron (or was it Sigma?). Build quality won't be L-worthy, but neither will that pricetag...

[neuroanatomist]

The new primes aren't L primes, which I think was Chad's point.

[neuroanatomist]

$1000 more for 10 cm shorter and a few grams lighter, with a less effective hood design, the possibility of lens creep (they felt the need for a zoom lock), and the added expense of 82mm filters?

Optically, this lens had better be *damn* good... The MTF curves are a definite improvement over the original - but the new lens is the same price as the 70-200 II, which has more glass, has IS, and even better MTF curves.

So far today, I'm not feeling the Canon love.

[Sean Setters]

I was thinking much the same thing when I read the specs, too, Neuro. It seems overpriced for the few benefits you get over the original.