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

[canonclix]

Another perspective...

Looking forward to a new 24-70 2.8ii

Willing to pay extra for a zoom that is sealed and doesn't extend (worth at least $300 to me)
Willing to pay for 14% less weight (worth at least $300 to me)
Willing to pay for the additional IQ if it is as noticeable as the 70-200 2.8 v2 compared to v1 (worth $300-$500 to me)

After turning the IS off on my 24-105 and spending some time shooting what I would use the 24-70 for, realized that IS is not really a decision factor for me at this focal range. I am looking forward to these shots at much lower ISO!! (my 5 year old jumping off the couch, doing cartwheels through the living room, etc.)

I am looking forward to my new lens!

[neuroanatomist]

Another perspective...

Looking forward to a new 24-70 2.8ii

Willing to pay extra for a zoom that is sealed and doesn't extend (worth at least $300 to me)
Willing to pay for 14% less weight (worth at least $300 to me)
Willing to pay for the additional IQ if it is as noticeable as the 70-200 2.8 v2 compared to v1 (worth $300-$500 to me)

Well, you're apparently looking forward to overpaying by $300, then.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is an extending zoom lens, similar to the MkI. Similar, but not the same - the 24-70 II extends as the focal length increases, just like the 24-105 (and most extending zooms). The original 24-70 has reverse zoom design, meaning that deep lens hood was just as effective at the long end as at the wide end. Not so for the MkII, where the hood will be effective primarily at the wide end.

[dj 7th]

I believe the 24-70 f2.8 II would be an outstanding lens, IS or no IS. If you look at the trend of L lenses that Canon have been delivering lately, I can almost smell a performance close to the 70-200 II. What hurts me is the price, i think it should be competing with the Nikon version which happens to be about $1700.

Well maybe the street price will settle down to 1700 or less after the initial excitement. I am however looking forward to the reviews, if the price falls like i hope, I will be replaceing my Mark I.

[Alan]

Well maybe the street price will settle down to 1700 or less after the initial excitement.

When pigs fly.....

[dj 7th]

Originally Posted by dj 7th

Well maybe the street price will settle down to 1700 or less after the initial excitement.



When pigs fly.....

[Alan]

...if the price falls like i hope, I will be replaceing my Mark I.

Then, I guess you won't be replacing your Mark I.

[dj 7th]

I did replace my Mark I. I paid $2299 for it and it is a much more better lens but the price should be lower.

[HiFiGuy1]

Well, you're apparently looking forward to overpaying by $300, then.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is an extending zoom lens, similar to the MkI. Similar, but not the same - the 24-70 II extends as the focal length increases, just like the 24-105 (and most extending zooms). The original 24-70 has reverse zoom design, meaning that deep lens hood was just as effective at the long end as at the wide end. Not so for the MkII, where the hood will be effective primarily at the wide end.

So, this means that the hood is attached to the red ring area in your picture, and doesn't move with the extending part of the lens? How silly is that!? This would seem to imply that you have the least amount of hood when you want the most, and vice versa. Is this true?

[Busted Knuckles]

So, this means that the hood is attached to the red ring area in your picture, and doesn't move with the extending part of the lens? How silly is that!? This would seem to imply that you have the least amount of hood when you want the most, and vice versa. Is this true?

The 24-70 extended opposite of normal, the longer the lens got the wider the angle so it actually worked with the long lens hood - really weird but the overall length of the lens & hood didn't change. All the other zooms I know of i.e. normal - when the lens is physically short, the angle is wide.

[Dr Croubie]

The 24-70 extended opposite of normal, the longer the lens got the wider the angle so it actually worked with the long lens hood - really weird but the overall length of the lens & hood didn't change. All the other zooms I know of i.e. normal - when the lens is physically short, the angle is wide.

The Sigma 8-16mm also does that, both front and back elements 'suck in' towards the centre of the lens at 16mm, at 8mm they both push outwards to opposite extremes. It kind of makes sense if you think of them as 'reverse telephotos' or whatever they are. Either way, the best part is that they work better with hoods, especially the Sigma because the hood is in-built and it has a very vulnerable bulbous glass element at the front (and if you're looking through the viewinder, you just don't notice which way the glass moves).