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

[Trowski]

Something interesting I learned today: the initial MSRP of the original 24-70mm f/2.8L was $2100 in 2002. Anyone know what the starting street price was when it first became available? Obviously it dropped a lot from there, and perhaps so will the version II. I plan on eventually getting the version II to replace my original (and maybe even my 24-105L since if those MTF charts look so promising). I'm just trying to decide if I should pre-order or wait a little while.

I'm probably in the minority, but I'm actually happy about the 82mm filter. Now I'll only need to carry one set for landscapes with the 24-70LII, 16-35LII, and TS-E24LII.

[w349]

Like many of us I've been waiting for the 24-70 f/2.8 II for at least 12 months. The first thing I did when I saw the pre-order price in the UK? Panic buy a second hand mark I. Who'd have thought I'd wait all this time just to get the current model... quite funny, really!

On the bright side I got a 6-month old 24-70 for around 80% of its new cost, and I can only assume the prices of the outgoing model will go up when version II is released. I'll probably upgrade to the mark II at some point in the future when prices are more reasonable, and after the reviewers get their paws on it.

[Thom Deevers]

Hey, I'll add another unsatisfied customer with the announced 24-70 NON IS. I guess the 2nd lens on the list to buy is now the first - 8-16mm.

[Alan]

May I ask a couple of questions about this new lens? Bryan mentioned his disappointment (along with several others on this forum) about the price tag for a non-IS version. He believes the price premium will be worth it, though.

What exactly is to be expected from this lens? Better sharpness at 2.8, I suppose. At narrower stops, does the previous version perform poorly? Not really.

I would think that if it's print that's coming out of this lens, is anyone really going to notice the difference? Versus the previous one, to be compared to?

I would also guess not.

At the wide end, most people will likely use this for landscape photography. They stop the lens down for this, mostly.

Add to this what a good photo editing program could do to the images, the price difference on this lens seems way out of line. Especially with no IS. Of course, if one didn't own a 24-70, they might bite on the new version.

Overall, this announcement had me rolling my eyes into the back of my head, and I barely got them back into focus.

[w349]

In Canon's defence, the 24-70 is often used for photographing people/events. For this purpose I tend to prefer a shutter speed of 1/80th or above, anyway, which is sufficient to prevent camera shake at even the longest focal length on a full-frame body.

Also, there's no stopping Canon from producing a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, too. Just look at the 70-200 range, there are 4 of them! - but how much do you think THAT would cost?

[HDNitehawk]

Also, there's no stopping Canon from producing a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS, too. Just look at the 70-200 range, there are 4 of them! - but how much do you think THAT would cost?

$2,700 and if it produces IQ like as good as 70-200mm F2.8 II count me in.

The 24-70mm F2.8 was long overdue for an upgrade. If you have some of the recent released lenses and compared the IQ to the older versions, it is apparent the 24-70mm needed this upgrade. IS or no, there are many who will make the upgrade. I have already sold my 24-70mm because I was expecting this release and I have just not been pleased with the original versions performance. I will wait and see Bryans review and tests before making the decision to buy.

[btaylor]

Well most people have covered it pretty well.

I too am highly disappointed at the lack of IS on the 24-70mm II. To be honest I rarely get my 24-70mm out any more. I use the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 or the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on the 5D2 for the majority of my regular pics and the Canon 17-40mm for landscapes. So I doubt I would have upgraded anyway.

I'm more interested in lenses with wider apertures than 2.8 in the 24-70 range anyway because the OOF blur is a bit uneventful. But it's disappointing nontheless as to me it appears Canon aren't listening to what their customers want. Canon users have been begging for a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS for a very long time. The weight difference is negligible and the 82mm filter size just means people need to spend more again on filters.

[Raid]

I always find these posts the most strange of all. I wouldn't want this to become a Troll site. While we now know that new lenses are on the way, we don't know much about them.

We don't have any knowledge of how good or bad these lenses are. I'm happy to wait for Bryan's review before commenting. Yes I would have liked IS in the 24-70, now I want to know why it wasn't provided, not interested heckling. I eagerly await the ISO crops as they are so informative.

The demise of The Digital Journalist means that we don't have any access to those who know inside Canon, like Chuck Westfall. I found this monthly feedback highly informative as it provided real technical knowledge of their products and most importantly, a window into Canon's thinking.

I hope Bryan can get some feedback from Canon. Would Bryan be happy to host a Canon feedback portal?

Thanks
Tony

[HDNitehawk]

The demise of The Digital Journalist means that we don't have any access to those who know inside Canon, like Chuck Westfall. I found this monthly feedback highly informative as it provided real technical knowledge of their products and most importantly, a window into Canon's thinking.

I hope Bryan can get some feedback from Canon. Would Bryan be happy to host a Canon feedback portal?

It seems that a two way talk between Canon and Customer exists in only a limited way. Canon keeps its plans under wrap until they choose to let it out at a strategic time. I am sure this is all defense and offense to protect their market share and to keep the competition off guard. I doubt you will see any kind of feedback portal, other than the usual press releases that come out right before an item comes to market.

I think the views expressed here are useful, if Canon's marketing has any sense they would monitor all the forums to see what people are thinking. Even big national news organizations monitor the web for information, why wouldn't a large corporations marketing department monitor the web to see what people are saying about their product.

As for the 24-70mm and no IS, if it had IS pre-ordering the lens was close to a no brainer for me. Without IS I probably will be much less likely to buy the lens, as it was the one feature I was looking for. I think it is good for Canon to know that some of it's hard core customers were disappointed.

[btaylor]

There's a big difference between trolling a forum and writing a post relevant to the thread topic.

The fact is, I don't think Canon have listened to what their customers want here in relation to the new 24-70mm because it lacks image stabilisation.

I thought a forum was here for people to voice opinions about various topics.