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

[ChadS]

In that photo it sure looks like there are threads for a hood on the extending part.

[neuroanatomist]

The bayonet mount for the hood is on the extending part of the lens, behind the filter threads, so the hood extends with the lens.

That's like most other extending zoom lenses, but different than the 24-70L and it's predecessor, the 28-70L. The new 24-70 has a typical design, where the lens is retracted at 24mm and extended at 70mm. The old lens was a reverse design - retracted at 70mm and extended at 24mm, meaning with the hood attached to the non-extending part of the lens, it was effective throughout the focal range. The MkII loses that advantage.

[HDNitehawk]

So we are getting shorted on the Hood, and we didn't get IS.

So what are we getting? It is debatable if you can trust the charts that Canon provides, but as of late they have been some what of an indicator of what we can expect.

If you compare charts the 24-70mm II to the 70-200mm II at 70mm it indicates the 24-70mm is going to be a nice step up in IQ over the 70-200mm II. Of course the weakest part of the 70-200mm II is at 70mm but it is still very good.

At 24mm, it looks like it will surpass the 16-35mm II. Just as the 70-200mm II gives near prime type IQ, it looks like the 24-70mm II is going to be in that same class. At 24mm it appears it will be a very good lens as well.

If it performs even close to what the charts are showing, its lack of IS and weak Hood set up will be small things.

[Kayaker72]

A link to this article that was posted over at canonrumors:

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2...8mm-is-primes/

While noisy due to the low light, the 100% crop from the 24-70 f/2.8 II was impressively sharp to my eye.

[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.

[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).