So when is canon going to release a 24-70mm f2.8L IS?

[anubis]

So I just bought the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS and it got delivered on Friday. I've been playing with it during the weekend and it's REALLY sweet.

I have that lens covering my long shooting needs, and an ef-s 10-22mm f3.4-4.5 USM covering the wide end, both of which I'm really happy with.

For the mid-range, I have a 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's a pretty good lens considering the price. $400 for a pretty wide zoom range with IS and USM. It's also one of the sharpest lenses I own. The problem is that it's a little slow for my needs (wedding photography, which often involves lots of photos of people in low light situations).

I want to upgrade to the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L to take over my mid-range shooting needs. I'm attracted to it because it has a fast max aperture and L build quality. However, I'm bothered by the lack of IS, which even my $400 28-135 has. I've looked at the Canon 24-105mm f4L IS, which does have the IS. But the aperture is so slow that it's hardly an upgrade over what I already have.

I really wish Canon would put IS in their 24-70mm f2.8L!!!! That would make my decision a no-brainer. I've heard rumors that Canon is working on just that. Does anyone have any insight into whether Canon is going to release such a lens any time soon? I don't want to spend $1200 on the current 24-70 with such a glaring deficiency if they are going to release a new model with IS any time soon. Thoughts?

 

[Phrasikleia]

I have no insight, but I eagerly await the day that Canon releases a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.

You do of course know about the EF-S equivalent (17-55mm), which is neither L nor full-frame, but it at least has the excellent optics and IS you're seeking. I went ahead and got that one to fill the void until Canon comes out with a full-frame equivalent. It's tough to stomach that kind of outlay (over $1000) for a non-L lens, but at least the optics are up to snuff.

 

[Rockies Photo]

Here are a bunch of threads about people talking about the Brick & possible IS upgrade.

Link

 

[Grimace]

Probably not going to happen - or at least not any time soon. The current f/2.8 is a beast already and adding IS can add weight and bulk.

I don't see IS as a priority for Canon at that focal range. 24-105mm goes quite a bit further, and at f/4 it is a little easier to get into a lens without breaking the photogs back (or bank).

I'm not trying to be a downer on the issue, I just don't think it's going to happen. Canon has a few other lenses that it "needs" to update to stay competitive with the great offerings that Nikon is putting out.

 

[toxic]

if you have an APS-C sensor, get the 17-55. that said, a 24-70 IS probably won't be coming out anytime soon. the focal length is on the short side for IS to be that useful anyway (see slrgear IS tests), and there are other lenses more in need of updating.

 

[wheelhot]

Well I agree with some people, that Canon might update this lens with IS but maybe not yet considering if Nikon releases an update to their 70-200 f/2.8 VR, Canon will certainly update their 70-200 f/2.8 IS soon cause in the Canon 70-200 range, the f/2.8 is not as good as f/4 so we'll see. But I do hope the 24-70 will get IS soon, would be awesome to pair them up together, 24-70 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS

 

[northernsole]

It would be hugely expensive & heavy. It's a nice though but I don't think IS is the be all and end all anyway.

 

[SayCheese]

It would be a lovely bit of kit and one that I would certainly be interested in. However I can't see it being announced any time soon. I could be wrong though.

 

[wheelhot]

I don't think IS adds that much weight, look at the weight difference between 70-200 f/4 IS and no IS, not that much.

 

[miloblithe]

I don't think IS adds that much weight, look at the weight difference between 70-200 f/4 IS and no IS, not that much.

And the F/4 IS is also weather sealed to a degree that the F/4 isn't, which has to account for some of the 55 extra grams (760g vs 705g).

 

[gkarris]

if you have an APS-C sensor, get the 17-55. that said, a 24-70 IS probably won't be coming out anytime soon. the focal length is on the short side for IS to be that useful anyway (see slrgear IS tests), and there are other lenses more in need of updating.

That's sort of my argument. I don't see the need for it (daylight landscapes with a lot of light as far as my normal shooting).

I do think that some may have the need for it, but then there's the other camps: Olympus, Pentax, and Sony, where the stabilization is in-body and will work with any lens (as far as I know).

 

[Phrasikleia]

That's sort of my argument. I don't see the need for it (daylight landscapes with a lot of light as far as my normal shooting).

I do think that some may have the need for it, but then there's the other camps: Olympus, Pentax, and Sony, where the stabilization is in-body and will work with any lens (as far as I know).

I'm one of those people who really needs to be able to shoot handheld at 1/4s, and my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS allows me to do so (while my 50mm prime lens does not). The bulk of my photography is shooting stationary subjects in low-light situations, which I realize is a niche occupation. (I rarely post any of these shots on MR, but they account for a good 90% of my photo archive.)

gkarris makes a good point about Oly, Pentax, etc. My husband and I shoot as a team when doing this low-light work, and he is using a Pentax system so that we have the benefit of stabilization on fast primes of shorter focal lengths. His combination of larger aperture and stabilization is unbeatable!

So I disagree that stabilization on shorter focal lengths is of modest benefit. For me, it's absolutely crucial. It makes an enormous difference. With my 17-55mm, I can get shots that I otherwise couldn't. Not everyone in my situation is going to want to add a second system just to have stabilization, especially those people who are shooting full-frame (in which case, Sony is the only body-stabilized option, right?).

 

[gkarris]

So I disagree that stabilization on shorter focal lengths is of modest benefit. For me, it's absolutely crucial. It makes an enormous difference. With my 17-55mm, I can get shots that I otherwise couldn't. Not everyone in my situation is going to want to add a second system just to have stabilization, especially those people who are shooting full-frame (in which case, Sony is the only body-stabilized option, right?).

Did you e-mail the manufacturer?

"If you build it, they will come..."

It's gonna be at a price, though, especially if it's a higher-end lens...

Worth it to many, though.

 

[anubis]

Alright, thanks everyone for the discussion. I looked at the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS, and it seems like a pretty good lens. The problem is that I am going to eventually move to full frame and don't want to have to rebuy all of my glass when I do that. Furthermore, I do shoot some film for weddings on a Canon Elan 7n and need at least most of my lenses to be compatible with that as well.

The thing that gets me is that the EF-S 17-55mm on a cropped sensor (the only sensor it can be used with) is about equivalent in focal length to the 24-70mm, which I'm guessing Canon assumes is primarily going to be used on full frame. On the 17-55, Canon seems to clearly indicate that they understand the value of having IS with that focal range, yet they leave their full frame serious amateurs and professoinals high and dry with no f2.8 IS option.

Oh well. Adorama is selling a Canon U.S.A. refurbished 24-70mm with their standard 14-day return policy for only $1028 no tax and free shipping. Not a bad deal considering ebay 24-70's usually go for $1000 with no return policy. I guess I'll be buying from Adorama soon...

 

[Phrasikleia]

Alright, thanks everyone for the discussion. I looked at the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS, and it seems like a pretty good lens. The problem is that I am going to eventually move to full frame and don't want to have to rebuy all of my glass when I do that.

I too see myself moving to full-frame eventually, but not for another few years at least. So I suppose it depends on how long you expect to wait (the issue of your Elan 7n aside) before going that route. The 17-55mm is an easy sell on the used market and will be so long as cropped-sensor bodies exist (which will be at least another decade if not longer). So I say buy the lens that suits your needs now, not the one you'll need in 2012 or whatever.

 

[compuwar]

Alright, thanks everyone for the discussion. I looked at the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS, and it seems like a pretty good lens. The problem is that I am going to eventually move to full frame and don't want to have to rebuy all of my glass when I do that.

You're shooting in a niche, sometimes the price you have to pay is specific lenses. Thank your stars you're not shooting birds

The thing that gets me is that the EF-S 17-55mm on a cropped sensor (the only sensor it can be used with) is about equivalent in focal length to the 24-70mm, which I'm guessing Canon assumes is primarily going to be used on full frame. On the 17-55, Canon seems to clearly indicate that they understand the value of having IS with that focal range, yet they leave their full frame serious amateurs and professoinals high and dry with no f2.8 IS option.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Canon producing duplcative lenses in this economy with all the lay-offs.

Would the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 OS work for you?

 

[miloblithe]

Would the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 OS work for you?

I wonder how much that lens is going to be. Probably $400-500?

 

[toxic]

The thing that gets me is that the EF-S 17-55mm on a cropped sensor (the only sensor it can be used with) is about equivalent in focal length to the 24-70mm, which I'm guessing Canon assumes is primarily going to be used on full frame. On the 17-55, Canon seems to clearly indicate that they understand the value of having IS with that focal range, yet they leave their full frame serious amateurs and professoinals high and dry with no f2.8 IS option.

the thing with EF-S lenses is i think Canon is sticking more IS in the range as more (or at least partially) of a marketing ploy - now they have a whole range of EF-S lenses with IS (18-55, 17-85, 17-55, 55-250), which would attract consumers moving from point-and-shoots.

Canon will certainly update their 70-200 f/2.8 IS soon cause in the Canon 70-200 range, the f/2.8 is not as good as f/4 so we'll see.

so just because the f/4 version is slightly sharper than the f/2.8 at comparable apertures, the f/2.8 isn't as good? does that make the 28/2.8 better than the 28/1.8?

there's more to a lens than sharpness.

 

[Phrasikleia]

the thing with EF-S lenses is i think Canon is sticking more IS in the range as more (or at least partially) of a marketing ploy - now they have a whole range of EF-S lenses with IS (18-55, 17-85, 17-55, 55-250), which would attract consumers moving from point-and-shoots.

I'm not really sure I follow your logic. I think the introduction of IS in the kit lenses (both by Canon and Nikon) was a marketing decision made in response to body-stabilized systems like Pentax and Oly. But I really don't think that most people coming from point-and-shoot systems put a whole lot of thought into what lenses they will purchase down the line. Most of them start out with the kit lens, gradually discover its limitations, and then add on.

Both Canon and Nikon have a range of stabilized, small-image-circle lenses, because they are very desirable. It's no ploy; stabilization makes a big difference. That's reason enough for Canon or Nikon to expand their offerings that include it.

 

[compuwar]

Most of them start out with the kit lens, gradually discover its limitations, and then add on.

Most of them will stick with the kit lens or lenses. Average lenses/DSLR owner is 1.2.