A new Canon 24-70 on the horizon?

[nemophoto]

I owned a 24-70 for a number of years, but find I have to replace lenses every 5-8 years because they wear to the point where I'm continually sending them in for adjustment. My old 24-70 was tack sharp, but every 6-12 months it went off to Canon for adjustment in the past couple of years. So, I sold it. I used the 24-105 from Canon CPS for several shoots. It was okay. Worked well for one shoot (lots of bright sunlight) and only so-so for a studio shoot. I decided I liked both the speed and range of the 24-70, so want to go in that direction. Having just bought the 70-200/2.8 II to replace my older version, I know what Canon has done with it's newest glass. I keep waiting to see if a new 24-70 will appear. I'm to the point where I need to replace the lens.

Has anyone heard even the slightest rumor of a Mark II version? In searching the net, a number of places (such as B&H) are out of stock, I can't figure out if this is quake/tsunami related or if it's like when Canon is about to intro a new body. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Nemo

[Ken Bennett]

The Canon Rumors web site has frequent posts on the next version of this lens. If you believe the rumors, there are prototypes out in the field right now.

It's difficult to predict what Canon might do and when, however I have noticed that the rumors become much more frequent right before a release.

BTW I have had the same issues with my 24-70, it goes in at least once a year for adjustment. When it's adjusted, it's a terrific lens.

[Wayne Fox]

Canon is working through immense production problems right now ... my rep told me they expect to "go dark" (his words) in about 60 days, as inventory and parts for new camera production runs out.  They apparently have not found replacement suppliers for parts no longer available from the tsunami area. Getting anything from Canon may be challenging.

As such I would guess than new lens releases could very well be on hold until they get all this sorted out.

[DaveCurtis]

Plenty of rumors and new patents flying around. One which includes no IS.

By the way how do you like your new 70-200mm f2.8. Im thinking about trading mine for the new mrkII.

[Ken Bennett]

By the way how do you like your new 70-200mm f2.8. Im thinking about trading mine for the new mrkII.

Just got the Mark II a couple of months ago. It's a significant improvement.

[nemophoto]

The new 70-200/2.8 II is a HUGE improvement over the older version. It is now awfully close to prime lens in sharpness, contrast, resolution, etc. -- even wide open. I have a client for whom I regularly shoot in-store posters that end up 8-ft tall. I usually shot these with my 135/2 or 85/1.2. Now, I don't hesitate to use my new 70-200 -- it's that good -- with the IS an added bonus since I almost never use a tripod. Well worth the extra money. I suppose that's why I've held out on the 24-70. If Wayne's comment are accurate (and I don't see any reason they wouldn't be -- I've had emails from CPS almost to that effect), I might as well buy the "old" version now and sell it at a later date.

Plenty of rumors and new patents flying around. One which includes no IS.

By the way how do you like your new 70-200mm f2.8. Im thinking about trading mine for the new mrkII.

[DaveCurtis]

The new 70-200/2.8 II is a HUGE improvement over the older version. It is now awfully close to prime lens in sharpness, contrast, resolution, etc. -- even wide open. I have a client for whom I regularly shoot in-store posters that end up 8-ft tall. I usually shot these with my 135/2 or 85/1.2. Now, I don't hesitate to use my new 70-200 -- it's that good -- with the IS an added bonus since I almost never use a tripod. Well worth the extra money. I suppose that's why I've held out on the 24-70. If Wayne's comment are accurate (and I don't see any reason they wouldn't be -- I've had emails from CPS almost to that effect), I might as well buy the "old" version now and sell it at a later date.

Great to here.

Is there an improvement at 200mm as well? Some reviews state the improvement is at the 70mm end. This lens will be very usefull especially when the next generation of high res cameras are released.

[nemophoto]

I've found the improvement in the 70-200 is across the board, not just at 70mm. I tend to use it more in the 135-200 range, so I've really noticed a difference. The difference (for me at least) was well worth the money. The older copy is no a slouch, so it's worth around $800-900 on the open market used, but the newer lens is truly a major upgrade. Hence, why I've been on the fence about a new 24-70.

[uaiomex]

A zoom I could not afford not to buy would be an updated digital-age L quality replacement of my beloved 28-105 MkII. It is quite good when stopped down to f8-f11. The variable aperture doesn't really bother me. The AF however is really bad in less than ideal light and a little soft wide open lacking tons of contrast. It has a nice bokeh, it's creamy in its drawing but for for some subjects lacks contrast as I just mentioned.
I love using this lens for studio portraits with flash @f8.5. With film it was very nice around anything over the entire range.
For the replacement a max fixed aperture of f4 and IS would be sensational!
Eduardo

[Cineski]

I don't have experience with the 70-200 mark II but I've read the bokeh is not something to write home about.  My 24-70 is the best zoom I've ever used.  I use it consistently wide open and it's amazing.  Sharp, great bokeh, accurate focus.  I hope the new version matches or betters the bokeh performance of the current lens while enhancing all other aspects.

[Erick Boileau]

I am selling mine :-)