Topic: Successor of the 24-70 f2.8L (Read 6620 times)

aaykay · « **on:** January 09, 2006, 02:30:15 pm »

My take on the successor of the 24-70 f2.8L (probably coming very soon) is as follows:

It will become a 24-85 f2.8L and will come with IS. This might even be introduced during the February PMA.

By extending the range to 85mm, some amount of necessary overlap will be introduced with the 70-200mm f2.8L.

Currently, the 16-35 f2.8L has the overlap with the 24-70 f2.8L but the 24-70 f2.8L does not have any overlap with the 70-200mm f2.8L. So that is the logical progression.

Any thoughts ?

Ben Rubinstein · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2006, 07:08:29 pm »

Why on earth should they update an excellent lens with a great focal length beloved of photographers in almost every genre of photography? Yes IS would be nice but then I prefer not to carry the extra weight.

Peter Jon White · « **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2006, 08:20:29 pm »

Quote

My take on the successor of the 24-70 f2.8L (probably coming very soon) is as follows:

It will become a 24-85 f2.8L and will come with IS.

Bleah!

The wider the range of focal lengths, the lower the IQ, the heavier, and the larger a lens will be. If what you write is true, and I doubt it is, I'm glad I bought the 24-70L when I did, as its used price is sure to rise and I spent enough on it already. ;-)

Yakim Peled · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2006, 02:57:37 am »

What makes you think such a lens is in the pipeline?

jani · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2006, 05:37:42 am »

Quote

Why on earth should they update an excellent lens with a great focal length beloved of photographers in almost every genre of photography? Yes IS would be nice but then I prefer not to carry the extra weight.

Besides, we already got the lens that has IS in that range; the 24-105 f/4L.

Ronny Nilsen · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2006, 06:36:52 am »

Quote

Besides, we already got the lens that has IS in that range; the 24-105 f/4L.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But I would prefer the 24-70 with IS, It's faster and sharper. If Canon comes with a 24-70 2.8L IS I will buy it, but without IS the current 24-70 is tempting, but I'll manage with my 17-85 EF-S with IS for now.

Yakim Peled · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2006, 07:50:17 am »

So, you don't think that the 24-105 will give too much improvement compared to your 17-85? That's an interesting thought.

Ronny Nilsen · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2006, 08:35:11 am »

Quote

So, you don't think that the 24-105 will give too much improvement compared to your 17-85? That's an interesting thought.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not enough wide anglel to replace the 17-85 as a walkabout lens. And the 17-85 i have gives very good and sharp images, and I have the 70-200 IS, so i don't need the 105 end of the 24-105 lens.

But if i had a FF camera i would see things a bit different.

sxty8goats · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2006, 06:22:12 pm »

I heard that they were introducing a 17-70 f1.4L that was only 1/2 inch wider than the curent lens at the major diameter.

No, that is just what I was wishing. Dream Big I say..

I really want that lens. I shoot a lot of rock bands in clubs and hate flashes.. (because I'm no good with them and they add weight to my camera.)

roli_bark · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:21:03 am »

Yakim Peled · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2006, 02:43:42 am »

>> Not enough wide anglel to replace the 17-85 as a walkabout lens. And the 17-85 i have gives very good and sharp images, and I have the 70-200 IS, so i don't need the 105 end of the 24-105 lens.

You have a 70-200/2.8 IS and you're happy with the 17-85? AS I said, you are a very interesting person.

roli_bark · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:12:59 am »

Quote

>> ....You have a 70-200/2.8 IS and you're happy with the 17-85? AS I said, you are a very interesting person.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

These are 2 different ranges. I think 'ronnynil's' personal preferences are legitimate.

Ronny Nilsen · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2006, 03:30:57 am »

Quote

You have a 70-200/2.8 IS and you're happy with the 17-85? AS I said, you are a very interesting person.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 17-85 is very sharp at the long end when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, but it's a bit soft at the wide end, but i rather have a bit soft image than no image at all. On a 20D the 17-85 is a very good walkabout lens for me, 24 is not wide enough for me.

I alredy have primes in 24 (f/2.

, 50(f/1.

and 100(f/2) that does the job the 24-105 could do when I need better quality than the 17-85, so for me a new zoom in that range would have to be faster that f/4 and must have IS to get my interest, in addition to top optical quality. If I buy a FF camera (maybe Canon comes with somthing I like in february?) I will probably get the 24-105 as a walkabout lens.

rvaubel · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:22:10 am »

I keep the 17-85 on my 20Da for a walk around lens with a 24L as backup for interior low light conditions where the F4 zoom results in too much motion blur even though the IS can get a sharp exposure. The 24mmF1.4L is amazing in extremely low light conditions. I can get well exposed, tack sharp images of things I cant even see! And the DOF is even reasonable wide open because of the short focal length. Its fun street trolling around with that combo.

Yakim Peled · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:31:54 am »

>> These are 2 different ranges. I think 'ronnynil's' personal preferences are legitimate.

I fully agree and never said otherwise.

>> The 17-85 is very sharp at the long end when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, but it's a bit soft at the wide end, but i rather have a bit soft image than no image at all. On a 20D the 17-85 is a very good walkabout lens for me, 24 is not wide enough for me.

Have you considered the 10-22 USM or 17-40/4 USM instead?

Ronny Nilsen · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2006, 04:48:27 am »

Quote

Have you considered the 10-22 USM or 17-40/4 USM instead?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have the 10-22 for wide angel work when I need it. The 17-40 is tempting, but for a walkabout lens it has to shorcommings: stops at 40, and don't have IS...

As I said, if Canon makes a 24-70/2.0L IS it will fit in with 10-22 and 70-200, but as it is I'm happy with the lenses I have. I don't se any point in using money on lenese that will only be a little better (for my useage) than what I have, It's only a hobby for me after all.

roli_bark · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2006, 06:01:08 am »

Quote

Besides, we already got the lens that has IS in that range; the 24-105 f/4L.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Un-Logical, and irrational as it may sound, a 24-70 "range" overlap lens may be well in the works. Canon's past record for lens "range" overlap [for better qualities, features, and market] is well known. Case & point:

17-40 -> 16-35
75-300 -> 70-300
28-70 -> 24-70
80-200 -> 70-200

and there'r more examples.

Author Topic: Successor of the 24-70 f2.8L (Read 6620 times)