PetaPixel

This is the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark II

This is the first photo of Canon’s upcoming 24-70mm f/2.8L II, the followup to an extremely popular and well-regarded lens. It’ll weigh less than the first version (which is nicknamed “The Brick”) and have a 82mm filter thread (up from 77mm), but — to the dismay of Canonites everywhere — won’t have Image Stabilization. No word on availability, but Canon Rumors thinks it’ll be priced between $1,800 and $1,900 when it hits store shelves.

(via digicame-info via Canon Rumors)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • Adamjuneau

    im still happy with the 1st gen so why bother..?

  • Rosscova

    I know it may just be a mockup, but the image shows the lens set at 24mm, with the barrel fully retracted. That’s the opposite to the old version, which is fully extended at 24mm, and retracted at 70mm. That change would imply a radically different optical design, which would most likely mean radically different performance.

    … Just a thought.

  • Anonymous

    Image stabilization sucks.

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    Ah, interesting observation. Hadn’t thought about that

  • Luke Valentine

    Image stabilizer is not as necessary these days, especially seeing that full frame cameras are all about high ISO performance now.

  • Darren Ward79

    love my mk1, screw the price tag-its all about the money for canon!!

  • Brian Matiash

    Has it been confirmed whether or not the lens will barrel out when zooming? I hope that won’t be the case.

  • will hall

    As Tamron come out with a 24-70 f/2.8 with stabalisation? of course optical quality on both lenses waits to be seen

  • Ginetic20

    why bother making another if is still doesnt have an IS? maybe its not the same as the mark1?! and is it only me? or it is just the mark 2 looks stupid?

  • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

    Yeah, it’s documented that this version will extend at the long end of the zoom range. It’s also said that the hood will attach to the extension which will be a change.

  • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

    I’ve read the lens will operate more like a 16-35 with the barrel extending as one zooms from wide to long (opposite current model).

  • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

    The weight saving is definitely a plus for me. My 24-70 is my most used lens but together with my 5D the package is extremely heavy. Personally, I’d rather not have IS if it adds weight, better to have a lighter lens like the 16-35.

    For me, the deciding factor will be the cleaning up of the barrel distortion the current lens shows at 24mm. Lightroom takes care of the current model’s problems here but I’d rather do it in-lens if possible.

    Of course, the price is so stratospheric it’s all just talk.

  • Njsantiago
  • Anonymous

    And have you seen the ONE sample image they have for it. Definitely not a selling image. I’ll keep my mkI.

  • Robbie McCarthy

    I second your comment on the weight issue. After shooting a few days at a conference last year in a terribly dim environment, I just went for the 24-105mm to save my neck some strain, and just accepted the extra noise from shooting a higher iso at f/4… The extra weight does make a difference for some in a long day of shooting. (900g vs. 670g). 

    Now I have to wonder if the IS really adds more weight, or if the weight comes from the added glass and casing of the 2.8?

  • http://www.richardsnotes.org Richard

    Robbie: Good point about where the weight might come from Certainly the big f/2.8 glass and that enormous front element in the current lens adds to it. And, your 24-105 is a lighter lens with the IS… So, I’m probably wrong about that. Still, for me, the weight issue is the single most important, much more than having IS which I’d only use occasionally I think as it kills battery life in the field.

    I use the 24-70 for so much stuff and I’m almost always pleased with the results that I might have to consider this new lens. I might just rent one from lensrentals.com and try it out once they get one. Roger (the owner) usually has some useful comments about gear so it will be good to get his take on it as he’s a 24-70 user too.

  • lolo

    I am simply not impressed. What is wrong with having it go up to 1.4 and what about Image stabilizer. why should i buy this and not the old one.

  • Rosscova

    Seriously? Does quality and performance mean nothing? Sigma make a 24-70mm f2.8 as well, but no one considers it exactly the same as either of Canon’s versions. There is more to a lens than focal lengths and maximum apertures.

    On another note, a 24-70mm f1.4 lens would be ridiculously big and heavy, and probably wouldn’t perform very well.