PetaPixel

Image-Stabilized Canon 24-70mm on the Way, But Will Be a f/4, Not f/2.8

An update to the image-stabilized Canon 24-70mm lens rumor that we shared yesterday: Canon Rumors is reporting with certainty that the lens is in fact on the way. However, the lens won’t be an IS version of the f/2.8, as previously reported, but an entirely new Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS. In other words, the lens will give up a stop in max aperture in exchange for IS.

Craig Blair of CR says that, “While a prototype of the 2.8 version in IS form exists, the f/4L version is what will be coming to market.”

A chart listing the 5 70-200mm versions. Is this what’s coming to the 24-70mm?

Perhaps Canon is planning for the 24-70mm lineup to mirror the 70-200mm one, which features four different aperture/stabilization combinations — f/2.8 IS, f/2.8, f/4 IS, f/4 — with different sizes, weights, and price tags. This allows photographers to shoot in that particular focal length range without having to drop a huge amount of dough on the top-of-the-line version (the basic non-IS 70-200mm f/4 costs just $630 new, less than a third the price of the f/2.8 IS II version).

It’s also a interesting move by Canon because the new lens will be competing directly with — and cannibalizing sales of — the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS. Unless the new IS system is drastically better, it seems that, spec-wise, the new lens would simply offer 35mm less zoom on the telephoto end…

No word yet on when this new lens will be announced, but Blair thinks there’s a chance of it arriving before the Canon 6D starts shipping in early December.


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • http://www.tutvid.com/ Nathaniel Dodson

    At f4 you’re going to need the IS!

  • NDT000000001

    I wonder who would want this? for an f4 IS lens why wouldnt you just buy the 24-105 f4L IS. Much more versatile range for only a little more money.

  • Russ Campbell

    Bleh, let me keep the 2.8 non-IS which will help with SUBJECT movement (by allowing a higher shutter speed). I’ll just keep holding the camera steady.

  • http://twitter.com/JasGendron Jasmin Gendron

    EEEE… what’s the point of that lens? 24-105 is already a great lens…

  • 11

    is mittens running the canon from past couple of years

  • 11

    I can totally see his ad right in this page “A Clear Choice” … to absolute stupidity

  • Rory

    Don’t need to panic! The IS is going to reduce the f/ to f/2. It’s amazing. Plus, the IS WILL help with the moving subjects, as well as add more Dofs! I’ll pay double for it – excuse the pun!

  • http://byazrov.com/ Vladimir Byazrov Photographer

    Canon does lots of questionable decisions lately. They don’t understand the modern market and that’s why Canon looses so much money lately. Market share has been stolen by other brands also. And yet Canon doesn’t even try to make smart moves. Why would anyone buy 24-70 f4L IS?
    Canon needs to listen to customers. In past years I already bought two 24-70 f2.8Ls and now I need an even better one.
    So how about, instead of pushing irrelevant second grade lenses on us, creating something great like 24-70 f2.0 L IS or even 1.8? We need good lenses and Canon just doesn’t even care to try making something better.

  • http://twitter.com/ShootTheSound Peter Neill

    seriously, I want to believe this is sarc, but im not sure

  • delayedflight

    I hope you realise how large a 24-70 f/1.8 would be…. The physical dimensions for such a lens would be large and impractical for normal shooting not to mention prohibitively expensive.
    Second this lens isn’t aimed at the pro market they’re aiming it at the supposedly ‘growing’ wealthy enthusiast sector. Not every L is aimed at the pro.

  • http://byazrov.com/ Vladimir Byazrov Photographer

    It would be a little bigger than an original one and a bit heavier, but It’d worth it because any photographer would trade comfort for quality.

  • BJ

    A ‘little bigger’?

    It’d be frickin ginormous.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=506573278 Alexander Petricca

    Use the tripod Luke.

  • Rory

    What is sarc man? I have a friend who works for canon, so his know how is passed on to me, believe it. People like to complain too much – you don’t see Nikon people complaining, and they don’t even have IS in their cameras! Haha

  • http://twitter.com/ckingphoto Christopher King

    Hmmm…It’s been how long? 7-8 years or so since sensor-shift stabilisation has been out in SLRs and the sort of “format war” has battled between sensor based or lens based and to me, sensor based is winning. All lenses stabilised and with each generation all your lenses receive the improved benefits of the new stabilisation ratings… Lens based systems still hasn’t seen any major lenses receiving stabilisation and when you do buy a lens it’s not going to improve with newer technology, it’s fixed. None of the fast primes are stabilised, none of the f2.8 zooms until you hit the 70-200 and longer prime long focal lengths.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Doolittle/637836375 John Doolittle

    I own the original 24-70 2.8 and I don’t see the use of IS; and that’s using it on a 1st generation Rebel XT…

  • jesseyardley

    Look, if Tamron can do it, Canon should be able to do it as well. When Canon offers a new 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS, I’ll buy one. I know. I know. It might be a while.

  • Ed

    IS is extremely useful for video. Horses for courses

  • Ed

    70mm f/2.8 = 25mm aperture
    70mm f/1.8 = 40mm aperture

    The front lens group would be about twice as big. Your 77mm or 82mm filter would end up on the back of a lens the size of a jug.

  • http://byazrov.com/ Vladimir Byazrov Photographer

    15 mm is not that huge of a difference and then they could make it 2.0 too. I’d love to have this instead of 24-70/f4 IS

  • jdm8

    I don’t believe you understand. The front lens diameter of an f/1.8 would be 60% larger than a 2.8, and the lens would probably weigh more than 2kg. The new 2.8 weighs 800g.

  • http://byazrov.com/ Vladimir Byazrov Photographer

    is it so? I guessed it would be just 20-30% larger and heavier.

  • Guest

    do you have links for me to read? How come my 85 mm has 1.2 hole and has comparable size and weight? thanx

  • http://byazrov.com/ Vladimir Byazrov Photographer

    do you have links for me to read? How come my 85 mm has 1.2 hole and has comparable size and weight? thanks

  • jdm8

    It’s possible it might not weigh that much more, I just used simple math to scale up the size of the optics. If the optics are already large enough and they just need to improve the quality, that would be one thing, but I doubt that.

    I wouldn’t compare a fixed-length lens and a zoom lens though. I would note how a 50/1.2 is heavier than a 50/1.4 is heavier than a 50/1.8, all of the same brand.

  • Fed Up with weirdos like you

    Dear Canon: I DO NOT WANT THIS LENS

  • Fed Up with weirdos like you

    Rory..you don’t know anything about Photography…do you?

  • Fed Up with weirdos like you

    on a rebel XT…?…what a waste……that camera is a door stop