Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L - When do we get IS?

[Happy_Shooter]

Lens manufacturers have been producing some fantastic lenses recently.

Tamron and Sigma have made great strides in the last couple of years and they are now producing some great professional lenses. Nikon and Canon continue to produce world class lenses.

I predominantly shoot with Canon gear for both stills and video and have been happy with their gear up to now.

But.... Canon hasn't been keeping pace with other manufacturers.

A prime example of this is their current 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. All other manufacturers have an image stabilised version of this lens and most have done for a number of years.

Canon's answer to this was to produce the 24-70mm f/4 lens. It's a great lens but it's also very disappointing they still haven't come up with an f/2.8 stabilised lens.

Canon shooters have been crying out for this lens for years but it's just not come. There are some flimsy rumours that one may arrive in 2018/19 but they are so lacking in detail that I doubt it will be arriving soon.

Are canon falling behind? Thoughts?

 

[robblackett]

Lens manufacturers have been producing some fantastic lenses recently.

Tamron and Sigma have made great strides in the last couple of years and they are now producing some great professional lenses. Nikon and Canon continue to produce world class lenses.

I predominantly shoot with Canon gear for both stills and video and have been happy with their gear up to now.

But.... Canon hasn't been keeping pace with other manufacturers.

A prime example of this is their current 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. All other manufacturers have an image stabilised version of this lens and most have done for a number of years.

Canon's answer to this was to produce the 24-70mm f/4 lens. It's a great lens but it's also very disappointing they still haven't come up with an f/2.8 stabilised lens.

Canon shooters have been crying out for this lens for years but it's just not come. There are some flimsy rumours that one may arrive in 2018/19 but they are so lacking in detail that I doubt it will be arriving soon.

Are canon falling behind? Thoughts?

Does anyone produce a lens of the same level optical quality as the EF24-70mm f/2.8 that is stabilized?

If not that might be the answer to your question.

 

[Happy_Shooter]

Lens manufacturers have been producing some fantastic lenses recently.

Tamron and Sigma have made great strides in the last couple of years and they are now producing some great professional lenses. Nikon and Canon continue to produce world class lenses.

I predominantly shoot with Canon gear for both stills and video and have been happy with their gear up to now.

But.... Canon hasn't been keeping pace with other manufacturers.

A prime example of this is their current 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. All other manufacturers have an image stabilised version of this lens and most have done for a number of years.

Canon's answer to this was to produce the 24-70mm f/4 lens. It's a great lens but it's also very disappointing they still haven't come up with an f/2.8 stabilised lens.

Canon shooters have been crying out for this lens for years but it's just not come. There are some flimsy rumours that one may arrive in 2018/19 but they are so lacking in detail that I doubt it will be arriving soon.

Are canon falling behind? Thoughts?

Does anyone produce a lens of the same level optical quality as the EF24-70mm f/2.8 that is stabilized?

If not that might be the answer to your question.

I understand your point but...

I have used the new Tamron and the latest Canon 24-70 2.8. In situations with high shutter speed the canon edges the Tamron overall but there are points across the zoom range where the Tamron edges the Canon. Both are excellent lenses optically.

But as soon as you use the canon on a body with high resolution, shooting handheld can be comprimised with the Canon in certain situations. There is a noticeable reduction in sharpness when you shoot in situations where you can't achieve a high shutter speed. Therefore any benefit of better optics from the canon is lost.

Canon have a 50mp camera, they need to produce IS lenses to go with such bodies. The 24-70 2.8 is a lens that most photograghers have and use but it lacks a very important feature that other manufacturers provide - IS.

IS can ensure your image remains sharp on bodies with high resolution, which a lot of camera bodies now are (5dIV and 5Ds).

 

[robblackett]

Lens manufacturers have been producing some fantastic lenses recently.

Tamron and Sigma have made great strides in the last couple of years and they are now producing some great professional lenses. Nikon and Canon continue to produce world class lenses.

I predominantly shoot with Canon gear for both stills and video and have been happy with their gear up to now.

But.... Canon hasn't been keeping pace with other manufacturers.

A prime example of this is their current 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. All other manufacturers have an image stabilised version of this lens and most have done for a number of years.

Canon's answer to this was to produce the 24-70mm f/4 lens. It's a great lens but it's also very disappointing they still haven't come up with an f/2.8 stabilised lens.

Canon shooters have been crying out for this lens for years but it's just not come. There are some flimsy rumours that one may arrive in 2018/19 but they are so lacking in detail that I doubt it will be arriving soon.

Are canon falling behind? Thoughts?

Does anyone produce a lens of the same level optical quality as the EF24-70mm f/2.8 that is stabilized?

If not that might be the answer to your question.

I understand your point but...

I have used the new Tamron and the latest Canon 24-70 2.8. In situations with high shutter speed the canon edges the Tamron overall but there are points across the zoom range where the Tamron edges the Canon. Both are excellent lenses optically.

But as soon as you use the canon on a body with high resolution, shooting handheld can be comprimised with the Canon in certain situations. There is a noticeable reduction in sharpness when you shoot in situations where you can't achieve a high shutter speed. Therefore any benefit of better optics from the canon is lost.

Canon have a 50mp camera, they need to produce IS lenses to go with such bodies. The 24-70 2.8 is a lens that most photograghers have and use but it lacks a very important feature that other manufacturers provide - IS.

IS can ensure your image remains sharp on bodies with high resolution, which a lot of camera bodies now are (5dIV and 5Ds).

Of course we could probably go back and forth all day with arguments and counter arguments along these lines so there is probably not a lot of point in me taking this any further, especially as there have been many similar threads about this particular product over the years that it has been in production.

But perhaps I can leave you with one view based on my personal product planning experience. If people are prepared to pay a certain for a particular product and yet to 'improve' it, e.g. to add IS would mean the lens would have to cost more to the point where it would be considered that insufficient numbers of people would be prepared to pay the extra cost, then the decision might be taken, reluctantly, not to produce that item.

Now if the manufacturer finds he can make the item at an acceptable target price, to the required quality, perhaps by improvements in design, or by using new materials, or by efficiencies in production, then he almost certainly would produce, or consider producing that item.

Ultimately most decisions whether to produce, or not to produce, are based on financial considerations. We might like to think that manufacturers simply make things for reasons of the heart but I'm afraid it's rarely so. And I've seen many, many prototypes of camera products about which I've thought "Wow!" but for which the business case sadly simply doesn't stack up. What you see actually produced is the tip of the iceberg in terms of prototype products that finally make it through an exhaustive evaluation, product positioning and costing process.

 

[Happy_Shooter]

I completely agree, there isn't any point going back and forth.

I don't believe that a 24-70 2.8 with IS is an unachievable or non-indemand product.

Every other manufacturer has produced a version of this lens and most for a cheaper price the the current canon 24-70 2.8. Some of them also equal the IQ of the canon. They all sell well and have been well recieved.

My worry, as a canon shooter who loves this brand, is that Canon are getting left behind by the competition. I hope I'm wrong.....

 

[robblackett]

I completely agree, there isn't any point going back and forth.

I don't believe that a 24-70 2.8 with IS is an unachievable or non-indemand product.

Every other manufacturer has produced a version of this lens and most for a cheaper price the the current canon 24-70 2.8. Some of them also equal the IQ of the canon. They all sell well and have been well recieved.

My worry, as a canon shooter who loves this brand, is that Canon are getting left behind by the competition. I hope I'm wrong.....

OK I'll leave you with one last thought, or a bit of homework if you'd like to take up the challenge.

Take the Manufacturer's Recommended Price (MRP) for this lens. (We could also use the Street Price instead if you prefer but that gets a little more complicated because the street price fluctuates more over time).

1. What price do you think an EF 24-70 2.8 IS would have to be to sell at to sell at least as well as the current non IS version? 10% more? 20% more? 50%?

2 Analyse every competitor on the market in terms of price and historical sales volume in each of the territories in which it is sold, taking into account differences in tax and national preferences for certain brands. Also bear in mind that if you get this new MRP wrong you might be sitting on warehouses full of ten of thousands of units of unsold stock.

Now dealer margins vary according to territory / country because of taxes and some other factors but as a rough approximation assume that the factory price (that is the cost of the goods as they leave the factory gate) is about 60-65% of the MRP.

Now assume this lens with updates and IS is going to cost more to build than the current non IS version (and believe me it will).

3 What price can you build this new lens for? Of course I don't expect you to know because you simply don't have the necessary information to be able work this out (unless you happen to work for Canon in the Lens Product Planning Department). Anyway take a stab at it. What do you think? 20% more? 30% perhaps? But, hey, it might be even more than that because putting IS into a 24-70 lens (one of the most difficult ranges to design the IS Group for as the IS requirements for wide angle to tele are quite different, especially with a wide aperture of f/2.8, and at the same time maintaining resolution, especially at the edges, contrast, control of aberrations, etc., etc., as well as size and weight is no simple task. Is it a 'standard' IS unit that happens to be used in other focal length lenses that you plan to use, or is it a bespoke unit (hint 1 - there is nothing on the the shelf that would do the job). What optical design are you going to use (hint 2 - you can't just put an IS unit in the existing 24-70 as the performance would be dreadful. But anyway assume it can be done and that the lens can be mass produced reliably (which is not quite the same thing as building a one off, hand adjusted prototype) - so how much?

3 Now work back to your MRP. Still attractive? I'll leave that to you to decide but perhaps it might give you an indication of why they haven't done it yet. ;-)

 

[Happy_Shooter]

That's easy, you can make a 24-70 2.8 IS lens with an RRP of £1000-£1400, because that's exactly what the other manufacturers have done.

We don't need to guess, or try to carry out calculations, its been done by Sony, Nikon, Tamron and Sigma. It's not theoritical, it's fact.

 

[robblackett]

That's easy, you can make a 24-70 2.8 IS lens with an RRP of £1000-£1400, because that's exactly what the other manufacturers have done.

We don't need to guess, or try to carry out calculations, its been done by Sony, Nikon, Tamron and Sigma. It's not theoritical, it's fact.

Ha!

But are you comparing apples with apples in terms of optical performance?

 

[davev8]

Lens manufacturers have been producing some fantastic lenses recently.

Tamron and Sigma have made great strides in the last couple of years and they are now producing some great professional lenses. Nikon and Canon continue to produce world class lenses.

I predominantly shoot with Canon gear for both stills and video and have been happy with their gear up to now.

But.... Canon hasn't been keeping pace with other manufacturers.

A prime example of this is their current 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. All other manufacturers have an image stabilised version of this lens and most have done for a number of years.

Canon's answer to this was to produce the 24-70mm f/4 lens. It's a great lens but it's also very disappointing they still haven't come up with an f/2.8 stabilised lens.

Canon shooters have been crying out for this lens for years but it's just not come. There are some flimsy rumours that one may arrive in 2018/19 but they are so lacking in detail that I doubt it will be arriving soon.

Are canon falling behind? Thoughts?

Does anyone produce a lens of the same level optical quality as the EF24-70mm f/2.8 that is stabilized?

If not that might be the answer to your question.

I understand your point but...

I have used the new Tamron and the latest Canon 24-70 2.8. In situations with high shutter speed the canon edges the Tamron overall but there are points across the zoom range where the Tamron edges the Canon. Both are excellent lenses optically.

sooooo shot with the tamron ...problem solved

But as soon as you use the canon on a body with high resolution, shooting handheld can be comprimised with the Canon in certain situations. There is a noticeable reduction in sharpness when you shoot in situations where you can't achieve a high shutter speed. Therefore any benefit of better optics from the canon is lost.

Canon have a 50mp camera, they need to produce IS lenses to go with such bodies. The 24-70 2.8 is a lens that most photograghers have and use but it lacks a very important feature that other manufacturers provide - IS.

IS can ensure your image remains sharp on bodies with high resolution, which a lot of camera bodies now are (5dIV and 5Ds).

 

[Happy_Shooter]

Absolutely, the Tamron is a great lens.

I am not saying that there isn't options and my OP wasn't requesting buying guidance.

I was interested to here if people think Canon ate beginning to lose ground on the competition.

And if/once you use the Tamron 24-70 2.8, you'll know it's apples with apples.

 

[davev8]

Absolutely, the Tamron is a great lens.

I am not saying that there isn't options and my OP wasn't requesting buying guidance.

I was interested to here if people think Canon ate beginning to lose ground on the competition.

And if/once you use the Tamron 24-70 2.8, you'll know it's apples with apples.

yes it is on my shopping list ....i dont think canon are losing ground to anyone ..i think they are doing a very good of making fine /lenses cameras to suit almost everyone and be profitable in the long term i believe canon are/will be using more atomathion than anyone else ...all thier automated machinery is made inhouse