Canon 24-70mm f2.8 MII

I am looking forward to a side by side test....
IS is not necessary for focal lengths shorter than 100mm if you know how to hold a camera well IMO.

Having IS on those short primes is just plain ol' stupid, and will only drive up the cost of purchasing the lenses. I really hope they don't include IS on the 24-70 because that will drive up the cost as well.
Must admit having IS on those very short lenses is a bit of a baffler - even handholding you won't notice much shifting of the frame unless you have a very bad case of handshake. I can only assume that the optical cost of adding them (ie optical performance) was marginal to nothing and so they put it in to have as a feature over competitors; having companies like sony pushing in who like in-body IS might well push Canon (maybe Nikon) into adding more IS to lenses, even if its not needed so that they can also boast a high amount of IS in their lens range.

Not having it in the zoom makes sense though, the current zoom is a workhorse for many and if they've boosted optical performance anything like what they did with the 70-200mm MII then that new zoom will be a near prime sharp lens through its range. Droppings its weight will also attract some since "the brick" is a nickname the current one has earned .
I'm just hoping that people will be looking to unload their older versions on the cheap so I can pick one up.

The only reason I can think that they put IS on the primes was for SLR video.
Ahh true video would certainly benefit from the addition of IS, I'd forgotten about that.

As for second hand I'd fully expect the second hand price of the 24-70mm to rise. The original will not be put out of production and stock quickly dwindles down to nothing. With the new version hitting shops at a higher price the second hand original (which is still pro series glass) will quickly rise. This happened with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L when the MII came out - not long after the second hand price was near equal to the original new price of a few years back.

So I doubt you'd be able to get hold of them cheaply - you might get a lucky window - but anyone selling the old to upgrade is going to want a good price on it - so that they have to invest less to upgrade.
Stupidest update ever! It needs an IS. People have been waiting for it forever.
This morning I said I would probably upgrade eventually. Closer to lunch now and I'm well on my way to convincing myself I need it much sooner.

Dammit. I'm never going to get to upgrade my body.
Hopefully they have fixed the focus issues on the original...but at over $2000, I won't be picking one up anytime soon.
Stupidest update ever! It needs an IS. People have been waiting for it forever.

Thing is people that need IS get the 24-105mm which is also parfocal (retains its focus point as the zoom adjusts) and so the ideal choice for the video fans. I suspect having IS and making the 24-70mm parfocal to compete would not only run it into competition with the other lens, but also have resulted in a heavier, more complex and more expensive lens.
I am glad I sold my 24-70 a few months ago for $1200. I am sure I cant sell it for that much now.
You say that - 70-200mm f2.8 IS L price second hand jumped up high when the shops ran out of stock when the new one came out. Lenses, esp professional series ones are not like camera bodies - and especially so since Canon is using its new wave of releases to also jump the price.

Most reactions