EF 24-70/2.8 LIIU (5175B002) lens

I have just been informed that the delivery of the new EF 24-70/2.8 LIIU (5175B002) lens has been delayed to Mid-September.

[Nigel Barker]

Any ideas why this new lens is so damn expensive? Even if it were available to purchase it's about 20% more expensive than the 70-200m F/2.8L IS II USM.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

The tests on the prototype do not show a huge improvement over the present model, not enough to justify the leap in price. And that extremely slight improvement would only show up in huge enlargements of stills images and not in videos. I think the present version of the 24-70mm f/2.8 L is superb (one of my favourite "L" lenses) and plenty good enough for top professional-grade still & video images.

There was a big out-cry that the new version II lens did not have IS. I do not see a need for IS in a 24mm lens (and using a special Samcine shoulder/waist support I'm able to film smooth & steady footage with the 24-70mm lens) but it could possibly be of benefit at the 70mm end when handheld on the run or in boats etc. If an image stabiliser had been included with the version II lens it might justify the huge leap in price, but without a giant leap in performance it is not worth the added expense.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I have the 24-70 f2.8 L USM lens and find it a bit heavy for barebones handheld filming work. With tripod it is fine. A lot of times while filming in safari, handheld is the way to go. If find it difficult to film with this one. In comparision the EF 16-35 f2.8 L II USM is much better handheld.

The IS in the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM is very good. So if such kind of IS is included in the 24-70 f2.8 then it would be very good. Considering the hike in price of the new 24-70 f2.8 L II USM lens, I think an IS would have been better.

I have been promised one for testing, but still haven't laid my hands on it yet. So can't comment how good it is.

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Tests show that the new 24-70mm II lens is a tiny fraction better at 24mm wide open, but the older version is in fact better at 50mm and 70mm. The new version also displays more vignetting and distortion than the older version. The version 2 is slightly lighter, but I prefer the bulk and heft of the version 1 lens, and also the fact that the front filter thread is 77mm and not 82mm. I do have some 82mm filters, but far more 77mm filters for my different lenses.
In real-life terms, with the same subject filmed side-by-side with both versions of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens, nobody would be able to tell the difference, and even pixel-peepers of stills images would be hard put to tell any difference. The new version is slightly better sealed against harsh weather, but the older version is built like a tank and has performed for myself (and many thousands of photographers worldwide) in fog, rain and snow, without missing a beat (I can also say the same of the 16-35mm and 17-35mm f/2.8 L lenses).

Yes, of course the 16-35mm lens is easier to hold steady at widest setting...as are the 15mm prime or 17-35mm lenses compared to the 24-70mm...because the wider the lens, the easier it is to hold steady.

It is extremely easy to film very steady and smooth footage handheld using a 16mm or 17mm lens. Film with any non--IS zoom lens set at 24mm and they would be equal. The 24-70mm would only become more difficult the further it is zoomed beyond the 35mm mark.