24-70 II

805 grams, vs the old 950 grams. 82mm, vs old 77mm. About 1/2" shorter. Same closest focus distance: .38 meter. Looks nothing like the old beast. But no IS, dang!

Mendel,

I thought Nikon had faired far worse in the recent Asian problems, it seems Canon is determined to drop as many balls as possible!

I don't believe they couldn't have put IS in there for minimal weight and size and that is the one feature that many would have upgraded for, I know I would. So now we are in the 70-200 IS MkI /MkII situation, is the new lens really worth that much more? And I really liked the way the hood works on the 24-70 MkI, with the lens being longest at 24, this gives a really deep sand effective hood, seems the MkII doesn't work like that.

The current version of the lens never really appealed to me. This one will be even less so... Oh well :)

I fail to understand what makes Canon charge $900 more than MK1 for this lens ($1399 vs. $2299)?

Ashish,

Who knows? But the truth is if is sharper it will sell, same as the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII. But I doubt the price will stay above $2,000 for any amount of time.

So Tamron put IS in their new 24-70mm, it has been rumoured in this Canon lens for years. What happened? http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371808-264/tamrons-24-70mm-lens-takes-image-stabilization-lead/

Like many, I've been waiting for an update of this lens for a long time. For part of my shooting needs, I can't do without. The lack of IS in the new lens is very disappointing. I'm sure IQ is improved, but given the steep price increase, it makes for a tough pill to swallow with no IS.

Why Canon, why? Why do I have to turn to third party lenses if I want stabilization?
:-(

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Wow, the MTF charts on this thing are amazing! In theory, it is significantly better than the Mk 1.