# Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Review



## dswatson83 (Jan 10, 2013)

New review of the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS with some comparisons to the 24-105mm f/4 IS.
Lots of shots from the tests. A video comparison with the 24-105 & the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC should be up shortly.

http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 10, 2013)

*Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*

Anyone have any opinions after using this lens?

A review of the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS is now up at: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlFTbI0Dt64

It is definitely a big improvement over the 24-105 (never loved that lens for anything except the zoom range) but that is alot to pay for an f/4 lens. This is much more expensive than even the 70-200 f/4 IS and really, the build quality of the 70-200 is WAY better.


----------



## SJTstudios (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*

I personally haven't used it, but even for the price, I believe it is worth it.

For me, it seems the aperture doesn't matter for this lens, there is something else.

The hybrid is is amazing, I have it in my 100mm l macro.

Also, it does macro.

And also cano bumped up the price, because they had to shave down the lens to put it in that small package. A lot of architecture went into the lens.

If I want a 24-70, I'll go for this lens over the old f2.8. But also, the tamron is an option, or if you can't justify the price, look at the sigma 24-70's. the new one is the canon 24-70 f4 size, and the old is huge, but cheap.

Hope it helps


----------



## bholliman (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



dswatson83 said:


> Anyone have any opinions after using this lens?
> 
> A review of the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS is now up at: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review
> 
> It is definitely a big improvement over the 24-105 (never loved that lens for anything except the zoom range) but that is alot to pay for an f/4 lens. This is much more expensive than even the 70-200 f/4 IS and really, the build quality of the 70-200 is WAY better.



Just curious, what don't you like about the 24-105? 

The new 24-70 f/4 has the advantage of a slightly smaller size/weight and 0.7mm macro capability. The 24-105 has the advantage of extra range and cost roughly $400-500 less. From what I've read IQ is similar. For me I can't see any reason to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70 f/4 since I don't do macro photography.


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



bholliman said:


> The new 24-70 f/4 has the advantage of a slightly smaller size/weight and 0.7mm macro capability. The 24-105 has the advantage of extra range and cost roughly $400-500 less. From what I've read IQ is similar. For me I can't see any reason to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70 f/4 since I don't do macro photography.



From what I've read, the new 24-70 F4 has better IQ than all the standard zooms except the 24-70 F2.8 II. It also has the least distortion of all the standard zooms. And then there's the hybrid IS which I'm sure even without the hybrid feature would be slightly improved over the 105. So add that to the advantages of the new 24-70, then you can decide if it's worth the extra $400-500.

For me it is not worth the price premium (especially considering the 105 is only $700 bundled with the 6D), but it is clearly a better lens than the 24-105 in every way except zoom range so I know for some people it will be worth it.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



bholliman said:


> Just curious, what don't you like about the 24-105?
> 
> The new 24-70 f/4 has the advantage of a slightly smaller size/weight and 0.7mm macro capability. The 24-105 has the advantage of extra range and cost roughly $400-500 less. From what I've read IQ is similar. For me I can't see any reason to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70 f/4 since I don't do macro photography.


.
The 24-70 was definitely sharper than the 24-105mm lens. My 24-105 looks OK in the center but the corners are nasty. I just expect better from an f/4 lens. It's a new lens too, just got it several months ago as the kit lens in my 5D3, but I just don't find it particularly sharp. As a result, it is my "try to never use this" lens and while I pull it out sometimes for the flexibility, i'm always trying to find a reason to pull out a f/2.8 zoom or a prime. Even so, I don't know if I would sell a 24-105 for the new 24-70 f/4 IS unless I wanted the macro abilities. But I would consider moving to the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. I'm doing some side by side testing now and will report the results hopefully this weekend.


----------



## MrCDE (Jan 10, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*

Hello. I have this lens, as of last week. It was a close call between this and the 24-105. I can tell you that I am very impressed with the build and IS. I find the IS to be a solid improvement over the 24-105, which i have also used in the past. Picture quality on my 6D is impressive and all I can say is that I am happy with the image quality and colour saturation. 
Yes it is expensive but I see this as a longterm keep and you pay for what you get with the mighty Red Ring!
Macro works surprisingly well and is a novel addition to the lens which will come in handy seeing as I do not own any macro lenses.
The size and weight fits well on the 6D as a good 'all round lens' for travel.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 11, 2013)

Here is the video review:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlFTbI0Dt64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlFTbI0Dt64


----------



## robbymack (Jan 11, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*

My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron? Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 11, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



robbymack said:


> My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron? Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.


I've got the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC as well so i'll have a comparison review up shortly. So far, the Canon does focus faster than the Tamron, but the Tamron is still very accurate which is what matters the most. But i'll have a detailed review up shortly. You don't get the macro abilities with the Tamron either which may influence some people but for me, i'd prefer having a 2.8 lens any day to a macro. I wish Canon made a 24-70 f/2.8 IS.


----------



## robbymack (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



dswatson83 said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > My thoughts are why would you buy this over the tamron? Iq is the same, yet you get f2.8 with the tamron and also pocket $200. Unless you really (and I mean really) care about saving a few grams of weight it's a no brainier.
> ...



Don't you have to be extremely close for the macro to even work? Seems like an excuse to charge more IMHO. I am with you though 2.8 trumps macro for me. Happy owner of a tamron here. The 2.8 canon while great is just silly money when it has no IS. Im also Looking forward to more reviews of the tamron 70-200, looks to be very close to the canon which would be pretty remarkable.


----------



## barracuda (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*

TDP has published ISO 12233 crops for the 24-70 f/4 IS. Bryan also published a preliminary review. Corners are sharp wide open compared to the 24-105 and the results compare favorably throughout its range:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Act444 (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*

Interesting...

Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24. 

ETA: I dunno, if this is supposed to be the 24-105 replacement/upgrade, to be giving up the 71-105mm range and pay 2x the price I would have expected big improvement across the ENTIRE 24-70mm range. Unless one needs the macro and shoots exclusively at 24mm, may as well stick with the 24-105 (or save a few bucks and get the 24-105)


----------



## brad-man (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*

I don't think quality is an issue with any of Canon's recent releases. They all seem to be excellent for their intended uses. It's the money!


----------



## barracuda (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



> Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24.



Interesting... I didn't notice that. As you said it's particularly interesting to note the performance of the 24-70 f/4 IS at 50 compared to the 24-105 at 24.

I wonder what the reason is for the fall off in performance at 50mm?


----------



## bholliman (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



barracuda said:


> > Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the 24-105 looks a little better at 35mm also. Definately sharper at 50mm. I'd say sharpness is close to a wash when you consider all focal lengths.


----------



## x-vision (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



Act444 said:


> Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm?



Very interesting indeed. 

Sample 2 seems slightly better than samples 1 and 3 - but all three are worse than the 24-105L.
So, not a copy variation issue; likely a design characteristics of the lens.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Any thoughts yet on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS*



x-vision said:


> So, not a copy variation issue; likely a design characteristics of the lens.



That's the first thing that came to my mind...but then again, it depends on where the three samples came from. Were they taken from the same "batch"? Or different ones? When there's a defect, it usually manifests itself in a particular batch, rather than being "randomly spread out". 

I'd like to see him test a 4th one a month or so from now. Still, you'd probably have to (randomly) test 50 or 100 of these lenses to make such a determination...


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 14, 2013)

*Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

So, this is not what I expected at all and I actually had to do these sharpness tests 3 times to confirm the results. I'm a bit worried on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS now. I've got a comparison coming with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and as of now, Canon is no longer my top choice.



Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Fight!


----------



## J.R. (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

This basically confirms my first impressions of the new 24-70 (sharpness issue aside). The new 24-70 offers pretty much nothing when compared to the 24-105 except a macro mode with 0.7 magnification and is not an upgrade from the 24-105. 

I doubt anyone who got the 24-105 will "upgrade" to the f/4 24-70. The inbuilt macro of the 24-70 is a non-issue because you could get the excellent 100L macro and also save some $$$. 

I guess Canon might phase out the 24-105 but then Canon's marketing strategy is impossible to comprehend. 

Looking forward to the Tamron review. 

Cheers ... JR


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

I have a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro and a 24-105... and while it would be nice to have the functionality in one lens... it's not worth the price tag. I know the price of the 24-70 will come down... but I really really like my 100mm L and I don't mind having multiple lenses. 

Honestly, I don't have any big issues with my 24-105... and I'm glad it will stay in my bag... because the 24-70 f/2.8L mkii is just way out of my price range and I just refuse to buy Tamron or Sigma.


----------



## M.ST (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

If you look on the lens market today the most versions with IS (VC) can´t reach the non IS (VC) versions in image quality.

That´s why I prefer the EF 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

I' also a happy owner of both the 100L and the 24-105L, and I, too, was thinking "What the ..." when Canon announced the new 24-70 f4 L IS. Way too expensive for little gain. 
lensrentals.com has an interesting comparison of 24-70 2.8 I, 24-70 2.8 II, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 24-70 f4 IS, and 24-105 f4 IS, and that averaged over many samples. Here the new 24-70 f4 IS beats the 24-105 by a small margin in sharpness (and by a large margin in distortion ), and the Tamron lies in between the Canon 2.8s.

See for yourself:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Still, not only based on that numbers, I don't think that I would ever "upgrade" to the 24-70 f4. I would rather spent that money on the Tamron, which seems to be excellent, given the price.


----------



## beansauce (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*



J.R. said:


> This basically confirms my first impressions of the new 24-70 (sharpness issue aside). The new 24-70 offers pretty much nothing when compared to the 24-105 except a macro mode with 0.7 magnification and is not an upgrade from the 24-105.
> 
> I doubt anyone who got the 24-105 will "upgrade" to the f/4 24-70. The inbuilt macro of the 24-70 is a non-issue because you could get the excellent 100L macro and also save some $$$.
> 
> ...




I really, really hope Canon doesn't phase out the 24/105L. It is such a fabulous lens.... and for what? A crappy 24-70 F4! No thanks...

If they do and my 24-105 ever fails and is unserviceable, ill spring for the 24-70 f/2.8 II


----------



## J.R. (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*



beansauce said:


> I really, really hope Canon doesn't phase out the 24/105L. It is such a fabulous lens.... and for what? A crappy 24-70 F4! No thanks...
> 
> If they do and my 24-105 ever fails and is unserviceable, ill spring for the 24-70 f/2.8 II



I doubt whether the 24-70 f/4 is crappy. It is only that the 24-105L has been bought by most users as a kit lens that the 24-70 appears to be a waste of space. However, someone not having the 24-105 has an option of getting a decent 24-70 f/4L which can do reasonable close up work in a single lens. I see many prosumers opting for this lens (as a first L lens) primarily for this reason. 

BTW, I agree with you that if the 24-105 fails, even I would upgrade to the 24-70 f/2.8 II - actually I might upgrade sooner without waiting for the 24-105 to fail .


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

I'm more interested to see his comparison with the Tamron really.
I never considered this lens the day it was announced
I already have the 24-105 and i just bought the 24-70II.
When i want the sharpness, i'll go to the 24-70.
When i need the IS and reach, i go to the 24-105..This 24-70f4….is just average for everything..and to not even match the old 24-105 in sharpness is really not acceptable in my opinion..


----------



## Viggo (Jan 14, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

Thanks for posting. I'm a bit surprised, checked the results over at TDP also, and looks like it is like this. Dissapointing.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

The lack of sharpness on the 24-70 at 50mm (compared to the 24-105) jumped out at me when I looked at the TDP resolution charts...so it wasn't just my imagination then- something is going on there.

Perhaps that's the compromise they had to make optically in order to squeeze in the macro function- who knows. Still would have expected more at that price point.


----------



## oscaroo (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

Thanks for the warning!
I'll stop eagerly awaiting for the 24-70 IS and instead gloat with my 24-105.


----------



## rs (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

TDP have just published the ISO 12233 test chart shots. The 24-70/4 looks better at 24mm, but anything longer and the old 24-105 look better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 15, 2013)

*Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow*

I can't say I expected these results at all. 

See the full written comparison of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS with samples
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

Or check out the video
Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!


----------



## robbymack (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow*

Thanks for the review, can't say I'm surprised though. I almost waited to pull the trigger on the tamron after the canon was announced, but realized there was no way it was going to be so much better than the tamron to make up for the lost stop of light. I has just hoped the tamron would drop in price even maybe $100 in some pre holiday sale at BH or adorama. No such luck which tells me this lens is selling strong.


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow*

Tamron is sharper than Canon, it is F/2.8 with image stabilisation comparing to Canon F/4 (you can shoot with Tamron in much darker places), autofocus speed is almost the same, vignetting at F/4 is much better in Tamron, Tamron is less expensive.

My conclusion would be "Shame on you, Canon"! It seems that third party manufacturers started to produce much better quality production, which is much cheaper. This particular lens is better than Canon 24-70 L 2.8 Mark I and slightly worse than Mark II (which is much pricier). I would say that Canon should really revise its pricing strategy and focus more on quality in order to compete with Tamron and Sigma. 

I really like L class lenses, however, I hate to be screwed! I bought Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 instead of Canon 24-70 2.8 L II because of price and lack of image stabilisation in Canon. I am very happy with Tamron!


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*

Since the 24-70 f/2.8 Gen I lens has been phased out, perhaps Canon came out with the 24-70 f/4 as an alternative to the obscenely priced 24-70 f/2.8 II? 

I'm one of the freaks who opted for the 24-105 over the old 24-70 f/2.8 for one simple reason: I need the extra reach.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*



Ray2021 said:


> You started so many threads to redirect audience to your reviews, it is virtually spamming...not to mention repeated link posting in any thread possible. Introducing your links in a discussion is one thing…starting several NEW clutter threads in a week with the sole purpose of promoting your site is an annoyance!
> Instead of cluttering the forum with the same spam threads for EACH of your reviews, each sometimes with a several new threads...why don’t you pay CR to include a link to your site?


Sorry, I started the threads in different relevant topics. The lens is brand new so there were not ongoing discussions already thus why I started a thread. I'm not sure how posting a review of the Canon lens in a canon lens forum is spamming...I just happened to have the lens, worked really hard the last few days making a review so that others can know how this lens performed before spending $1500. I'm not some big business or anything. I'm just a gear loving photographer and thought these reviews would help someone decide.


----------



## mrmarks (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected*



M.ST said:


> If you look on the lens market today the most versions with IS (VC) can´t reach the non IS (VC) versions in image quality.
> 
> That´s why I prefer the EF 24-70 2.8 II.



Is this true for the 70-200 2.8 IS II vs the non-IS version?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow*

This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.


----------



## marinien (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow*



RLPhoto said:


> This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.



@RLPhoto: hey, no need to repeat that in every 20-70 f/4 IS review/comparison thread 
DOA or not, let's wait for the sale figure.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow*



marinien said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.
> ...



There is no NEED to post the same topic over and over.


----------



## beansauce (Jan 15, 2013)

Who cares anyhow... not many here will buy it anyway when the 24-70 II is a few hundred more and provides optical quality far superior than any other L zoom in Canons portfolio. 

We will see the price elasticity of the 24/70 f4 adjust QUICKLY, which will eventually supplement the 6D and other lower tiered FF bodies as a kit lens and possibly kick the 24-105 out on its own as an option just like any other L lens. I also think we will see he price of the 24-105 increase when it is no longer packaged as a kit lens. There is no reason why an L zoom like the 24/70 f4, with its inferior optical quality, is priced more than the 24-105. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but canon seems as of late to drop the ball on the price point of its products. The 5D3 is a good example with its price point $500 over the top. Canon responds with the 5D3 with a permanent rebate. At the very least, we have Nikon to thank for providing supplements and keeping canons greed in check (to some extent).


----------



## MrCDE (Jan 15, 2013)

Truly amazin how many people pass comments on equipment they have never used or let alone seen.
Perhaps people want a lighter lens, want IS for a multitude of reasons, or like the smaller size...need i go on.
I use it and find the image quality to be excellent. all that matter right??

Happy shooting all.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 16, 2013)

MrCDE said:


> Truly amazin how many people pass comments on equipment they have never used or let alone seen.
> Perhaps people want a lighter lens, want IS for a multitude of reasons, or like the smaller size...need i go on.
> I use it and find the image quality to be excellent. all that matter right??
> Happy shooting all.


Do you notice the lens hood loose at all? Drove me nuts but I'm not sure if I had a bad hood or something. It was enough for me to feel movement in the hood and enough for it to make noise when I moved it around. Just wondering if my lens was the only one or this is how they are made.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 17, 2013)

beansauce said:


> Who cares anyhow... not many here will buy it anyway when the 24-70 II is a few hundred more and provides optical quality far superior than any other L zoom in Canons portfolio.



The f/2.8 II costs $ 800 more than the f/4 - that the price for one 24-105! 



beansauce said:


> We will see the price elasticity of the 24/70 f4 adjust QUICKLY, which will eventually supplement the 6D and other lower tiered FF bodies as a kit lens and possibly kick the 24-105 out on its own as an option just like any other L lens. I also think we will see he price of the 24-105 increase when it is no longer packaged as a kit lens. There is no reason why an L zoom like the 24/70 f4, with its inferior optical quality, is priced more than the 24-105.



I get the feeling that if the 24-70 f/4 lens comes as a kit Canon will probably retire the 24-105. After all, one is compelled to wonder where will the 24-105 f/4 fit in? OTOH, it is quite possible that Canon may give both lenses as alternate kit lens. 

If the IQ ultimately turns out even equivalent (hope???), I guess people will go for the 24-70 for a good kit lens with the 0.71x magnification (supposed Macro mode). 

I agree though that I don't see why the 24-70 f/4 is priced so high as compared to the 24-105 f/4 with zero (probably negative) improvement in IQ.


----------

