# Canon USA to Start Selling 5D Mark III + EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS Kits Next Month



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2013)

RIP the 24-105 F/4L IS?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=8193

I own the 24-70 F/4L IS and it is brilliant. Sharp, (relatively) light, weathersealed and 0.7x macro. It's the perfect hiking lens for me.

- A


----------



## Eli (Oct 30, 2013)

Pretty pricey for a kit..


----------



## preppyak (Oct 30, 2013)

Eli said:


> Pretty pricey for a kit..


MSRP for the 5dIII w/ 24-105 is $3999...so, this is right in line with the expected pricing. It'll drop fast.

What this really means is we'll be seeing the 24-70 f/4 for <$1000 un-kitted relatively soon


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2013)

preppyak said:


> What this really means is we'll be seeing the 24-70 f/4 for <$1000 un-kitted relatively soon



Bingo. 

I scored mine for $1025 on Adorama's eBay storefront when it was selling for $1499 everywhere else. It's a peach of a lens. Folks will gripe at the (presumed though not announced) demise of the 24-105, but the 24-70 is a better lens for my needs. More folks should check it out. It's analogous to those who opt for the F/4 70-200 over the F/2.8. You'll get excellent images with both, but the 2.8 can fight in a few more battlegrounds -- portraiture, freezing motion for sports, etc. I'm just not in those battlegrounds at that focal length, so I'll gladly shed the weight and use the F/4.

My only downside is that the new 24-70 F/4, though sharper than the 24-105 (esp at 24mm) and 24-70 F/2.8 Mk I (by a great deal across the board), is not in the same sharpness league as the 24-70 F/2.8 II. 

- A


----------



## pharp (Oct 31, 2013)

Odd, I had always assumed this was meant to be the kit lens for the smaller 6D - it is available elsewhere. Eventually.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2013)

Roger from LR wrote a terrific resolution summary comparing many 24-70/105 lenses here:

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

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > What this really means is we'll be seeing the 24-70 f/4 for <$1000 un-kitted relatively soon
> ...



agree to all that, Adorama deal, better than 24-105 very very much so near 24mm, but sadly not quite a match for the 24-70 II (other than FF edges right near 70mm where I've found the 24-70 f/4 IS to actually be better than all 24-70 II I've seen, FF edges right near 70mm is the one weak spot of the 24-70 II, it's not bad there but not quite a match for the 24-70 f/4 IS or the 70-300L/70-200 II,70-200 f/4 IS; center frame at 70mm is beats and even easily so in many cases all of those even when it is at f/2.8 and the others at f/4, other maybe the 70-200 II where it might be close depending upon the copy).

it's way smaller and lighter than that new sigma


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2013)

I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650. The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650. The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.



I am weirdo who is in love with the 0.7x macro opportunity with this lens. Yes, handheld macro work without a flash _at that working distance_ is not remotely ideal, but for touristy/walkabout/hiking events, it's been a real pleasure to use.

It will never replace my 100L macro, but it's handy. Almost like finding out your shortstop has experience playing catcher. 

- A


----------



## sanj (Oct 31, 2013)

Do cameras come with only one kit lens? I mean is it possible that 5d3 is available with either lens as kit? Or has the kit with 24-105 discontinued? 
24-105 is a very useful range to me.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650. The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.



You sound like someone who has has never actually tried the 24-70 f/4 IS. I've tried all three (24-105,24-70 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, more than one copy of each too) and the 24-70 f/4 IS is much closer to the 24-70 II at 24mm than to the 24-105, the difference is not very tiny at all, much sharper edges and corners, much less distortion, much less prone to smearing purple fringing all over branches against bright white clouds, much less lateral CA (and as already mentioned much less longitudinal CA, although as not as much less as the near APO 24-70 II). 

I could never tolerate the 24-105 for 24mm finely detailed edge to edge landscapes on FF but have no problems with the 24-70 f/4 IS at all (nor the 24 1.4 II or 24 T&S II or 24-70 II). The 70-105 can be covered at much higher quality (and with more more extra focal length as well) with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L (although it's a personal thing, for me the switch over at 70mm is fine, but I suppose there could be some for whom it would be bothersome).

Granted now that the 24-105L is only $650 or so, it's not bad for the price (I always thought it was an optical rip for the old $850-1250 price), but that still doesn't mean it's not more than a very tiny difference compared to the 24-70 f/4 IS, at least not if you care about the wide end, only at 50mm IMO are they similar at all (the weak point of the 24-70 f/4 IS is right around 50mm, it gets stronger below and above that focal length).

24-70 f/4 IS is also smaller and lighter than the 24-105 and has much more macro ability and a bit more effective IS.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650. The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.
> ...



Every thing you said is dead on. However, for some folks, the convenience of the longer zoom trumps what they believe to be a small hit to IQ. (I am not one of them, but there are many many 24-105 fans in this forum)

I prefer the combination of "almost best-in-class" IQ + IS + Macro + low weight + weathersealing. The F/4 IS is a great lens for me.

- A


----------



## sanj (Oct 31, 2013)

I am amongst the people who prefer the additional range.

And I just got a mail from Canon saying this kit is in addition to 24-105. That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.


----------



## Zv (Oct 31, 2013)

Interesting. A few months ago there weren't that many 24-40/4 fans but now it seems it's gathering quite a following. Also, if they discontinue the 24-105L it might even (temporarily) increase demand for it, meaning I could sell it for a bit more than I paid! Bonus! 

After using my 24-105L on vacation recently I noticed I had it at 24mm for most of the time. And the odd time a butterfly flew and landed within range I sure coulda used a bit of macro. Then again I love the extra 35mm reach, for portraits it makes a huge difference. It also means not needing to carry a 2nd or 3rd lens while traveling. For sharp 24mm or wider I use my 17-40L anyway so it's not a problem. 

I'm interested in how that new Sigma is going to perform at the wide end. It could be the answer a lot of people are looking for. ???


----------



## zlatko (Oct 31, 2013)

sanj said:


> That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.


Despite all of the griping we've heard ever since the introduction of the 24-70/4, there has never been any indication from Canon that the 24-70/4 would replace the 24-105/4. They are different lenses and it makes good sense to keep both in the product line. Canon offers many similar products that overlap but don't replace each other. I would sooner expect a version II of the popular 24-105/4 than its discontinuation.


----------



## sanj (Oct 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.
> ...



yep


----------



## Zv (Oct 31, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'd much prefer the 24-105mmL for way less, they often pop up for $650. The longer focal length range makes up for the very tiny difference in MTF. I have the 24-70 f/2.8 MK II.
> ...



Nope. Bought my 24-105L second hand for a very reasonable price. In Japan the 24-105L sells really well and for about ¥75,000 used, (which is more than what I paid). At the very least I'll get 95% money back. Cheaper than renting for the same period so I'd still be happy with that. The Sigma stuff is expensive over here for some reason. The 35mm went back up to ¥89,000 on amazon (¥99,000 in stores). Doubt the new Sigma 24-105 will be much different. The cheaper option will still be the Canon. People like cheaper. 

The same was said about the Sigma 18-35 1.8 vs the 17-55 but I managed to sell my 17-55 for the price I wanted. People will pay for the stuff that is tried and tested and same brand. Brand loyalty is a big thing over here in Japan.


----------



## sanj (Oct 31, 2013)

Zv said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Everywhere! This also applies to rental business. I rent my gear out and for me buying an 'expensive' canon lens is 'cheaper' in long run as Canon gear will rent out, not off brand even if it may be better....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2013)

dilbert said:


> You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...



Agree that this is very unlikely. The price drop of the 24-105 as a kit lens _did_ affect used prices - a new kitted 24-105 was down to $500 at one point. 

I bought a used 24-105 a few years ago, for $800. Then I bought a 5DII kit with a new copy of the lens ($800 kitted), sold the used copy for $800. After getting the 24-70/2.8L II, I sold the 24-105 for...$800. That was before the price drops, fortunately. 

The 24-70/4L IS doesn't appeal to me. Sometimes f/4 vs. f/2.8 means faster OR sharper, but in this case it's AND, and in that focal range I can live without IS. The near macro sounds convenient, but 0.7x at a working distance similar to my MP-E 65mm isn't optimal.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > You might find that the release of Sigma's lens impacts the ability of you to sell the Canon one at the price you want...
> ...


I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well. I was hoping it would be a great companion to the 70-200 f/4 IS and just as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II, especially with that price, but obviously it isn't.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2013)

zlatko said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > That tells me the 24-105 is not dead yet.
> ...




I'm not convinced of this. They've flooded the market with so many that they cannot keep the price up. I see the 24-105 being obsoleted, but not necessarily with this 24-70 kit announcement.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.



Go and try one. In a couple of years time people will be raving about this lens. It's the 70-300L all over again.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.
> ...



Agree 100%. When I compare it to the 24-70 F/2.8L I that it replaced in my bag, it was a no brainer. Trading one stop for all of those upsides -- sharper, lighter, IS, and macro -- was a great value proposition to me.

Also, it's a shade shorter, which gets me under the max length requirement of 6" to get it into some stadiums where I live.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Okay, okay, I'll give it a chance . I guess my expectations were just set too high given the initial price, but maybe the "white box" versions will make it more affordable in the near future.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



It is poor value compared with the current prices of the 24-105, I agree. I think of that lens as a 28-105 with 24mm tagged on. But even in the other ranges the new lens is superior, significantly so across the frame.

I am guessing that Canon made it a 24-70 as opposed to 24-105 because they cannot meet the desired optical standard at the greater range for a feasible price. ( It will be interesting to see what the Sigma is like in practice ).

I should point out that I am a 24-105 fan and enjoy its great flexibility, but in some critical situations it can disappoint where the new lens does not.


----------



## Ruined (Oct 31, 2013)

Personally I would not buy the 24-70 f/4 IS because it will be come redundant once the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out. The 24-105 f/4 IS remains useful though in addition to the 24-70 f/2.8 with the larger range in focal length.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 31, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I was disappointed with the 24-70 f/4 IS as well.
> ...



Yeah that's what I've been saying. I won't be surprised if it is the 70-300L all over again. I learned my lesson on the 70-300L. When I heard the price and all I thought it was absurd and how could I ever replace my magical 70-200 f/4 IS with it, no way it could be close, how could they not include the tripod ring for the price, etc.

Well, a year later I tried the 70-300L and yeah it was the 70-200 f/4 IS that was the one that got sold.
(although, OK, I still hold to my tripod ring comments though)

I do think it will only become the 70-300L all over again if it keeps turning up on those $1025 deals though.

(also I do have to say the 24-70 II is not getting knocked by me here, that is one awesome lens, best in class across all makers, best AF too when used with a 5D3/1DX with their high precision engine ability)


----------



## Ruined (Nov 1, 2013)

But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.

The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back. The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.


----------



## Zv (Nov 1, 2013)

Ruined said:


> But like the 24-105 vs 24-70 f/2.8, the 70-300 has some advantages over the 70-200 f/2.8, namely an extra 100mm in focal length.
> 
> The problem I have with the 24-70 f/4 is that it will duplicate the inevitable 24-70 f/2.8 IS which patents were filed for a while back. The 24-105 at least though would still have a spot in my kit for that extra range when needed.



I would be very surprised if Canon ever brought out an IS version of the 24-70L 2.8II. I think the f/4 version was intended to fill that IS void but I think in a sense they kinda failed. I'm not saying the f/4 isn't sharp, I'm sure it is but not close enough to the f/2.8 IMO as we thought it was gonna be, like the little brother of the 2.8. Instead it seems to marginally improve on the 24-105, which isn't hard! If it had been as sharp or close as the 2.8 and without the gimicky macro Canon could have even charged $1500 and I would have likely paid it. 

You see the 2.8 shouldn't need IS in theory. Canon's latest generation of pro cameras are able to shoot fairly clean shots at high ISO and the next gen will likely improve on that. Now, for those who NEED the IS there was the 24-105L but this needed an update so the 24-70 f/4 was born. Those who use IS will likely be using the lens for creating more dof for landscapes etc at sunrise or sunset, or traveling with it, which I think is what this smaller and lighter lens was intended for. Note how Canon improved the 24mm end especially over the 24-105. 

The 2.8 is more of a studio / pro lens and likely those folk will use a tripod anyway.


----------

