# Opinion: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 5, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/opinion-ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/opinion-ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>What do I think?


</strong>Since we gave a <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f4l-is-coming-cr3/" target="_blank">[CR3] to the EF 24-70 f/4L IS rumor</a>, there have been a lot of questions, confusion and opinions about why Canon would make such a lens. Especially since the very good EF 24-105 f/4L IS is already in the lineup. I just wanted to give my opinion about this upcoming lens, one that I think makes  a lot of sense. I’ll do this in FAQ format from emails I have received over the last week or so.</p>
<p>This is from the opinion of  a photographer, I can’t touch on the video angle. As <a href="http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/" target="_blank">Dan Chung</a> suggested, videographers do prefer the additional reach of the 24-105.</p>
<p><strong>Will the EF 24-105 f/4L IS remain current?


</strong>I do not know if the EF 24-105 f/4L IS will remain current in the Canon lineup. My gut tells me it will slowly disappear into the sunset until it’s gone, so it could last another 6 months or so. We’ll have to wait and see the official word from Canon.</p>
<p><strong>Why does the f/4 version get IS and the f/2.8 version does not?


</strong>I think the biggest reason it’s omitted in the f/2.8 version is size/bulk. Canon’s goal was to make the version II of the lens a lot lighter than the predecessor, and they accomplished that. I also don’t believe EOS 5D Mark III & EOS-1D X shooters need a stabilized lens for event or portrait work. It’s not genrally considered a “walk-around” lens. The f/4 version is going to be mated to a lot of EOS 6D’s, and may be the only lens people have on the camera at the beginning. IS is a nice feature if you’re travelling and shooting still things in low light.</p>
<p>There will always be some controversy on this one.</p>
<p><strong>Why would I buy the EF 24-70 f/4L IS over the EF 24-105 f/4L IS, when I get 35mm more reach with the latter?


</strong>First, I’d like to mention that the new EF 24-70 f/4L IS may be longer at the 70mm end then the model suggests. Lets wait and see if it’s actually 70mm, as it could be significantly longer. “24-70″ has appeal from a marketing standpoint, as it’s a highly desired focal range. If you look at the EF 70-200 f/4L IS, it’s actually quite a bit longer at the “70mm” end.</p>
<p>Second, I have worked in photo retail and own a lens rental company and I can honestly say that no one ever bought or rented an 24-105 f/4L IS over a 24-70 f/2.8L because of the additional 35mm of range. People were into the 24-105 because of price, size and IS. Now compared to an f/4 version of the 24-70, would people choose the 24-105 over it for the 35mm? I think very few would given the new lenses attributes. The reduced weight, better hybrid IS system, and most likely better optics will be big selling points. The much improved minimum focusing distance of 0.2m will also be a big deal as you’re getting a near macro lens as well. I also think that people will like not having overlap if they have a wonderful EF 70-200 f/4L IS, or 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS. Put a 17-40 f/4L in your kit and you have 3 lightweight lenses that would make a terrific kit for the amateur and professional that doesn’t need light gathering ability.</p>
<p>Now, there are definitely people out there that will disagree and prefer the 105mm on the long end, I can only tell you what I have experienced. Maybe Canadians are weird? :)</p>
<p>Thirdly, there may even people that own both of the new 24-70s. f/2.8 for your event photography and the f/4L IS when you’re out and about.</p>
<p><strong>What about the new EF 35 f/2 IS?


</strong>Great, if it performs like the new EF 24 f/2.8 IS and EF 28 f/2.8 IS lenses, it will be a keeper. This lens will probably become Canon’s most popular non L prime pretty quickly as it will make a nice pairing with the lightweight EOS 6D, I am really looking forward to trying one out. I also think if it’s priced liked the other new non L primes, people won’t mind as much due to the f/2.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

Worth noting - the 24-70/4 IS is almost a true macro lens. 

If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag of the 24-70/4 is pretty darn close to a true 1:1 macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). It's even higher than the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag (the only other lens that has it is the 100L Macro, but PowerShots also have H-IS since they have very close MFDs). 

So, this lens is a combination general purpose zoom *and near-macro* lens, something nonexistent in the current lineup. For people who like to shoot close ups (flowers, jewelry, etc.) this is like getting two lenses in one.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Worth noting - the 24-70/4 IS is almost a true macro lens.
> 
> If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag of the 24-70/4 is pretty darn close to a true 1:1 macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). It's even higher than the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag (the only other lens that has it is the 100L Macro, but PowerShots also have H-IS since they have very close MFDs).
> 
> So, this lens is a combination general purpose zoom *and near-macro* lens, something nonexistent in the current lineup. For people who like to shoot close ups (flowers, jewelry, etc.) this is like getting two lenses in one.



I just updated the post to include the 0.2m MFD, that's a pretty big deal.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 5, 2012)

price on the new 35mm is important....

i would like it on both APS-C and FF cameras.
but i guess it´s around 800-900 euro and then it will have to wait and fall a bit in price until it replaces my old one.


----------



## tomscott (Nov 5, 2012)

I think this just makes life a lot harder for the potential buyer. What to buy? Do any of these optimise what a standard Zoom should offer??

I still think the 17-55mm F2.8 offers the best all round want from a photographer for a standard zoom range. But they dont make one for full frame which would be the 24-70mm F2.8 IS. 

24-105mm F4 is a great focal length for a walk around lens, It is also not a bad price, good IQ and has IS.

24-70 F2.8 is in the stratosphere for most in terms of price. Its really ridiculous it would take nearly two weddings to afford the purchase price.

Wouldn't IS on a F2.8 make it a great walk around lens? Yes you loose 35mm but this would make it more useable in low light, 1/30th and below is the norm in low light trying to balance ISO with quality. So this would be stuck to your camera most of the time, and means you dont have to jump up the ISO.

24-70mm F4, ok IQ will be better and the MFD is a really good feature compared to the 24-105mm but I think Canon should be introducing better minimum focus distances on standard zooms anyway. If this is to be a walk around lens then the 35mm is quite a big deal. Its harder to use this in a professional sense because you have to cover a large light variance which is why 2.8 is more suitable.

What do people want? Well personally I like the 24-70mm focal length. I also like the F2.8 for light gathering, but I also find IS very useful, however steady you are you get camera shake at lower shutter speeds.

So here is the conundrum, to fill two needs, you would need to buy two lenses, the 24-105mm for walk around and the 24-70mm MKI F2.8. Because the 24-105 fills the need of only taking one lens with you, and the 24-70 fills the need of low light shooting for wedding photography. An F4 would be useless as a standard zoom for wedding photography. I like the 24-105mm range for walk around give you good scope, but 24-70 is also a nice range. But this defies the point of a standard zoom its supposed to fulfill that need, if you need two lenses to cover a standard range then somethings not quite right.

But at the moment non of the above offer everything what people seem to want. 

IMO the best lens to buy atm is a second hand 24-70mm MKI 2.8 most are £1000 cheaper than the 24-70MKII and £100 more than the 24-105mm but offers the 2.8 over the F4 and great IQ.

Would I care if the lens was heavier to include IS, would I hell. But it would also be beyond £2k which is also ridiculous.

So really there is no good choice. Seems you cant have everything you want in a standard zoom... yet if you go crop then you can have everything in the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Ridiculous.


----------



## marinien (Nov 5, 2012)

tomscott said:


> I think this just makes life a lot harder for the potential buyer. What to buy? Do any of these optimise what a standard Zoom should offer??
> 
> I still think the 17-55mm F2.8 offers the best all round want from a photographer for a standard zoom range. But they dont make one for full frame which would be the 24-70mm F2.8 IS.
> 
> ...



Except losing the f/2.8 for some AF points, the 24-105mm f/4 IS is the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 on crop, but better, in focal range and DOF


----------



## VORON (Nov 5, 2012)

I don't think it's a good idea to _replace _24-105/4 by 24-70/4. This year I've changed my 24-70/2.8L to 24-105 because of that extra 35 mm at tele end. I went to EOS 5D classic and I've noticed that 70 mm is too short on FF for shooting in mountains and so on (if I'm able to carry only one lens). 24-105 is a more versatile lens for a tourist like me.


----------



## tomscott (Nov 5, 2012)

So F4 on the 24-105 has the same light gathering ability as a 2.8 on a crop camera!? The DOF might be the similar but still means you can shoot in lower light!?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

tomscott said:


> So here is the conundrum, to fill two needs, you would need to buy two lenses...



Intentional or not, that's the sort of conundrum that Canon really likes!!



tomscott said:


> So F4 on the 24-105 has the same light gathering ability as a 2.8 on a crop camera!? The DOF might be the similar but still means you can shoot in lower light!?



You can shoot in lower light, potentially, when comparing 17-55/2.8 on APS-C to 24-105/4 on FF - the larger sensor gathers more _total_ light, meaning >1.3-stops better ISO performance, so you bump the ISO a stop to compensate, and you still have less noise at f/4 on FF, or you bump the ISO even more for the same noise and a faster shutter speed. Really - all you lose is the f/2.8-sensitive AF point(s).


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 5, 2012)

I seriously like the extra reach of the 35mm, which translates into the subject being nearly twice as large in the frame over 70mm...


----------



## CTJohn (Nov 5, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> I seriously like the extra reach of the 35mm, which translates into the subject being nearly twice as large in the frame over 70mm...


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> I seriously like the extra reach of the 35mm, which translates into the subject being nearly twice as large in the frame over 70mm...



I use the 24-105mm at 105mm a lot. But...if the IQ of the 24-70/4 IS trumps the 24-105/4 IS, this will be a tough choice - I'd strongly consider the 24-70/4 IS in that case.


----------



## RC (Nov 5, 2012)

So with the new 24, 28 and now 35 being f/2.8 or f/2 IS lens, I would expect to see a 50 IS at f/2 that will replace the old 1.4. This would leave the cheap 1.8, a new IS, and the L--I don't see a 4th 50 in the line up so the 1.4 will go. 

I see no way that Canon would make a 50 1.4 IS lens because it would cut into 1.2L sales. I predict we will see it Q1 2013.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

RC said:


> This would leave the cheap 1.8, a new IS, and the L--I don't see a 4th 50 in the line up so the 1.4 will go.



You mean a 5th - there's also the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro.


----------



## RC (Nov 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> RC said:
> 
> 
> > This would leave the cheap 1.8, a new IS, and the L--I don't see a 4th 50 in the line up so the 1.4 will go.
> ...


Oh ya, forgot about that guy. Forget he's under the Macro section.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 5, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Second, I have worked in photo retail and own a lens rental company and I can honestly say that no one ever bought or rented an 24-105 f/4L IS over a 24-70 f/2.8L because of the additional 35mm of range.



I did. I bought it for the additional range AND IS. If either had been missing, I would have bought something else. Having IS missing in the 24-70/2.8 means I'm not interested in the least.

The only reason I'd buy a 24-70/4 now despite its limited range is if I had enough pixels to crop to 105.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 5, 2012)

Amen, finally a replacement to the embarrassing prehistoric EF 35mm.

I am afraid it will cost 3 times the price though.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 5, 2012)

RC said:


> So with the new 24, 28 and now 35 being f/2.8 or f/2 IS lens, I would expect to see a 50 IS at f/2 that will replace the old 1.4. This would leave the cheap 1.8, a new IS, and the L--I don't see a 4th 50 in the line up so the 1.4 will go.
> 
> I see no way that Canon would make a 50 1.4 IS lens because it would cut into 1.2L sales. I predict we will see it Q1 2013.



I'd rather it go the other way....just upgrade the 1.4....leave it at 1.4, no IS better optics and keep it just shy of $500, then ditch the 1.8 and you IS needing folks can get your 2.0 IS for $900. I have a 1.4 50, got it for extreme DOF. If you take that away, no need for it...


----------



## K-amps (Nov 5, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Worth noting - the 24-70/4 IS is almost a true macro lens.
> ...



It is THIS attribute that may make me buy it. A tiny Macro zoom lens! That covers the gap I am missing in the 40-70mm area.. I suspect the optics of this guy could be better than the 24-105... 

Now if all this could come in a F2.8, it was a no brainer, but this product certainly has great appeal & Value at the sub $1k price level.


----------



## DB (Nov 5, 2012)

Good to see the 35mm f/2 getting a revamp with IS to boot! The old one was so flimsy looking that I opted for the 50mm 1.4 instead, although on a crop body I'd have preferred 35mm. The new one should sell well on both APS-C and FF bodies.

Canon have really pushed the 24-105 as the _de facto_ walk-around lens for several years now (always see it at Photokina on new bodies etc.), so it is hard to see them *discontinue* it, but somehow I think they will, because as I said in a related thread last week they're moving towards:

24-70mm f/4 USM
24-70mm f/4L IS USM
24-70mm f/2.8 II USM
24-70mm f/2.8 IS USM ??

If this is the case, then we could see (eventually) a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 materialize as the trinity of zooms 8)


----------



## mrmarks (Nov 5, 2012)

The IS in these two lenses will be useful for videos


----------



## pharp (Nov 5, 2012)

The 24-105 is good, but not stellar, maybe they've improved the optics? This is also significantly smaller/lighter than the 24-70 ii, and a little than the 24-105 - maybe they were looking for something to match the 6D? Cheaper? If true - all good. 

Also, maybe Canon was listening to me? Ha Ha ;D
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9767.0;topicseen

Test, next I want a FF 30MP camera in a 7D sized body, 12fps, 30AF points, accepts EF-S lenses for $1500 by summer 2013 - Canon?


----------



## robbymack (Nov 5, 2012)

When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 5, 2012)

robbymack said:


> When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.



I'm guessing...the price tag 24-70 f4 IS is $1599?


----------



## robbymack (Nov 5, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > When this puppy comes out it will be a hard choice between the 24-70f4 IS the 24-105, and the tamron 24-70 2.8 vc as they will all be around the same price. If you can get over the backwards zoom of the Tammy that's probably the lens of choice in this price range.
> ...



I wouldnt be surprised by that pricing, but if this is the kit lens going forward I'd expect it closer to $1200 like the 24-105 and about $800 in the kit. So it won't make munch sense for anyone to pick up this lens in its own. The 24-105 is likely on its way out, which is too bad, it's maybe the most perfect travel/general use lens on the market.


----------



## pharp (Nov 5, 2012)

robbymack said:


> The 24-105 is likely on its way out, which is too bad, it's maybe the most perfect travel/general use lens on the market.



I wouldn't worry about it, so many were made, they'll be available on the used market for yeaarrrs.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 5, 2012)

Canon is confusing me..
Why would they make the 24-70 f4?
The 24-105 has no rivals…and if they ever discontinue that, it would be a waste..they should improve it and release a ver 2.

The 24-70 f4 is supposed to be a 6D kit and if it's alot better than the 24-105, then why would anyone buy a 5D3 kit with the 25-105 then? 
Whatever the price, the 2.8 version is at least 2x more expensive…i hope this brings down the price of the 2.8 version.

I really can't understand Canon's logic with this new lens…then maybe the new 5D3 will also come with this kit and it will be more expensive than the 24-105kit  Good enough reason to make more $$


----------



## Zv (Nov 5, 2012)

The 24-70 f4 IS will be lighter, smaller, have closer MFD, hybrid IS, macro and probably better IQ than the 24-105 due to a shorter focal range. For those who don't require the range or have a 70-200 its no choice at all. Might even sell my 17-55 to fund it! 

The 24-105 is a victim of it's own succes. Far too economic! Canon will put and end to that!


----------



## MK5GTI (Nov 5, 2012)

i like the 24-105L range as well, since it cover the classic portrait range, 85mm, 90mm, 100mm as well, the 24-70 fell short in this regard on a FF.

if the $8xx price is right, hopefully white box coming out from 6D kit will sell for less in the 2nd hand market.


----------



## Iceman75 (Nov 5, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> I seriously like the extra reach of the 35mm, which translates into the subject being nearly twice as large in the frame over 70mm...


Same here... I was thinking a let whether to get the (old) 24-70/2,8 or the 24-105/4. I did not buy a new one and the prize tag on the used marked was pretty much the same these days (+/-50€).
There were 3 reasons for the 24-105
1) smaller (ok, the 24-70/4 will be even smaller a bit)
2) IS (ok, the new one will have that one, too)
3) the range

I am using the lens on both - 7D and 5D2 - I definitly would not want to miss the extra 35mm - no way going back to a shorter lens. And for sure I will not run around with the bulky 70-200 in order to get the extra 35mm. Whith this lens I do like 80% of my shots. And ven if I took a 70-200 with me - I love the little overlapping... this means that you don't need to switch lenses more often than necessary. I learned this when I used the combination 7D + 10-22 + 24-105. I got mad, having the switch like every 5 minutes when I was on holiday...
With some overlapping focal range I probably would have saved like 50% of lens swaps...


----------



## Stevo2008 (Nov 5, 2012)

Zv said:


> The 24-105 is a victim of it's own succes. Far too economic! Canon will put and end to that!


My guess is 24-105 will be replaced with a 24-120 f4 or f3.5-5.6 in a year or two.


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 5, 2012)

Here's a comparison at 70mm f/4 of the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 L IS. Gimme that kind of quality across the 24-70 range and I would gladly trade the extra 35mm of reach.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Quackator (Nov 5, 2012)

Another voice for renting the 24-105. I have had a hard time fighting for a decision 
about buying either the EF 2.8/24-70 L OR the EF 4.0/24-105 IS L.
I rented both several times, and sort of hated both. 

The 24-70 had no IS, not enough reach on the long end and the bigger diameter 
made it harder to handle. Also, the rented sample was badly decentered one time. 

The 24-105 had the reach, had IS, was nicer to handle, was more compact.
But it didn't offer the max aperture, and was badly prone to suffer from backlight.

In the end handling, reach and IS were the key reasons to finally buy the 24-105.
With a grumpy feeling about the lack of speed and the weak backlight performance.

So.... without the reach I am not a fan of the 4.0/24-70. I would have preferred a
2.8/24-70 with IS. Also I think that my next 35mm will be the Samyang/Rokinon
T1.5/35mm rather than the new 2.0/35mm.


----------



## FLOYD (Nov 5, 2012)

I have a C70-200 f / 4 L IS which is very sharp even at 18mpx APS-C and the new 24-70 f / 4 L IS will be as sharp as the 70-200 it will be very interesting option.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 5, 2012)

Pricing at $850 for the 24-70 f4 is wishful thinking.... :

This thing might be closer to $1700. 

Have you guys not seen recent Lens pricing? They want to make more money and the 24-105 is perhaps their best selling EF lens... if they can migrate the users to a 2x priced 24-70 F4L then they will do it. The new lens should have better resolution and contrast compared to the 24-105 which would remain as the budget general purpose till it disappears or becomes the replacement for the 28-135mm

"Eventually" the price of the 24-70 F4L may drop a bit, but not for a while... They will Milk it!


----------



## ablearcher (Nov 5, 2012)

I guess I'll pass with both of these... My 24-105L is my primary workhorse for studio shoots and the extra 35mm saves me a TON of time unless I work with two bodies. On 7D the 24-105 is pretty much everything I need for most of my studio work flow. I would also miss the extra 35mm for my "walk-arounds". I would, however, consider an upgraded MKII of the 24-105L - that would be a logical upgrade (for me). These days 24-105L can be had for less than $800. I wonder what kind of price Canon will put on the new 24-70 to make it attractive.

I'm happy with the 35L I have, so the new 35 2.0 is not really attractive for me... Again, it'll be interesting to see the price tag.

However, if priced right (compared to existing 24-105L and 35L), these two lenses could get a lot of interest from those who are just getting into the L territory along with 6D purchase.


----------



## Iceman75 (Nov 5, 2012)

I'd love if Canon made a 24-105/2,8L IS... I think I would even pay 3k for it...


----------



## Iceman75 (Nov 5, 2012)

BTW... the 35/2 IS sounds nice... only depends on the price tag. Since I am not too happy with my Sigma 30/1,4 this could become my lightweight Crop-"50mm" lens - the 35/1,4L is way too bulky


----------



## Jay Khaos (Nov 5, 2012)

I like the 24-105 f4, although I think it completely makes sense that they transition to the 24-70 focal length as the standard. I use mainly primes... don't own a 24-70 i or ii. But it makes a more solid case for owning BOTH a 24-70 AND 70-200, I think. Like someone mentioned earlier, it would make more sense that Canon would focus on a 4-lens lineup at this focal range to match the 70-200 options. 

Also... for a 24-105 to be f2.8 (with IS), wouldnt it have to be like twice the size??? probably a white lens..


----------



## Act444 (Nov 5, 2012)

I'd be curious to see how the new 35/2 compares with the current 35L in terms of IQ at f/2 and higher. It's already significantly smaller, lighter and has IS (with loss of 1 stop). Since the 35L has no weather sealing/is not significantly better built its only advantage would be the 1.4 (a very good one, as I love the look). Because of this I'd assume the 35L is due for an update soon at a price point probably closer to $2k...


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 5, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Amen, finally a replacement to the embarrassing prehistoric EF 35mm.


I'm very glad Canon is updating the 35/2! This update is long overdue. It will be wonderful to have a small, quiet, high-quality 35 — I'm assuming it will be high quality. I hope the 50/1.4 is next on the list of updates.


----------



## papa-razzi (Nov 5, 2012)

At first when I saw the 24-70 f/4L rumor it made no sense to me with a very good 24-105 f/4L in the lineup. Who would buy a lens that is basically the same as an existing lens but with a shorter focal length?

After reading some of the posts in this thread, I can see the value of the 24-70 f/4 IS. The close MFD, near macro capabilities, size & weight, and better optics. Fair enough.

However, it seems everyone is just accepting as fact that Canon will discontinue the 24-105 f/4 IS - but no one is giving any logical reason for this except canon wants to replace it with something more expensive. I don't see it as a replacement to the 24-105 f/4, so I'm not buying it. If Canon wanted to bump up the price of the kit lens they could introduce a mark II of the 24-105 f/4L and price it up a few hundred dollars.

I do not agree that Canon will discontinue the 24-105 f/4 because they introduce the 24-70 f/4.
- Canon has proven they are willing to keep lenses in the line up for decades. The 24-105 is a great lens and has a lot of life left in it just as it is. They may choose to leave it as is for a while. That is different than discontinuing it.

- Canon has no problem with maintaining 4 versions of the 70-200 in the lineup, and 3 versions of the 50mm. Similar lenses that have differences & different price points can all co-exist.

- Canon needs afordable quality lenses in their line up - much of the L line up is getting out of reach price-wise for a big part of the market. The 24-105 f/4L is a great value at a price point that is starting to appear "affordable" vs. the rest of the L lineup.

- We don't know pricing yet, but it is likely that the price of the 24-70 f/4L will be several hundred dollars above the 24-105 f/4L if Canon follows recent pricing practices.

Perhaps the L Kit lens becomes the 24-70 f/4L and replaces the 24-105 f/4L.

I haven't heard a convincing argument for Canon to discontinue the 24-105L. Maybe Craig has inside info he can't share. Or perhaps someone here can provide some logical reasons for the 24-105L to go away?


----------



## well_dunno (Nov 5, 2012)

in another thread, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10710.msg191905#msg191905, it has been suggested that the Yen price of the 24-70 f/4 translates to some $/€1700-1800. If that's true, a 24-105 below $/€ 1000 would not be good for the milk business... 

Cheers!


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 5, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> Canon has no problem with maintaining 4 versions of the 70-200 in the lineup, and 3 versions of the 50mm. Similar lenses that have differences & different price points can all co-exist.


I agree, I don't think they will discontinue the 24-105/4L, especially if the new 24-70/4L is more expensive. They actually offer 4 versions of the 50mm if you count the 50/2.5 compact macro.


----------



## tvs (Nov 5, 2012)

This is what I feel about 24-70 F4 IS.

Unlike the existing 24-105 F4IS, 24-70 F4 IS should have an internal focusing system. If it does, then it makes a good choice over 24-105.

Existing 24-105 does not have an internal focusing system making it difficult to use with polarizer and it is aways possible to change the focal point while you adjust the polarizer.


----------



## aznable (Nov 5, 2012)

the new 24-70 is a standard zoom lens and it is almost a real macro ...impressive result by canon.

this is the most complete all around lens to date


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2012)

tvs said:


> Existing 24-105 does not have an internal focusing system making it difficult to use with polarizer and it is aways possible to change the focal point while you adjust the polarizer.



Which 24-105mm lens are you using, and if it's the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, when/how did you break your copy? My copy, like all proprely working copies, is internal focusing, and the front element does not rotate with focusing or zoom extension. Using a CPL in no problem - the extending portion of the barrel does not rotate at all.


----------



## Springf (Nov 6, 2012)

From the trend, I feel that Canon will slowly update all its entry primes with IS

I could see that in 1~2 years time there will be 50 f/1.4 f/1.8 IS, 85 f/1.8 IS, 100 f/2 IS 

and I wonder that if they will put 135 f/2 L on IS too.


----------



## DB (Nov 6, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> Canon is confusing me..
> Why would they make the 24-70 f4?
> The 24-105 has no rivals…and if they ever discontinue that, it would be a waste..they should improve it and release a ver 2.
> 
> ...



Smaller + Lighter, that's the way Canon is moving


----------



## DB (Nov 6, 2012)

Springf said:


> From the trend, I feel that Canon will slowly update all its entry primes with IS
> 
> I could see that in 1~2 years time there will be 50 f/1.4 f/1.8 IS, 85 f/1.8 IS, 100 f/2 IS
> 
> and I wonder that if they will put 135 f/2 L on IS too.



It seems from practically all responses on multiple threads on CR that IS is certainly in demand from consumers, so you could be right about future developments. If you are, then it will take the pressure off higher ISO levels as more people will be shooting at slower shutter speeds in available light thanks to image stabilization.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 6, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ...then ditch the 1.8...



Thankfully Canon doesn't take only you into account when marketing lenses



ablearcher said:


> I guess I'll pass with both of these...
> 
> However, if priced right (compared to existing 24-105L and 35L), these two lenses could get a lot of interest from those who are just getting into the L territory along with 6D purchase.



+1 on both counts


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 6, 2012)

Springf said:


> From the trend, I feel that Canon will slowly update all its entry primes with IS
> 
> I could see that in 1~2 years time there will be 50 f/1.4 f/1.8 IS, 85 f/1.8 IS, 100 f/2 IS
> 
> and I wonder that if they will put 135 f/2 L on IS too.



They started at the wrong end - they should have started at the 135 and worked their way down through the 100 and 85 first. The 24 and 28 were the least interesting of the bunch.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Worth noting - the 24-70/4 IS is almost a true macro lens.
> 
> If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag of the 24-70/4 is pretty darn close to a true 1:1 macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). It's even higher than the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag (the only other lens that has it is the 100L Macro, but PowerShots also have H-IS since they have very close MFDs).
> 
> So, this lens is a combination general purpose zoom *and near-macro* lens, something nonexistent in the current lineup. For people who like to shoot close ups (flowers, jewelry, etc.) this is like getting two lenses in one.


I use my 24-105mmL for product photography, and its mfd is not as close as I'd like. Since the camera is bolted to a heavy table, the IS doesn't come into play, but mfd does.
I have the 100L, and I like the longer working distance, so its not likkely to go away.
I can see a 2 lens travel combination of 24-70 f/4 and 70-300L being pretty handy.


----------



## scrup (Nov 6, 2012)

Great marketing by canon.

Take away reach to get users to buy a telephoto lens and make it slow so you have to
eventually go buy a flash or a faster lens. 

Canon setting the LBA trap for its next generation of customers.

Judging by some comments on pricing i think the 35MM be the most expensive canon lens to sport a silver ring?


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 6, 2012)

the 35 f2IS REALLY apeals to me I am hoping it has brilliant IQ wide open

small compact typically ALL current f1.4 lenses need to be stopped down to f2 anyway
so if this is stellar wide open AND gets IS its gonna be flat out awesome on a 5Dmk3 or 1Dx for low light events

I'm definately looking forward to trying this one out


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 6, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > Amen, finally a replacement to the embarrassing prehistoric EF 35mm.
> ...


+1 
Or even a good 50mm f/2 USM (with IS hopefully!) would make me happy.....

The more I think about it, I do see a 50mm fast prime with USM and hopefully also IS coming up within the next 12 to 18 months..., probably sooner? A fast 50mm on a FF would be helpful for video (not that I'd use it for that.. ) I want to use is on my 7D as an equivalent 80mm fast prime....

The macro capability of the 24-70mm f/4 USM IS is a definitely bonus, and I don't underestimate how difficult that was to implement an almost 1:1 on a zoom lens like that. 

But on a FF, 70mm is too short for me.... I like at least equivalent of 120mm in my walk-around lens (horses for courses). That's why the 15-85mm on my 7D is so handy, covers the focal range that I want (equiv: 24 - 136mm) in a '1 lens travel solution' - while having great IQ across the range!

I'm sure many FF users (eg 6D camera purchases) will snap up the 24-70mm f/4 USM IS, particularly if it has great IQ. It would make a great budget(ish) 'travel landscape zoom' with the 6D.

Paul


----------



## vuilang (Nov 6, 2012)

mrmarks said:


> The IS in these two lenses will be useful for videos



How useful on video?

you mean useful when you handhold for your home/kid/family video?
or usefull when you mount it on the tripod?


----------



## gmrza (Nov 6, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Worth noting - the 24-70/4 IS is almost a true macro lens.
> ...



On the mfd side, this is where you may hit issues with the 24-70 f/4L IS USM:
According to dpreview.com:


> This all looks great in paper, but in practice things are a little more complicated, because the working distance in macro mode ends up being only about 3cm / 1.2" from the front of the lens to the subject. At this point, you're shooting an image area of about 51mm x 34mm (2" x 1.3") using a lens with a front diameter of 83mm (3.3"), which might make lighting your subject relatively difficult.



Details are at: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-usm/2


----------



## M.ST (Nov 6, 2012)

For 1.499 bucks the lens is very expensive. I prefer the 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## Pimpinella (Nov 6, 2012)

Can't imagine a lens i was missing less so far.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA. 

This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.


----------



## DB (Nov 6, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.
> 
> This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.



What do you want? Canon to sell it for $500 and make a LOSS then go BUST :

"_it proved to be neither_" - that's past tense! Affordability is subjective...depends on the consumer, plus this lens is not out yet 

Go back 6 months on CR and read how many contributors said @ $3.5k the 5D3 was DOA vs D800 and then look at the CR commentators that said 24-70mm mk II @ $2.3k was DOA.....several months on and they're in the kit bags of many CR bloggers. LOL


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 6, 2012)

DB said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is confusing me..
> ...



Well that's all relative, the 24-70mm will be 10% lighter than the 24-105mm for 25% focal loss, the ratio is not very favorable to the new one. 35mm f2 IS is 335g when the old 35mm EF was 210g, that's a 50% weight increase, so far for the smaller + lighter.

We are not even talking about price here the new 24-70mm being 50% more expensive than the 24-105mm.

The 35mm f2 EF "old" is sold in Europe for 245 Euro, the 35mm IS is announced at 850 Euro, thats more than 3 times the price !!! Thats the most expensive IS + USM upgrade ever sold. For the price, the lens HAS to be a killer.

To add about the macro function, it's to see in real life : 

1 - The macro function is a step back to zooms from the 1980s, where you had to lock the zoom on the longest focal before you can focus closer.

2 - Macro performance is not only about focusing closer, it's as well about field curvature (among other). Let's wait and see how flat is the field, since in my experience, strong field curvature on zoom can ruin macro capabilities.


----------



## DB (Nov 6, 2012)

The new 24-70mm f/4L IS is targeted at 6D owners - Canon mentioned this in the lens press release. The top of the range 24-70 f/2.8L II is aimed squarely at 1DX + 5D3 shooters. So the weight is important @ 600g on a 760g body, should keep the balance right


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

DB said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.
> ...



Well, I just picked up a new 24-105L for 750$. That alone says enough about the value for money of this lens. I could buy a 24-105L and a 100mm 2.8L macro for almost the price of the 24-70 F/4L.

Yes. Past Tense because it you cannot change it now that its been released. Its not cheap, its has a shorter reach and the 24-105L is already sharp.

The 5D3 is too expensive and many agree. I didn't pay full price for mine, I paid 3000$. The Fire sale on evil bay from adorama for 2799$ also says otherwise.

24-70 2.8L II is a work horse professional lens. We need speed and you pay premium for that but F/4? For 1500$? Bah!


----------

