# EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS - Discontinued?



## Aglet (Nov 1, 2014)

I was told, today, that this lens, which didn't sell very well compared to the pricier f/2.8 v2, is no longer available, at least in Canada. 
Heard that at one of my local camera stores. (sales ratio about 7:1 for the 2.8/4)

Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2014)

You know how reserved I am with my opinions, anybody that told you that is an idiot!

http://estore.canon.ca/shop/en-CA/catalog/lenses-flashes/standard-zoom-lenses/ef-24-70mm-f-4l-is-usm-6313b002-24


----------



## Aglet (Nov 1, 2014)

Despite the slow sales i was told of I think it's still quite a desirable lens with a good performance, features and price compromise. Which is why i find this hard to believe.

Considering the blow-out price they had them at for 7D2 preorders ($400!) it seems plausible they're trying to clear the (cdn) channel of stock for some reason. That's a ~65% discount from MSRP! I've never seen a Canon discount that big on such a young product. If not outright discontinued, perhaps they're being moved for an update of some sort. I'm scratching at straws here... ??? I'll try do some digging Saturday with some other suppliers.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Nov 1, 2014)

Here in Germany the Lens is also subsidized much more than other Gear.

I´ve took a look on this Lens, but also got an 2.8 L II - because of the often reported Weakness of the
f4 IS in closer Distances - for my wishes it would be better to exclude the "Macromode", but to 
deliver an optical Quality like the other new Lenses ( 24-70 f2.8 L II & 16-35 f4 L IS for Example ) .

Many Geeks read a lot bevor buying - possible the f4 does not sell well worldwide .

Just my 2ct´s

Bernd


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Despite the slow sales...



Do you think more MP-E 65's are sold than 24-70/4 IS lenses? The lens is very new, ROI is likely still quite negative. Canon may have initially overproduced the lens (relative to demand), they'll adjust that if necessary. No way the lens has need discontinued by Canon. Canon Canada may be able to choose not to sell it, just like Canon USA chose not to offer the two newer EF-M lenses, no idea if they have that freedom for an L-series lens.


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 1, 2014)

I'd guess this lens will end up the standard kit lens after the older 24-105 is discontinued.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 1, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> I'd guess this lens will end up the standard kit lens after the older 24-105 is discontinued.



Also, there is a new, albeit cheaper and slower 24-105 STM, which can replace 24-105L in cheap FF kits in the future (6D successors come in mind...)


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Nov 1, 2014)

im looking for this lens but im not payin 800 or more for it hopefully i find a seller in NYC via ebay
that just needs $$$ and will get rid of it for good price "hopefully its in great condition"
this lens is must have along with a 55-250 stm lens for my 70D and 7D mark 2


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 1, 2014)

It was to expensive at launch. I still think that it will become the successor to the 24-105L. The 28-135 STM is the replacement for old 28-135 USM. When stock of the 24-105L parts or contracts to build parts run low I expect it to be discontented. The 24-70 f/4 L IS will then be sold as an optional kit lens. 

Quite often stores decide what they will carry just because it is discontinued at a store does not mean they will no longer be sold elsewhere in Canada. They may have decided to no longer carry them because they cannot sell enough. 

Lets face it the 24-70 f/2.8 IS II has a larger audience than the 24-70 f/4 IS. Many buyers of the 24-70 II are upgraders from either the mark I or the 24-105L. If I owned ether of the lens I would not be looking at the 24-70 f/4 IS. The 24-105 f4 is still cheaper in may markets and has a better range. 

I expect that a full frame upgrade will include on sensor phase detection and video features similar to the 70D. The 28-135 STM will likely be a kit lens. Who knows this camera could be the 5D IV, 6D II, or some full frame rebel for all I know. I halfway expect a Full frame rebel before the 6D II.

"Fixed after waking up a little"


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 1, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> It was to expensive at launch. I still think that it will become the successor to the 24-105L. The 28-135 STM is the replacement for old 28-135 USM. When stock of the 24-105L parts or contracts to build parts run low I expect it to be discontented. The 24-75 f/4 L IS will then be sold as an optional kit lens.
> 
> Quite often stores decide what they will carry just because it is discontinued at a store does not mean they will no longer be sold elsewhere in Canada. They may have decided to no longer carry them because they cannot sell enough.
> 
> ...



There are so many things wrong with this post. You should proofread before posting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Lets face it the 24-75 f/2.8 IS II has a lager audience...



Indeed, because only people who've had excessive amounts of lager would believe in the existence of such a lens.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > Lets face it the 24-75 f/2.8 IS II has a lager audience...
> ...



What can I say I am an engineer spelling has never been my forte. This was also BC (Before Coffee). Misspelled words that are actual words do not get red squiggles underneath.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 1, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tcmatthews said:
> ...


What sort of engineer? Numbers appear to be a problem as well...


----------



## TeT (Nov 1, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> I'd guess this lens will end up the standard kit lens after the older 24-105 is discontinued.



I hope not, 24 105 II would be prefered... nothing against he 24 70, just prefer the extra 45 on the wide end...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2014)

How many times have we heard of a salesman telling someone that a certain product has been discontinued and offer to sell them something more expensive that just happens to be in stock.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 1, 2014)

TeT said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I'd guess this lens will end up the standard kit lens after the older 24-105 is discontinued.
> ...



I believe you mean long end. . But many agree with you. However, two of the main complaints about the 24-105 were minimum focus distance and lens creep while walking. The 24-70 f4 L seems to address both of them.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 1, 2014)

Khalai said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I'd guess this lens will end up the standard kit lens after the older 24-105 is discontinued.
> ...



That could be happening sooner rather than later. Amazon UK have removed the 'discontinued' marker from the 6D body only, but left the 6D kit discontinued. This makes sense as the 24-105 STM is released on 7 November, and Canon could reduce the sticker price of the 6D kit by using the STM version, without cutting their margin. I expect that the 5D3 kit will keep its red ring.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 1, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> How many times have we heard of a salesman telling someone that a certain product has been discontinued and offer to sell them something more expensive that just happens to be in stock.



yeah it might just be this sort of nonsense

i can't fathom them pulling this new lens, it performs well, what other zoom performs better at 24mm than this other than the larger, heavier, much more expensive 24-70 II? 

maybe they were just trying to upsell the 24-70 II (which is a great lens though)


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 1, 2014)

To me it's a totally different thing to discontinue a kit, and to discontinue a part from that kit. This way it makes much more sense - Canon won't offer this particular kit any more.


----------



## Davebo (Nov 1, 2014)

Canadian consumers can get a 6D kit with either the 24-105 f/4 OR the 24-70 f/4. One major retailer is selling the 6D+ 24-70 f/4 kit for $2,099.99... right now. Most retailers are selling the body only for $1,699.99...so that makes the 24-70 f/4 only $400,if bought in the kit. This the same price Canon has offered the 24-70 f/4 for, if pre-ordered with a 7D Mark II.
These actions likely fuel speculation that there is a 'dump' before discontinuation. May be a case of Canon Canada being overstocked on a lens that for some reason hasn't moved very fast .....year end is in sight and they have a bottom line to deliver.


----------



## TeT (Nov 1, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...



Yes Long end... 



Khalai said:


> Also, there is a new, albeit cheaper and slower 24-105 STM, which can replace 24-105L in cheap FF kits in the future (6D successors come in mind...)



Any attempts to slip a slower 24 105 into the kits would boost the resale value of 24 105 4's (both Canon & Sigma). Despite its known issues it is very popular for good reason...


----------



## Aglet (Nov 2, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have we heard of a salesman telling someone that a certain product has been discontinued and offer to sell them something more expensive that just happens to be in stock.
> ...



certainly wasn't an upsell tactic in this case
but could have something to do with Canon re-jigging how they stock and kit the lens for the Cdn market.
Maybe just a temporary stop on orders while the 7D2 kits get fulfilled with allocated lenses.
Only spoke to one other supplier today, they were not aware of any discontinuation or even order holdbacks due to allocation. So I might just have been fed something that was store-chain specific.
I think this would be a nice lens to see kitted with 6D or even a crop body for about $400-450 extra.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 2, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I was told, today, that this lens, which didn't sell very well compared to the pricier f/2.8 v2, is no longer available, at least in Canada.
> Heard that at one of my local camera stores. (sales ratio about 7:1 for the 2.8/4)
> 
> Can anyone confirm this?


Seems to be salesman strategy to sell something more expensive.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Nov 10, 2014)

hmmm... it might not be as mass produced as they would want, but i doubt they would just axe it this early!


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 10, 2014)

I've just bought one. The combination of great handling, weatherproof construction, and the killer feature - 0.7:1 macro mode with hybrid IS - made it perfect for me once the price became reasonable. There's a £160 cashback on it in the UK, which finally tipped the balance.

Realistically there is no way a two year old lens would be discontinued, but the launch price was ludicrous so it can't have sold well. Maybe it will now, especially if the 24-105L has effectively been replaced by the nice but slower 24-105 STM.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Nov 10, 2014)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I've just bought one. The combination of great handling, weatherproof construction, and the killer feature - 0.7:1 macro mode with hybrid IS - made it perfect for me once the price became reasonable. There's a £160 cashback on it in the UK, which finally tipped the balance.



How have you found the macro feature? I'm not a bug eyeball chaser, more of a flower and 'close up' shooter. Does it suffice? What about all the talk about issues at 50mm and whatever?

BTW to the OP, salespeople regularly lie. Salespeople regularly know way less than customers about their own products. Salesperson doesn't know squat about the 24-70/4.


----------



## bitm2007 (Nov 10, 2014)

> I've just bought one. The combination of great handling, weatherproof construction, and the killer feature - 0.7:1 macro mode with hybrid IS - made it perfect for me once the price became reasonable. There's a £160 cashback on it in the UK, which finally tipped the balance.



I'm seriously considering purchasing the 24-70mm f4 L as well. At £719 from Bristol Camera's less £160 cashback from Canon, it looks like a great deal. My 24-105mm L should make around £400 on ebay, so the upgrade would only set me back around £150. Has anybody-else made this switch and was it worthwhile ?.

The festive period could be more expensive than normal for me, Amazon UK is offering the 16-35mm f4 for only £816.65 (almost £200 less than anywhere else in the UK) less £60 cashback from Canon.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 10, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > I've just bought one. The combination of great handling, weatherproof construction, and the killer feature - 0.7:1 macro mode with hybrid IS - made it perfect for me once the price became reasonable. There's a £160 cashback on it in the UK, which finally tipped the balance.
> ...



I am a bug eyeball chaser, but not with this lens. Having it doesn't replace a macro lens, but it means I am less likely to need to swap to a macro lens in that very common 1:2 to 1:5 range which I use all the time for small stuff such as fungi at this time of the year, wild flowers in the spring/summer, etc.

I took this at the weekend, purely to test the lens on a real subject at maximum magnification:







The image quality is good, but the working distance is very close - barely more than 3 cm. That soon increases at more modest magnifications though, which is where I expect to use it. I only took this as a test, and it's great to have this capability.

I haven't tested image quality exhaustively but I very quickly discovered that IQ at MFD _in non-macro mode _is not perfect. The solution is simple - switch to macro mode, then it is very good indeed. It's cleverly implemented so that you can use it right out to a distance of several feet - macro mode is not macro only, it's for anything fairly close. It will be superb for flowers and general close-up work.

Don't be misled by the fact that I've made a couple of negative comments - those are things you need to know, but this is a very good all-round workhorse lens. The only similar lens I know of which offers significantly higher IQ overall is the 24-70/2.8L MkII for twice the price, much more size and weight, 0.21x maximum magnification, and no IS.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 10, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> How many times have we heard of a salesman telling someone that a certain product has been discontinued and offer to sell them something more expensive that just happens to be in stock.


+1


----------



## sulla (Nov 10, 2014)

folks, folks, folks, letters and numbers... zzzzz

PS:
I don't want to be fussy, but the difference between 105mm and 70mm only seems to be 35mm to me...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2014)

sulla said:


> folks, folks, folks, letters and numbers... zzzzz
> 
> PS:
> I don't want to be fussy, but the difference between 105mm and 70mm only seems to be 35mm to me...



Wow, sorry but that is a silly thing to say, 35mm is 50% of 70mm, that is like saying there is not much difference between a 400mm and a 600mm, or a 16mm and a 24mm.

Now if you can't see the difference between 16 and 24, or 400 and 600, then you probably don't need to be shooting an interchangeable lens DSLR.


----------



## sulla (Nov 10, 2014)

no no no no no, I wasn't diminishing the differnce between 105mm and 70mm folcal length. This is a huge difference, obviously.

But in an earlier post people were joking about spelling mistakes and number mistakes, and in one post it was stated that the difference between 105 and 70 was 45. To me, 105-70 = 35 "only" ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2014)

sulla said:


> no no no no no, I wasn't diminishing the differnce between 105mm and 70mm folcal length. This is a huge difference, obviously.
> 
> But in an earlier post people were joking about spelling mistakes and number mistakes, and in one post it was stated that the difference between 105 and 70 was 45. To me, 105-70 = 35 "only" ...


Sorry, I missed the earlier comment. My apologies


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 10, 2014)

certainly Canon got their a** handed to them for the outrageuosly high launch price of the 24-70 L IS. 

At least in central Europe this lens seems to not move at all. Canon is definitely desparately "cashbacking" it ... I've not seen such rapidly falling prices with any other new L lens before. http://geizhals.at/eu/?phist=861236
It may well fall another 150 - 200 € ... down to current 24-105 L price levels quite soon. 

But I do not expect them to discontinue the lens or replace it soon. Depending on how well the 24-105 STM (non L) does, Canon may have to bring a 24-105 L Mk. II.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 10, 2014)

*Embarrassing U-turn...*

*Well, this is very embarrassing but I'm going to have to take back what I said about this lens.* One particular post I read (elsewhere) talked about focus shift, and that rang a bell because some of the close up shots I took yesterday were mysteriously out of focus - I thought I'd focused carefully but then when I got them home they were wrong. Specifically they were back-focused. I just put it down to pilot error.

So I've just conducted a simple test - ruler on the table, camera on a tripod, very oblique angle, aim at 10 cm on the ruler, focus carefully using 10x Live View, and shoot at f/4, f/5.6/ f/8, f/11. First in non-macro mode - and sure enough there is very serious focus shift. I mean, at f/8 it is so bad that the intended focus point (the 10 cm line) is actually out of focus. So I tried again in macro mode, expecting the problem to vanish. Shooting as I was from about 43 cm, the overall IQ was noticeably higher, but the focus shift is still there.






This is the non-macro mode test - click the image to see it full size. You can clearly see that the left-hand (f/4) image is focused on the 10 cm line; f/5.6 is focused at 10.7-ish; f/8 at 11.5-ish (and notice how the 10 cm line is well out of focus now; f/11 is harder to judge but say 12 cm. (NB if you are unfamiliar with this - the aperture is the only change between shots - there is no refocusing.)

There one more part to the story which I'd better tell. This is actually my second copy of the lens. The first one went straight back because I couldn't get a sharp image from it. The supplier, who I won't name because this is not their fault, was very helpful and sent out an immediate replacement. Great service actually. However it arrived on Monday and due to work commitments I didn't use the lens until the weekend. Now I realise why I couldn't get sharp images from the first lens!

It's a tragedy as far as I am concerned. The specification of this lens is exactly what I needed, but it doesn't work - it's not fit for purpose. No wonder Canon is selling them off cheap. Well, this one is going back.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 10, 2014)

The lens has already been reviewed several times as weak on closeups and Macro. I had considered getting one just for the Macro feature, but passed. I have a 100 L, but in many cases, 50mm would be a better focal length.


----------



## D. (Nov 10, 2014)

Steve, Photozone, in their review of the 20-70 F/4 lens noticed the focus shift issue as well. The good news is that Canon has some other very good general purpose zoom lenses you can get instead.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 10, 2014)

D. said:


> Steve, Photozone, in their review of the 20-70 F/4 lens noticed the focus shift issue as well. The good news is that Canon has some other very good general purpose zoom lenses you can get instead.





Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The lens has already been reviewed several times as weak on closeups and Macro. I had considered getting one just for the Macro feature, but passed. I have a 100 L, but in many cases, 50mm would be a better focal length.



Like I said, it's embarrassing. I should have done more research, it wasn't exactly hard to find.


----------

