# EOS 5D Mark III w/24-70 f/4L IS Kit Coming Soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 5, 2013)

```
<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/2013/06/eos-5d-mark-iii-w24-70-f4l-is-kit-coming-soon/"></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/2013/06/eos-5d-mark-iii-w24-70-f4l-is-kit-coming-soon/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Is the EF 24-105 f/4L IS Going Away?

</strong>The EF 24-70 f/4L IS will soon be kitted with the EOS 5D Mark III. I’m also hoping we’ll see it with the EOS 6D as well.</p>
<p>The release date for the new kit(s) is June 13, 2013.</p>
<p>As of writing this, we have no pricing. Expect to see some “white box” discounts on the EF 24-70 f/4L IS soon.</p>
<p>I haven’t heard anything in regards to the EF 24-105 f/4L IS getting discontinued, so I’d expect to see that lens in kits for some time to come.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA24704U.html?kbid=64393">EF 24-70 f/4L IS $1199</a></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jun 5, 2013)

I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.

If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2013)

jeff92k7 said:


> I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. ... do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?



Actually, I think you get the point of the 24-70mm f/4L IS lens (in conjunction with discontinuing the 24-105L) just perfectly...


----------



## sanj (Jun 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jeff92k7 said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. ... do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?
> ...



Sic!


----------



## Jan Jasinski (Jun 5, 2013)

The 6D already comes with the 24-70 f/4L as a kit at Vistek in Canada:

http://vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/266307/canon-eos-6d-w-ef-2470mm-f40l-usm-kit.aspx


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2013)

Jan Jasinski said:


> The 6D already comes with the 24-70 f/4L as a kit at Vistek in Canada:
> 
> http://vistek.ca/store/DigitalSLRs/266307/canon-eos-6d-w-ef-2470mm-f40l-usm-kit.aspx



Good catch. Henry's too. It does appear to be a Canon kit, based on having a unique Canon item code.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 5, 2013)

Pretty clever way to boost the price of the 5dIII kit back up...unfortunately for Canon, it just likely means fewer kit sales. Will be nice to see the 24-70 f/4 price plummet though, in case I ever go full-frame. It's a nice full-frame equivalent to something like the Sigma 17-70 macro combo.


----------



## iowapipe (Jun 5, 2013)

jeff92k7 said:


> I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.
> 
> If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?



And I also think you hit the nail on the head. The 24-105 is a fine lens to carry around that covers a nice range for many activities and casual snapping. I added one over a year ago and find it often on my camera unless I know I have a particular need. Typically the focal lengths I tend to shot at are the 35-42mm, and 85-95mm ranges. (with it open to 24 a good amount of time also) 
It is very convenient to not carry 2 or 3 lenses even though it seems I would be happy with the 35 and 100mm primes most of the time. I've rented the 24-70 f/2.8 II to try it out, lovely lens. I just found myself wanting a little more at the long end fairly often, and the $$... geesh. 
Faced with the discontinuance of the lens, I might opt for a non-canon 24-70, and think about the 100 macro also. ( I already own the 70-200 f/4, and don't want the weight of the f/2.8 )


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 5, 2013)

jeff92k7 said:


> I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.
> 
> If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?




Because it _is_ optically superior to the 24-105, in fact it's way ahead of even our very good copy of the 24-105. 

Agreed at the present time it looks over priced against the longer zoom, but that lens has been around since 2005, and at the time of its introduction was the same higher price. 

We got ours as an official kit in England, but our local professional dealer in Leeds, North of England seemed to be the only retailer offering it.


----------



## jarrieta (Jun 5, 2013)

When I was at the Canon store in the Philippines last Sunday, they were selling the 6D kit with the 24-70 f/4.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, I think you get the point of the 24-70mm f/4L IS lens (in conjunction with discontinuing the 24-105L) just perfectly...



Makes perfect business sense, the 24-70mm f4 IS when sold as the same kit camera will probably yield at least a similar or more probably better return over the 24-105mm kit, through improved material use, manufacturing processes, streamlined optic production and different less costly electronics and internal parts - perfect for the shareholders. Makes even more sense when you consider many users will be more encouraged to buy a second longer reach lens, or even go for the recently patented 28-200mm lens as an all in one or even alternative kit option. I can't see the 24-70 costing more to make than the now aging 24-105 (8 years is a long time for a kit lens - even if it is a L kit), Canon are simply just charging what they feel they can sell the lens for.


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 5, 2013)

jeff92k7 said:


> I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.
> 
> If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?



I actually can't imagine any other reason why Canon is producing such a lens, but I can't believe they're gonna remove a 24-105 from their lineup. Maybe the 24-70/4 was just a "hiccup". It happens. But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?


----------



## blonigan16 (Jun 5, 2013)

You can buy the 6D 24-70 f/4L Kit over here in Switzerland for CHF3050.- ($3230)

https://www.digitec.ch/ProdukteDetails2.aspx?Reiter=Bilder&Artikel=257606


----------



## discojuggernaut (Jun 5, 2013)

Hybrid IS, sharp MTF, small size, and close MFD/Macro mode make this a tempting lens if it gets down to a reasonable price point (for me it would be $850-$900). Bonus points if it doesn't distort on the wide end.

Seems it would make an awesome club photography lens to mix flash and long exposure ambient, having the IS to be able to hold the background still for a while.


----------



## CTJohn (Jun 5, 2013)

I love my 24-105L, it's a great walk around lens, and gives me a lot of flexibility. I'd really hate to be stuck at 70mm on the long side, especially since I bought a 6D. I haven't used the 24-70, but can't imagine the image upgrade would be enough to make me want to give up 70-105 coverage and have to lug around a second lens.


----------



## gmrza (Jun 5, 2013)

discojuggernaut said:


> Hybrid IS, sharp MTF, small size, and close MFD/Macro mode make this a tempting lens if it gets down to a reasonable price point (for me it would be $850-$900). Bonus points if it doesn't distort on the wide end.
> 
> Seems it would make an awesome club photography lens to mix flash and long exposure ambient, having the IS to be able to hold the background still for a while.



It could be a harbinger of higher resolution sensors in the future - the resolving power of the 24-105 is not up there with the 24-70s or the 70-200s.

That said, it is still an awesome lens, and existing copies may well appreciate in value if it is discontinued.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jun 5, 2013)

I'm glad I got the 24-105L with my 6D. I too like the extra reach.


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 5, 2013)

discojuggernaut said:


> Hybrid IS, sharp MTF, small size, and close MFD/Macro mode make this a tempting lens if it gets down to a reasonable price point (for me it would be $850-$900). Bonus points if it doesn't distort on the wide end.
> 
> Seems it would make an awesome club photography lens to mix flash and long exposure ambient, having the IS to be able to hold the background still for a while.



I used both lenses and in my experience sharpness differences are very marginal (as you can see from Canon official MTF too) distortion at 24mm is still high and IS is not better than the 24-105 one. The only real advantages of the 24-70/4 are the smaller size, the lighter weight and most of all the shortest MFD, but they can't compensate, in my opinion, the shortest focal range and the much higher price. At first, I even thought I had a defective copy, but as you can see from online tests my impressions are widely confirmed...


----------



## Act444 (Jun 5, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> I love my 24-105L, it's a great walk around lens, and gives me a lot of flexibility. I'd really hate to be stuck at 70mm on the long side, especially since I bought a 6D. I haven't used the 24-70, but can't imagine the image upgrade would be enough to make me want to give up 70-105 coverage and have to lug around a second lens.



I took test shots with the 24-70 at the store...and in short, compared to the 24-105, while I do see improvement at 24mm, it has a noticeable weak spot- right at 50mm. You give, you take as well...

If it delivered the performance of the 2.8 II version with one less stop and a lower price, that would be super appealing and a reason to choose it over the 24-105. Unfortunately, it cannot match. The only extra thing it offers is the "gimmick" macro mode...

I guess it depends on your style of photography...but as far as travel flexibility goes, I can't think of a better "compromise" package than the 24-105.


----------



## SpecialGregg (Jun 6, 2013)

Maybe they're just not selling enough of them since there's no significant benefit over the 24-105, and they feel throwing them in kits is a good way to get rid of them ;-)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

jeff92k7 said:


> I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.
> 
> If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?



Because it's not comparable in optical quality. Word is it is definitely better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?



Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??

(I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> luciolepri said:
> 
> 
> > But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?
> ...



In my opinion, if you consider "crappy" the performances of the 24-105, you need at least a 24-70/2,8 II to see a real difference. But distortion at 24mm is evident anyway, so if you need a good 24mm the only reasonable choices are the primes. I can't consider the 24-70/4 anything but useless. Unless weight, dimensions and MFD are crucial.
Anyway, I have to say that I work 99% of the times in the video field, where resolution differences are less evident, I never used the 24-70/4 for pictures, so maybe I'm missing something...


----------



## AG (Jun 6, 2013)

I can also see this being appealing to video shooters like myself too. Where the fact that the lens is f4 doesnt really matter when shooting interviews with a swaying subject, more likely you are sitting at f8 anyhow to not have to continually pull focus.

Sure the loss of the 105 end will be missed, but when you have a lens case full of cine primes and just need to shoot that handheld shot from within a car at 35mm the IS in this lens would be handy, also the macro for face and eye ECU.

As for people that are complaining that they will lose too much as a "walk around lens", take a look at your pictures you have taken. What was the main focal length you shot at? and if you are walking cant you just take a step or two forward? (i understand not always possible)

Im also waiting for Canon to announce something like a "twin lens kit" with this and the 70-200 f4 IS bundled with a 6D for the advanced hobbyist (or first timer with more money than skill).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 6, 2013)

I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it. The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens. F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D. The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi. 

When I read all the pro reviews on the 6D back then it was all negative. Then I started reading reviews from owners and it was all positive. Pretty obvious what is going on isn't it.

Jack


----------



## bholliman (Jun 6, 2013)

gmrza said:


> the resolving power of the 24-105 is not up there with the 24-70s or the 70-200s.



All the comparisons between the 24-105 and 24-70 f/4.0 show they are very similar in IQ. About the only advantage the 24-70 f/4.0 brings to the table is its near macro capabilities. 

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

Canon's pricing of the individual 24-70 f/4.0 lenses makes the venerable 24-105 look good by comparison.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
> (I got the 24-70 II 2.8, but I can see people going for 24-70 f/4 IS.)



If the 24-105 has "crappy" wide end performance, so does the 24-70 f/4.0, they are very similar optically. 

Your 24-70 2.8 II of course puts both to shame!


----------



## x-vision (Jun 6, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> But, most of all, who the hell and why bought the 24-70/4, seeing the 24-105 is still out!?!?



If I have to choose between the 24-70 and 24-105, I'd go for the former ... but only after its price drops below $1K.
To me, the current premium for the 24-70 is totally unjustified.


----------



## Lemon (Jun 6, 2013)

The 6D with 24-70 F4L IS is sold here in Japan as a kit for a quite a while already, side by side with the 24-105 kit.

There is no 5D MkIII with 24-70 kit at the moment though, only with 24-105.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jun 6, 2013)

Lemon said:


> The 6D with 24-70 F4L IS is sold here in Japan as a kit for a quite a while already, side by side with the 24-105 kit.
> 
> There is no 5D MkIII with 24-70 kit at the moment though, only with 24-105.



Yeah and Yodobashi is filled with both the 24-70 and 24-105 for trying out, the 24-105 is shown on a 1DX as well. It seems logical to discontinue that lens but it doesn't look like it's going anywhere yet


----------



## clicstudio (Jun 6, 2013)

It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105. 
Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be. 
I own the 24-70 F2.8L II and As my only Lens, I can't find a better replacement. 
I just wish I had the additional 35mm sometimes.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 6, 2013)

Perfect set for 3,4,5ti shooters to jump into FF world.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> I love my 24-105L, it's a great walk around lens, and gives me a lot of flexibility. I'd really hate to be stuck at 70mm on the long side, especially since I bought a 6D. I haven't used the 24-70, but can't imagine the image upgrade would be enough to make me want to give up 70-105 coverage and have to lug around a second lens.



Agree agree agree


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2013)

clicstudio said:


> It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
> Lens and a waste of effort for Canon. For the same money, I'd get the 24-105.
> Now, if the old 24-105 were to be discontinued, I hope they make a 24-105
> F2.8L. I don't care how heavy or bulky it would have to be.
> ...



You forgot to add IS.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 6, 2013)

This really is the 70-300L all over again - a lens that is now proving itself IQ wise - yet at it's introduction was met with howls of derision. The reviewers stated it wasn't as good as the 70-200 and only marginally better than the non L - all rubbish in practice. 

Guys: this 24-70 f4 _is _ better than the 24-105 in every way - apart from reach and price. The price wil undoubtably come down.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > luciolepri said:
> ...



Yeah video is a lot different than stills.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

bholliman said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Those who don't want crappy wide end performance on FF??
> ...



Perhaps. I've never used the 24-70 f/4 IS but the MTF charts from Canon are much better at 24mm and the results at Lens Rentals were also better than the 24-105 L.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 6, 2013)

Jack Douglas said:


> I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it. The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens. F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D. The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi.



I have a DSLR for about 5 years, and have never bought a macro lens, because it doesn't interest me. I do like having more focal length on my kit lens.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 6, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I bought my 6D with the 24-70 kit lens in Feb. here in Canada and I don't regret it. The macro is so quick and easy to use and is great for a holiday person who likes to get shots of small things and I love the lens. F4 is fine with the high ISO of the 6D. The macro mode is a gimmick just like WiFi.
> ...



Then I guess, the kit's not for you. There are other kits that includes 24-105 or 24-70 F2.8. I think people complaints are unwarranted since other choices still remain.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 6, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Indeed - as long as the 24-105mm is not discontinued, I have no issues with Canon selling whatever other kits.


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 6, 2013)

sanj said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > It seems everybody agrees this is a useless
> ...



Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.
Anyway, with good optical performances, that would be a really "do-it-all" lens. 24-90 would be already a good step in that direction, but I don't know how convenient for Canon would be to make such a lens, unless it is extremely expensive. Sorry for the OT...


----------



## BagJunkie (Jun 6, 2013)

jeff92k7 said:


> I still don't get the point of the 24-70 f4 lens. It's more expensive than the 24-105, has less focal length range, and is comparable in optical quality. Why? Just why? If you want noticeably better optical quality, then go for the 24-70 f2.8. Otherwise, you're better off with the 24-105 for less money.
> 
> If you're right and Canon is going to discontinue the 24-105, then will they bring something to replace it or do they want to force users to a smaller focal length range so that users spend even more money to add a 70-200 version to make up for it?




As many others I think you're right. Then I started thinking about the 100-400, a lot of rumors about that lens too; getting a makeover or simply getting discontinued?
Discontinuing the 24-105 (which I love), makes no sense keeping the 100-400 reach. These two lenses are a perfect combo. But then again they still have the 70-300 as a combo with the 24-70f4.

Maybe i need to buy that 100-400 asap unless i want to buy a used one.


----------



## gwflauto (Jun 6, 2013)

I think the 24-70 f/4L IS is a vey fine lens. I love it. I use it a lot. But when I was offerd that lens in a kit with the 6D, the kit was priced considerably higher than buying camera and lens separately from the same store. After some negotiation they lowered the kit price by several hundred $. Pricing can be funny at times.
The kit is a perfect combination for me. And it is a lot of fun to add more glass.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jun 6, 2013)

Maybe Canon will replace its 2005 24-105 with a 24-120 F/4 IS L (hopefully better than its Nikon rival).

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...



Lets not compare lemons with oranges. It is irrelevant what Tamron did.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 6, 2013)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...



OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm. However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge. At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center. at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away!  

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

So, overall sharpness is a wash between the two lenses. The 24-70 is slightly better at both ends and the 24-105 better in the center focal lengths.

Unless you need its near macro capabilities or shoot primarily at 24mm there are no advantages to the considerably more expensive 24-70 f/4.0.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 6, 2013)

All this will do is drive up the 24-105L prices. 8)


----------



## wsheldon (Jun 6, 2013)

bholliman said:


> OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm. However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge. At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center. at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away!
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
> 
> ...



Don't forget about the significant focus-shift problem when stopping down observed by Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1) and confirmed by others. That may negate some of the benefits of the 'macro mode' and cause other headaches with inconsistent focus across focal lengths. AF is done with the lens wide open, so if the focus shifts when the lens stops down to varying degrees that could be very frustrating at short distances with limited DOF.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 6, 2013)

wsheldon said:


> Don't forget about the significant focus-shift problem when stopping down observed by Photozone (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1) and confirmed by others. That may negate some of the benefits of the 'macro mode' and cause other headaches with inconsistent focus across focal lengths. AF is done with the lens wide open, so if the focus shifts when the lens stops down to varying degrees that could be very frustrating at short distances with limited DOF.



Thanks for the reference, I had missed that. 

Significant issue, making it that much easier to avoid this overpriced lens in favor of the 24-105 - as long as Canon doesn't discontinue it...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.



You mean the 28-75 2.8?
That was an amazing lens! Sharper than the 24-105L for like 1/4 the price. AF was VERY slow and no IS of course though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

bholliman said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Maybe. I don't always find TDP matches what I've seen though. I trust Lens Rentals (where they also test like 50 copies of each lens) and Photozone more, although TDP has gotten better in recent years. One thing that can make results vary is whether a site refocuses for edges or not (and if not it makes the alignment problem very tricky; as for real world sometimes it tells the much truer picture and sometimes not) and how close the test target is.

24mm and near was always a very key zone for me with a general wide/standard zoom though since the long end is already handled superbly by 70-200/300 type lenses and getting something sharp near 24mm on FF was always a holy grail for zooms. That was always the real trick. Many could handle the other parts decently enough. The 24-70 II 2.8 finally does it at the wide end. It sounds like the 24-70 f/4 IS may more or less do it. If you don't care about 24mm, I'd just as soon stick with a cheap, light, fast 50mm and a 70-200/300 myself.

But yeah I guess it depends how much you care about the wide end or not.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2013)

wsheldon said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I'll concede that the 24-70 f/4.0 gets the edge in edge sharpness and distortion at 24mm. However, by 35mm and 50mm the 24-105 is sharper edge-to-edge. At 70mm the 24-70 is sharper at the edges, but the 24-105 sharper in the center. at 105mm the 24-105 wins going away!
> ...



Even the 24-70 II 2.8 does a decent amount of focus shift anywhere near MFD. I was shooting some Christmas tree ornaments up close and I'd focus in liveview and it would look perfect and then boom the shot would be OOF! FInally I stopped it down while liveview focusing and then the shots remained in focus.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 6, 2013)

we always had the 24-70f4LIS kit here in japan.
and there are two EOS6D kits here :the 24-70f4LIS kit and the 24-105f4LIS kit.
the 24-70mmf4LIS kit is about 43000yen(roughly 430USD) more expensive than the 24-105mm f4LIS kit.
I have been debating which kit to buy for a long time, I've decided to get the 6D for its extreme high ISO capability combined with the -3 EV lowlight AF but not sure about which std lens to get with it.
I also consider just a 6D body alone +EF35mmf2ISUSM but it is cheaper to get the kit than the body alone.
the 5D3 is a great body but the 5D3 kit is just a bit too expensive , especially for a dual mount user like me.
if I decide I can live with only Canon kit , then I will get the 5D3 in addition to the 6D, though for now , I think I want to keep my Nikon and Fuji systems intact in addition to the Canon.

BTW, Canon says the 24-70mmf4LISUSM lens got some special tough coating to protect the front element of the lens and this is why the lens does not need any filter to protect the front element of the lens.
If this is true , I will get that lens with the 6D.


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> luciolepri said:
> 
> 
> > Many years ago Tamron did it, IS excluded. Total lemon.
> ...



No, i meant the 28-105/2,8. It was very expensive and very bad. It got in and out fo Tamron's lineup in a flash.


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 6, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> BTW, Canon says the 24-70mmf4LISUSM lens got some special tough coating to protect the front element of the lens and this is why the lens does not need any filter to protect the front element of the lens.
> If this is true , I will get that lens with the 6D.



I've never used any filter to protect the front element of my lenses, unless in critical situations (sand, rain...) and never damaged a single lens. The lens coating is much more resistant than many people think and L lens are already weather sealed, so I can't imagine this feature to be crucial. Also because in critical situations I would use a protective filter anyway.


----------



## Lemon (Jun 7, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> we always had the 24-70f4LIS kit here in japan.
> and there are two EOS6D kits here :the 24-70f4LIS kit and the 24-105f4LIS kit.
> the 24-70mmf4LIS kit is about 43000yen(roughly 430USD) more expensive than the 24-105mm f4LIS kit.
> I have been debating which kit to buy for a long time, I've decided to get the 6D for its extreme high ISO capability combined with the -3 EV lowlight AF but not sure about which std lens to get with it.
> ...



Difference between those two kits is more like 35.000 yen at the moment. Also, body alone is cheaper than the kit, unless you mean buying body and lens separately compared to kit. 6D body starts at around 146.000 yen, 24-105 kit at 211.000 yen.

I don`t use front filters to protect my lenses. If you get a cheap filter it will lower your picture quality, and an expensive filter is not really much cheaper than replacing the front element of your lens.

I don`t really like the feel of the 6D, it feels cheaper and more "plasticy" in my hands compared to my 40D. But in the end it`s the internals that count.
I also didn`t feel like spending 125.000 yen extra for the 5D Mk III, as the 6D should be good enough for my purposes.


----------



## Zv (Jun 12, 2013)

Lemon said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > we always had the 24-70f4LIS kit here in japan.
> ...



Can you tell me where in Japan you saw the 6D for 146,000 yen? I've only seen it go down to about 150,000 - 155,000 on amazon.jp


----------



## dsciel (Jun 14, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/eos-5d-mark-iii-w24-70-f4l-is-kit-coming-soon/\"></glusone></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/2013/06/eos-5d-mark-iii-w24-70-f4l-is-kit-coming-soon/\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>Is the EF 24-105 f/4L IS Going Away?
> 
> 
> ...




Any updates? really want to see how they will price the new kits.......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2013)

New date fot the 5DIII + 24-70mm f/4L IS is now November...


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 11, 2013)

Congrats Neuro ;D ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 11, 2013)

Since my earlier posts in this thread I have actually used the 24-70 f/4 IS and just as the MTF predicted it is much better than the 24-105L on FF, especially on the all critical wide end.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 11, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Since my earlier posts in this thread I have actually used the 24-70 f/4 IS and just as the MTF predicted it is much better than the 24-105L on FF, especially on the all critical wide end.



+1, 

Well said. There is no substitute for practical experience with a lens. Unfortunately the 24-70 IS is a lens which is going to have to overcome it's negative reviews. 

As I've said before; whether the improvement is worth the extra cash over the now very reasonable 24-105 is up to the individual.


----------

