# Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 30, 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/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f4l-is-coming-cr3/"></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/2012/10/canon-ef-24-70-f4l-is-coming-cr3/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A new zoom

</strong>A new EF 24-70 f/4L IS is on the horizon. It appears something was lost in translation in regards to yesterday’s rumor.  While a prototype of the 2.8 version in IS form exists, the f/4L version is what will be coming to market.</p>
<p>No announcement date is known. Remember <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/02/new-lenses-coming-cr3/" target="_blank">we reported on the EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake</a> 4 months before it was announced. I do not have a solid announcement date, so it could be a while off.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## triggermike (Oct 30, 2012)

Hmmm, what does this do to the 24-105L . . .


----------



## mortadella (Oct 30, 2012)

Does this mean the end of the 24-105L?

Or will this lens be similarly priced to the new 24-70 2.8L II with similarly stellar resolution, therefore keeping the 24-105L the kit lens and affordable FF walk-around?


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Oct 30, 2012)

I don´t think so. It could be the same as with the 16-35 and 17-40 coexistence.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 30, 2012)

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2? 

This lens will be DOA.


----------



## 2n10 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?
> 
> This lens will be DOA.



Their evil plan is to drive all of the moaners and groaners nuts. 

I doubt it will be DOA if the price is significantly less than the 2.8 is.


----------



## thewallbanger (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?
> 
> This lens will be DOA.



This. Couldn't agree more. Someone is making absurd lens decisions at Canon. (24mm IS and 28mm IS?!?)


----------



## blonigan16 (Oct 30, 2012)

Does anyone have any idea on how this will be priced? I can't see this lens having any particular advantage over the 24-105. Seems like kind of an irrelevant lens unless its cheaper than the 24-105..


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 30, 2012)

thewallbanger said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?
> ...



Yea, doesn't make me want to buy it. If it was f/2.8, even if it was only around the 24-70 mk1 or 24-105 quality, I'd be very interested. As an f/4, not really all that interested.


----------



## zim (Oct 30, 2012)

ah ha so I got it spot on yesterday 

I bagsy the cred on that ;D

Maybe they think the f4 brigade will go for two lenses instead of the one 24-105 like a poor mans version of the ideal pro zooms. Roll on the 14-24s


----------



## EYEONE (Oct 30, 2012)

Should be nice and compact at least.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

24-70 F/4 IS?

*CR3? *

Crap.

Let me get in line to scratch my head at this:

1) The 24-105 F/4L IS is old-ish but certainly not _ancient_ -- The Digital Picture has it listed as being from 2005. _Surely_ there are more valuable older lenses to update, like the 35L (1998), the 50 F/1.4 (1993), and so on.

2) If the argument is to be made that the standard zoom market will get price-pointed to hell (like the 70-200) with the combinations of 2.8 & 4, IS and non-IS, where is the flagship?! The 2.8 IS is what everyone has been asking for. Financially, I fail to see why this new lens would be attractive. Who will pay decent money for the more vanilla versions without the Bismarck do-everything version tenting up the price?

3) If Canon is in love with big ticket items, why not make the 2.8 IS everyone wants? Some folks would pay $3k for that, as nuts as that sounds.


Devil's advocate attempts to have this make sense:

If this is an attempt to '17-40' the standard zoom into a value-oriented L lens (say $700 or so), this makes some sense. But all of Canon's pricing of late would imply that this new one won't be reasonably priced.

Perhaps it's an STM lens? We assume is USM, but perhaps this is targeted primarily at video?


Sorry, those two reasons don't undo how nuts this looks at first glance.

- A


----------



## well_dunno (Oct 30, 2012)

??? I imagine the idea is the same as having 70-200 in f/2.8 and f/4 versions - there was not any 70-300 f/4 IS (eh that would compare to 24-105 in the context, wouldn't it?) when they came up with those though... I guess IQ will be its strong side...

Cheers!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 30, 2012)

Maybe?

24-70 f4
24-70 IS f4
24-70 f2.8
24-70 IS f2.8


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

thewallbanger said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?
> ...



Respectfully disagree. Different needs for different shooters.

The 24/28 IS lenses (I own the 28) are the most handholdable low-light lenses they make. That 28 is a _peach_. Small, light, internally focusing, and sharper than a stopped down 35L. I just can't shoot moving things as well as the 1.4 wide angles can, but _that's not my need_. So the 24/28 IS lenses were ideal for me, and I thank Canon for offering them. I just wish they sported the red ring for resale reasons.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Oct 30, 2012)

So for the remainder of 2012 Q4 possible product announcements, we have possibly 1 more D-slr and this 24-70 f/4 is lens? I hope this is another lost in translation and it was actually meant to be a new/updated ultra wide angle zoom L lens! 16-35 f/4 IS or 17-40 f/4 IS?


----------



## Jesse (Oct 30, 2012)

Canon needs to announce a 14-24mm already so everyone can breathe and stop complaining for a bit.


----------



## robbymack (Oct 30, 2012)

This does seem silly, can't see why anyone would want this over the tamron f2.8 vc. I assume it will become the new kits lens and the 24-105 will fade into obscurity. Which i guess may make some sense especially if canons marketing shows a lot of folks don't buy a 70-200, 70-300, or 100-400 if they already have the 24-105 and are happy. Could be a plan to sell a few more 70-200's etc.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Maybe?
> 
> 24-70 f4
> 24-70 IS f4
> ...



I was saying the same thing in my post (we must have been writing simultaneously) -- this is worth sizing up. Looking at B&H (incl. rebates):

70-200 F/4 $629 (<-- an absolute bargain like the 17-40L is)
70-200 F/4 IS $1,099
70-200 F/2.8 $1,299
70-200 F/28 IS II $2,099

Extrapolating this to the 24-70, this might look like:

24-70 F/4 $1,099?
24-70 F/4 IS $1,999?
24-70 F/2.8 (II) $2,299 (<--- this one exists for sale today)
24-70 F/2.8 IS $3k+? Rare stamps? Left testicle? 

And if such estimates are even close, who would buy the first two on that list when the 24-105 F/4 IS is widely available in the $950 range? (actually less, given all the kit+body lens resellers). I'm not buying it.

So I'm going to dismiss the four price points and think that this must be either a _value_ or _size/weight_ sell. This new F/4L IS needs to be very small/light or value priced like the 17-40 or 70-200 F/4 NON-IS to make sense.

...or Canon really is nuts.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Oct 30, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Canon needs to announce a 14-24mm already so everyone can breathe and stop complaining for a bit.




Yes, and price it above the 14L so I can then justify buying the 14L.


----------



## stewy (Oct 30, 2012)

An f4 version huh! I'm curious as to how it will compare to my 24-105L. If its noticeably better then I'll switch, if not, what's the point. Ideally I'd want the 24-70L with IS.


----------



## Jesse (Oct 30, 2012)

Only reason I don't own the 24-105 is because it's too slow....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2012)

24-70mm f/4L IS? 

WTF? Just.....WTF?!?


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 30, 2012)

Pure speculation here, but this could be a video-oriented lens. It will likely be parfocal, possibly with an internal zoom mechanism. To do this out to 105mm would make it a lot more expensive, heavy, and not necessarily more marketable to the video crowd.

Again, this is just a guess.


----------



## IWLP (Oct 30, 2012)

Once again, Canon delivers a lens that nobody asked for. Unless this thing is so sharp it gives me paper cuts just by looking at it, my 24-105 f/4L shall stay in my bag.


----------



## jhanken (Oct 30, 2012)

> Perhaps it's an STM lens? We assume is USM, but perhaps this is targeted primarily at video?
> 
> Sorry, those two reasons don't undo how nuts this looks at first glance.



Agreed. My 24-105 f/4 L sits on my 5D by default, I find that about 65% of my shots are at 105mm, about 30% are in between 24-30mm, and the rest around 50mm. 

Chopping off the extra reach with compensating larger aperture for a normal kit lens probably only makes sense if they are trying to reduce breathing and make a more cine-ish lens.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 24-70mm f/4L IS?
> 
> WTF? Just.....WTF?!?



Two words: compact size. 

The 24-105L is smaller than the 24-70L but it's still not a compact lens. 

Canon needs a smaller (and cheaper?) kit lens for the smallish 6D. 
A compact, high quality 24-70mm f/4L IS would be a very good fit. 

Depending on price, I'd be very interested in such a lens - and potentially the 6D too.


----------



## stewy (Oct 30, 2012)

My current lens strategy is to go with the cheaper f4 lens. They aren't very fast, but they are still very good. If I need faster I usually need really fast or really shallow DOF. For this I resort to a prime lens that gets me 1.4 or faster. However, these days I've been thinking of dropping going even faster as a base, from f4 to 2.8, I like my 100mm L.


----------



## Stevo2008 (Oct 30, 2012)

My guess is this will go as a kit lens with Canon 6D. Priced similar to recently announced *Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR* lens.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 30, 2012)

Hm...hard to price this. I'd say $1k ish maybe, like the 24-105, but trading reach for sharpness. 

Or I could see it at the $1600 mark where the old MK1 was at. You get IS and sharpness but lose speed compared to the ultra sharp V2 F2.8....

What if its a non-L? At the $900 mark to be popular with the new entry level FF crowd? 

People say 'no one asked for this' but what they really mean is 'no one on the internet forums asked for this'. Canon seems to have a lens for every niche (ultra wide zoom excepted)...I'm sure they've got a target crowd for this lens. Video may well be it, as suggested above. It will also have the more accurrate focus system/feedback/position sensor....a plus for users of the new bodies compared to the 24-105.

-Brian


----------



## PackLight (Oct 30, 2012)

I wonder how many copies of this 24-70mm I will have to go through before I find a good one.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 30, 2012)

I'm trying to wrap my head around such a lens, but I'm really having trouble doing so.

Is this supposed to replace the 24-105? Is the loss of reach (and no gain in aperture) balanced out by a corresponding increase in IQ?

I guess I would understand if it were a non-L version priced under $1K (a budget version of the $2300 24-70 2.8 ) but otherwise I'm just not too sure.


----------



## AtSea (Oct 30, 2012)

This is dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. 

My only hope is that it takes the still high used prices of the original 24-70 down from $1000-$1200 to at least $800. I doubt it would have that effect, as the entire advantage of the 24-70 over the newer, lighter, and very sharp 24-105 zoom (which does rest at that $800 resale value)was the 2.8. Take away the quicker speed of the aperture and you have a lens that means a whole of nothing to a whole lot of people.

And say what you will about a cheaper version of the 24-70 - At F/4, I can't see it being cheaper than the 24-105, and there are very few people that complain about sharpness from that lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

So, theories we'ved spitballed about this are:

1) Canon is fully '70-200'-ing their 24-70 lenses into a lineup of (eventually) four offerings.
2) This is tailored for video -- STM, parfocal, etc.
3) It will be very small / very light in comparison to prior 24-70 lenses.
4) This is a 'value L' in the vein of 17-40, 70-200 F/4 non-IS. Cheap L glass for everyone.

I'll offer a fifth -- perhaps these new 24-70s are just a leap above in resolution for the impending high MP body? One would think the new 24-70 F/2.8 performance would speak to this, but I've seen: 


One stellar review (from Roger Cicala)
One 'I got one good copy and one bad copy' from The Digital Picture
One so-so review (from Photozone) on the resolution front.
So I'm not certain about this theory.

But golly gee, the speculation is awfully fun. Nothing like a CR3 to bring the band back together. ;D


----------



## deletemyaccount (Oct 30, 2012)

I was really hoping for this lens to be 2.8 with IS.


----------



## max (Oct 30, 2012)

the 24-105mm f/4 IS has quite good resolution, its only 800 USD on kit packages.
The 24-70mm f/4 IS does the same thing but has less reach. I don't think many people will need this lens.

If they were the same price, and being the resolution of the 24-105mm IS enough for most people, I doubt this lens will sell decently well, unless it is cheaper.

This lens is just nonsense. 

Its either a 24-70mm 2.8 IS, or upgrade the 24-105mm f/4 IS.


----------



## pierceography (Oct 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 24-70mm f/4L IS?
> 
> WTF? Just.....WTF?!?



+1

If Canon is trying to duplicate the redundancy of the 70-200 lineup, they're really going to need to re-evaluate their price points. $2,300 for a non-IS lens is already too high, regardless of the IQ. What are they going to do with an IS version of the 2.8 mk2? I'd like to see Canon introduce an IS version of the mk2 at the current price, and drop the non-IS back down to mk1 range. IMHO. That certainly won't happen though.

And who needs an f/4 when the 24-105mm already fills that need?

I really hope this winds up being a CR0.

Criminy.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> Pure speculation here, but this could be a video-oriented lens. It will likely be parfocal, possibly with an internal zoom mechanism. To do this out to 105mm would make it a lot more expensive, heavy, and not necessarily more marketable to the video crowd.
> 
> Again, this is just a guess.



Hmm, that actually makes sense. Maybe it's an STM lens.


----------



## well_dunno (Oct 30, 2012)

robbymack said:


> This does seem silly, can't see why anyone would want this over the tamron f2.8 vc.



I imagine superior IQ would be the selling point for the f/4 IS but I cannot see that happening if Canon puts a price tag north of the Tammy ???



ahsanford said:


> 70-200 F/4 $629 (<-- an absolute bargain like the 17-40L is)
> 70-200 F/4 IS $1,099
> 70-200 F/2.8 $1,299
> 70-200 F/28 IS II $2,099
> ...



Was thinking exactly the same - if the current 70-200 pricing is a measure, the f/4 IS would cost way above the Tamron. Not sure what kind of IQ would make up for the smaller aperture + the price differrence... Interesting out of a marketing point of view though, we will see what Canon marketeers have thought this time ;D


----------



## Act444 (Oct 30, 2012)

Unless...you know, I've picked up an old, used 24-85. It isn't the sharpest lens but man, the SIZE is wonderful. If this new 24-70 is just as compact, they make the aperture constant, add in IS, and keep the price $800 or below, it could be an attractive option for those wishing to travel light. While the 24-105 is not a HUGE lens, it's definitely substantial on all but the biggest bodies (5D/1D series).


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 30, 2012)

i'm like most people here when i say that i simply don't get it.

my only thought is that it is for video. i don't do much video, but i know most (not all) love IS, and you probably aren't doing much video with wide open apertures of 2.8. otherwise, this is just as insanely stupid lens choice. if nothing else, it just pisses off canon users for never getting what they are asking for.


----------



## Phenix205 (Oct 30, 2012)

Had really hoped for a stellar 24-105 4L IS II. Now they produced such an idiotic mutant.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 30, 2012)

I am dumbstruck....

The only way it makes sense to me is if it comes back really affordable and/or light/compact.....other than that, too much overlap with the 24-105, which is already affordable.

I wonder if it will be non-L. I know that is not the rumor, but that would make some sense to me.


----------



## max (Oct 30, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > This does seem silly, can't see why anyone would want this over the tamron f2.8 vc.
> ...



either this lens is like 800USD MSRP or its DOA.


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 30, 2012)

IF the IQ is great.. IF the build quality is solid.. IF it's under $1000... 
then yes... wait.. No.. yes... No.. yes... No.. wait the 24-105 has better reach, the 2.8II will come down eventually so NO but thanks... )

I always said that the camera is just a tool so I couldn't care less what's written on the front of the cam or lens as long as it delivers quality and the price is justifiable but Canon is losing it lately... 
Fist the overpriced 5d3 to milk the early adopters.
Then the 24-70 2.8 II, then the 6D and now the 24-70 f4 .. 

Another genius idea how to lose more people ....


----------



## boateggs (Oct 30, 2012)

All I can come up with is they will price this ~$700, crank out a 24-105 IS mk2 and price it at roughly what the 24-70 mk1 was. This "low cost" 24-70 will help form a bottom stepping stone to the mid level 24-105 mk2 and then to the high end 24-70 mk2. I doubt it will have STM as unless the 6d has STM support, none of the full frame options support it. This is all I could come up with


----------



## rh81photo (Oct 30, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> So, theories we'ved spitballed about this are:
> 
> 1) Canon is fully '70-200'-ing their 24-70 lenses into a lineup of (eventually) four offerings.
> 2) This is tailored for video -- STM, parfocal, etc.
> ...



I suspect a combination of 2, 3 and 4: tailored for video in a light and small package, possibly the first L Lens with STM focus(oh gosh!) and an IS supporting the video fraction (you lot know what I mean, not the tight grip Tamron VC but something smoother for handheld video). 
I don't suspect superior resolution...that would take away sales from the relativeley new and good 24-105L and the video guys need only so much resolution. It then should at least have good contrast though :-\ 
My guess for the pricepoint would be 900 to 950 bucks msrp with kit-prices below that at lets say 800..or even less if the IQ is just on the 'almost L' level...but then again Canon hasn't released cheap optics recently anyway. ugh, I don't know. they completeley scramble their lineup with this. at least its a constant aperture lens and not a 3.5-4.5 like in the nikon world.

CR3 definateley brings the band together


----------



## funkboy (Oct 30, 2012)

boateggs said:


> All I can come up with is they will price this ~$700, crank out a 24-105 IS mk2 and price it at roughly what the 24-70 mk1 was. This "low cost" 24-70 will help form a bottom stepping stone to the mid level 24-105 mk2 and then to the high end 24-70 mk2.



This is almost exactly what I was just about to post. A new 24-70 f/4 IS had better be a lot smaller/lighter *and* cheaper than the existing 24-105L. Which is possible... (look at e.g. the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX lenses)

At least Canon didn't have any production facilities in the path of Hurricane Sandy, but their US HQ probably got whacked pretty hard.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 30, 2012)

max said:


> either this lens is like 800USD MSRP or its DOA.



More like $900 but in principle you are correct.

If priced above $1K, this rumored lens will have the same fate as the 24/28 IS - sitting on the shelves until it gets discounted.


----------



## jchong62 (Oct 30, 2012)

Do you believe this rumor even made sense?

24-70 f/4L IS is nowhere between 24-70mm f/2.8L and 24-105mm f/4L IS.


----------



## dhofmann (Oct 30, 2012)

Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.

The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?

If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.


----------



## Old Ben (Oct 30, 2012)

Hi - first time poster but long time lurker. 

I have never used the 24-105. Does the lens have any faults, e.g., significant pincushion distortion, that may be corrected by shortening the focal length range?


----------



## hendrik-sg (Oct 30, 2012)

If the 24 and 28 is cost so much, forget about a 3 digit 24-70. Whats the gain over the 24-105? look at it from Canons point of view: investing developement costs in any product needs to generate a financial flow back, that's economics for beginners. 

What might canon get from an "update" of 24-105 to 24-70? Either reduction of production costs or increase in price or most likely both. 

What will we get from this update? a better IS which costs Canon nothing, its just better algorithm or more computer power. Further we will get the attributes "new" and "higher price", both means prestige and third we will get less weight which most likely costs Canon less.

So every one is happy? Canon? for sure, Yes i am, i keep my 24-105 which was just calibrated and is nicely sharp. You? I dont know what makes you happy

P.S.: If you want a brighter lens which has no distortion at 24mm the 1.4L has even more prestige


----------



## unfocused (Oct 30, 2012)

Seems like the perfect kit lens for the 6D. Don't know why this is a surprise. If you are going to offer an "entry-level" full frame camera, you've got to give people a decent and affordable kit lens to go with it. 

Yes, it has to be priced under the 24-105. Doing so would enable Canon to offer a 6D with lens combination in the neighborhood of $2,600. 

I do question the "L" designation, but that's just marketing anyway. Slap a red ring and $20 worth of weather-sealing on it and call it good.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

x-vision said:


> max said:
> 
> 
> > either this lens is like 800USD MSRP or its DOA.
> ...



I have to keep sticking up for the 24/28 IS lenses. My 28 is _fantastic_, and I'm a still shooter -- to compare them to the old 24/28 non-L lenses is a huge disservice. These have the build quality of the 100L (very very good, but not legendary like the 70-200 or 24-70 Mk I), and the performance is wonderful. 

If the 24/28 IS lenses had red rings on them, they'd sell just fine.


----------



## BXL (Oct 30, 2012)

Act444 said:


> Unless...you know, I've picked up an old, used 24-85. It isn't the sharpest lens but man, the SIZE is wonderful. If this new 24-70 is just as compact, they make the aperture constant, add in IS, and keep the price $800 or below, it could be an attractive option for those wishing to travel light. While the 24-105 is not a HUGE lens, it's definitely substantial on all but the biggest bodies (5D/1D series).


+1

I also assume that this 24-70/4 IS will fill the gap of the 24-85 USM. Guess that the "L" is just a marketing gag.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 30, 2012)

Is Canon a marketing company now?


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This lens will be DOA.



No, it will be cheaper on production, just like 6d. And it will make people buy more 70- teles.Plus the 6d af is made for f4+ lenses.


----------



## arn (Oct 30, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> Is this a joke?
> 
> 24-70 f4/L with IS?
> 
> ...


Well said... ;D

If the supposed 24-70/4 IS is _very small_, it actually makes sense and I might be quite interested. Otherwise, no way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.



People who need f/2.8, that's who. Who buys the 85/1.2L with the 85/1.8 available? Lots of people. 



dhofmann said:


> The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?



People who need a sharp f/2.8 but can't afford the 70-200 II. 



dhofmann said:


> If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.



I bring out the WTF again on this. The 24-105 f/4L IS close to $1000, if the 24-70 f/4L IS is anywhere even close to $2000, it's a sure big fat loser.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This lens will be DOA.
> ...



Yes, It will be cheaper in production, Just like the 18-55mm kit lens. And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :


----------



## Stuart (Oct 30, 2012)

The current MK2 24-70 is said to have amazing IQ, if this f4 version is sharp and great using the same design too then it leaves the 24-105mm as a less sharp kit lens. so yes for a decent price this would be good - but still not a f2.8 :-( 
Also we need to ask how this fits into movie cam use?


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 30, 2012)

*Scratches head*.... What the heck is Canon Marketing doing? Please put yourself out of misery or fire whoever the plant is from Nikon in your camp!  I have nothing new to add as everyone has already or soon will cover much of the frustration. 24-105 IS L f4 is a popular lens, so you shorten its range... and keep the speed the same at f4, and people are gonna line up!?


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?
> 
> This lens will be DOA.



DOA


----------



## blonigan16 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Yes, It will be cheaper in production, Just like the 18-55mm kit lens. And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :



I've been looking for a replacement for my 18-55 and this lens seems somewhat ideal as it fits between the 10-22 and the 70-200 if you have a crop body. I do agree with you otherwise though, I can't see many other reasons for someone to consider this lens other than mine.


----------



## dhofmann (Oct 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dhofmann said:
> 
> 
> > Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable?
> ...



That's a great non-answer!



> Who buys the 85/1.2L with the 85/1.8 available? Lots of people.



That would be a valid comparison if we were comparing an f/2.8L non-IS lens with an f/4L non-IS lens. But we aren't.



> The 24-105 f/4L IS close to $1000, if the 24-70 f/4L IS is anywhere even close to $2000, it's a sure big fat loser.



Unless it's as sharp as the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 30, 2012)

Well, that sounds utterly pointless. If it's not faster than my 24-105 - with IS - I don't care.

Sounds like they're trying to prepare the lens set for the 50MP full-frame (or whatever it will be) when it arrives.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 30, 2012)

blonigan16 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, It will be cheaper in production, Just like the 18-55mm kit lens. And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :
> ...



Why not the 24-105L? Its already very sharp and has more range.


----------



## BXL (Oct 30, 2012)

BXL said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless...you know, I've picked up an old, used 24-85. It isn't the sharpest lens but man, the SIZE is wonderful. If this new 24-70 is just as compact, they make the aperture constant, add in IS, and keep the price $800 or below, it could be an attractive option for those wishing to travel light. While the 24-105 is not a HUGE lens, it's definitely substantial on all but the biggest bodies (5D/1D series).
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2012)

What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a *17*-70mm f/4L IS. Now, _that_ would be interesting...


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 30, 2012)

There is a good explanation. They have lost it. :


----------



## max (Oct 30, 2012)

blonigan16 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, It will be cheaper in production, Just like the 18-55mm kit lens. And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :
> ...



why not get a 24-105mm?


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :



I see this one as a cheaper plasticy (like 100L) 6d kit, lighter weight, smaller size and latest IS vs 24-105. Many people will prefer it and put the $$$ saved into a 70- tele.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 30, 2012)

I won't rule it out until I see it.

Maybe it will be irresistibly small and light.
Maybe it will have irresistible video properties: STM, IS optimized for video, power zoom?
Maybe it will be ultra-sharp and contrasty 

But I'd rather see the 24-70 2.8L IS


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a *17*-70mm f/4L IS. Now, _that_ would be interesting...



Or... it could really just be the 24-70 IS f2.8, though I don't see how Canon can price that thing after the 2.2K for the non IS version. For a standard zoom over 2500-2800 would be a bit high and they wont' be able to move them in large numbers. All I know is the f4 IS version makes no sense... none.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This lens will be DOA.



no it will not....


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

For those just joining us and trying to make sense of this non-trivial CR3 -- and are not furious right now -- we've been riffing on these possibilities:

1) Canon is fully '70-200'-ing their 24-70 lenses into a lineup of (eventually) four offerings.
2) This is tailored for video -- STM, parfocal, etc.
3) It will be very small / very light in comparison to prior 24-70 lenses.
4) This is a 'value L' in the vein of 17-40, 70-200 F/4 non-IS. Sub-$1000. Logically paired with the new 6D.
5) This will be legendarily sharp for the new uberpixel bodies we will get down the road.
6) This new 24-70 IS will replace the 24-105 IS and drive more people to buy pricey 70-200 lenses. 

For the record, I really thought more people would be outright furious about this. I thought 50% of respondents would be out for blood. Good composure, team.

- A


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :
> ...



Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used. This lens would have to be 599$ for it to fly and knowing canon lately, I seriously doubt that.

My guess. DOA.


----------



## RS2021 (Oct 30, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> For those just joining us and trying to make sense of this non-trivial CR3 -- and are not furious right now -- we've been riffing on these possibilities:
> 
> 1) Canon is fully '70-200'-ing their 24-70 lenses into a lineup of (eventually) four offerings.
> 2) This is tailored for video -- STM, parfocal, etc.
> ...



Or, #7, it is a mistranslation or something missed in the rumor and either the range or the speed is wrong. If it is a "real" thing, God save Canon. Next quater will be even lower revenues and hopefully they will fire the marketing bozos.


----------



## t.linn (Oct 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a *17*-70mm f/4L IS. Now, _that_ would be interesting...



Yes, that would be very interesting. Otherwise, not interesting at all.


----------



## ddashti (Oct 30, 2012)

Woah, CR3 all of the sudden! The f/2.8 sure sounded better than the f/4...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a *17*-70mm f/4L IS. Now, _that_ would be interesting...
> ...



I'm not sure about not moving a $2500-2800 lens. I think the standard zoom 2.8 IS is a bit of a holy grail kind of lens that -- if absolutely top quality -- will sell for $3k, and sell well. I sure as hell won't buy it, but many would. I'd also throw an F/2 standard zoom in that same holy grail bucket, but I'd imagine it would weigh 4 tons.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. :



because it sells as kit lens.... :

if canon sees this new lens as a kit lens for the 6D and coming entry level FF cameras it will make sense.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used.



But Canon sells new :-> and since the 24-105 margin will be pretty low by now they need a lens that can go along with the 6d price drop that everyone predicts.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

Also, can someone speak to why the EF-S folks have a $1000 17-55 F/2.8 IS and EF folks are left wanting? 

Is making such a lens for a crop _that_ much more technically feasible or inexpensive? (Or is the 17-55 not a good lens? I've never tried it.)


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 30, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> For those just joining us and trying to make sense of this non-trivial CR3 -- and are not furious right now -- we've been riffing on these possibilities:
> 
> 1) Canon is fully '70-200'-ing their 24-70 lenses into a lineup of (eventually) four offerings.
> 2) This is tailored for video -- STM, parfocal, etc.
> ...



it makes total sense why people are pissed. NO ONE is asking for this lens - NO ONE. Sure, it might be good for video, and sure, it might be a good low priced option. But as far as I can tell the 24-105 already does this and more.

It just indicates to consumers that Canon doesn't give a rat's @ss what people want - they are just going down their own path. people have been begging for the new 24-70 with IS for YEARS, and this is Canon's response?

If they are getting rid of the 24-105, then ok - this makes sense. However, if they are still offering both I don't get it.


----------



## blonigan16 (Oct 30, 2012)

max said:


> blonigan16 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Sorry I forgot to mention I'd be considering this lens only if it was cheaper than the 24-105. I'm hoping this costs somewhere between 700-850 and has some kind of other advantage over the 24-105 other than price.


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.


----------



## dirtcastle (Oct 30, 2012)

Only if it is cheap and small will it compete against the 24-105mm f/4 (unless of course they discontinue the 24-105mm).


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I agree, however i also thought the 40mm pancake looked weak on paper however for the size, price point and image quality it delivered in spades!
now mentioning that little bad boy I cant see much value in a 24-70 f4 vs the 40mm pancake other than IS

its certainly a wierd offering considering the 50mm line so desperately needs an update

its gonna have to be cheap, sub $500 to fly IMO


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



+1 on the 40 prime as an example of what looks 'meh' on paper (at announcement time) being potentially far more value in actual use. I'm really hoping Canon is speaking to end user benefit somewhere other than the 'horsepower specs' of aperture, length and IS. Crossing my fingers on small size/weight and cost, but I doubt either will be stellar.

+5 on speaking to the 50 prime. The 50 F/1.4 remains a staple for me (despite a host of L lenses I own), and it's from _1993!_ A bread and butter lens like that should be on a five year refresh cycle.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 30, 2012)

The 28 2.8 IS will be my next lens. Low key, low light, hand holdable. 4 stops? Crazy cool. $100 off? easy choice now.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> The 28 2.8 IS will be my next lens. Low key, low light, hand holdable. 4 stops? Crazy cool. $100 off? easy choice now.



Tears of joy. (see prior posts)


----------



## lastcoyote (Oct 30, 2012)

the potential advantage of course over the 24-105L is that less coverage within one lens should mean better performance. 24-105 range is quite demanding of a zoom to perform equally well at both wide and telephoto ends. i'd expect to see better handling of lens distortion amongst other things. 24-70 range also obviously has no cross over with the 70-200 which i've always liked. i like things tidy 

however...i too have held off in the past from buying a 24-105L due to it being 'only' f4. so for me I'd still prefer the 24-70 2.8 ...or of course better yet 2.8 IS.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2012)

I can see the benefits of f2.8 IS - but 24-70 f4 IS?????

Let me guess...Canon going to *charge more * for a shorter in lenght(24-105) and slower f-stop(f2.8) lens.

WOW....their marketing team is getting smarter and smarter everyday.


----------



## Rat (Oct 30, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> Also, can someone speak to why the EF-S folks have a $1000 17-55 F/2.8 IS and EF folks are left wanting?
> 
> Is making such a lens for a crop _that_ much more technically feasible or inexpensive?


Obviously - a fullframe equivalent would be 27-88mm. That reach is well covered for FF by the 24-70's and the 24-105, especially if you consider that the depth of field of the [email protected] roughly equals f/4 on FF. And if you'd really want 17mm, you'd be buying a 16-35 for your 2.8 or else the 17-40. The 24-70/2.8 I and the 16-35 I (and the 24-105) were both in the 17-55 price category, the mark II's outperform all of the above and are priced accordingly. Factor in build and weathersealing, and you'd almost think the 17-55 is the overpriced one 

Enniehoo, the 24-70/4. Sub-$500 is not going to happen - this L IS-zoom is just no way going to be cheaper than the 2.8 IS primes. So 'cheap' would still mean it needs to compete with the 24-105 and 2nd-hand 24-70/2.8 I's. Doesn't make sense. A high resolution one with IS might make more sense. The only alternative I see is a parfocal STM lens for video, but I'm not sure they'd try to outfit an L with STM already, on the off chance it'll happily sit being a dud next to the DO lenses*. STM will need to prove itself first.

No, I say the new kid's going to perform _really_ good, and it's going to cost a bundle. And it'll probably sell like hotcakes to those who need the best, and even better to those who _want_ the best. 

*) Yeahyeahyeah, I'm sure the DO's are good, even very good, they're just not the real deal, what with the weird bokeh


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I can see the benefits of f2.8 IS - but 24-70 f4 IS?????
> 
> Let me guess...Canon going to *charge more * for a shorter in lenght(24-105) and slower f-stop(f2.8) lens.
> 
> WOW....their marketing team is getting smarter and smarter everyday.



There will be reasonable explanations for it:
1. STM motor
2. Better focusing with newer bodies
3. Next generation IS
4. Better coatings
5. Less distortion at 24mm
And a sentence: "Specially dedicated for photo enthusiast covering focals above 70mm with their 70-200 zooms, this newly developed best in it's class lens is better optimized through it's whole focal range."


----------



## tron (Oct 30, 2012)

D.O.A I couldn't agree more. Unless this is a CR0 rumor actually :


----------



## Woody (Oct 30, 2012)

Actually, a 24-70 f/4L IS with great optical quality is not a bad idea.

The only problem is: there are higher demands for other lenses... 14-24, 50 f/1.4 Mk 2 (with ring USM)...


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the benefits of f2.8 IS - but 24-70 f4 IS?????
> ...



They can't even do that on 24-70 f2.8 II - A $2300 LENS


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


It may be easier in F4 lens for 1399$


----------



## tron (Oct 30, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...


They better make a superb 24-105 f/4L IS II if they want us to think seriously of it. Just my opinion...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 30, 2012)

Of all Canon lenses that ever could be made and/or updated THIS is what I MOST wanted out of everything in the history of everything and the people of the earth NEEEED it...

And yes, I am of course kidding, this is the dumbest crap I have ever seen.....


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

Viggo said:


> (..)
> 
> And yes, I am of course kidding, this is the dumbest crap I have ever seen.....



Have you seen a cable for the new iPhone?


----------



## tron (Oct 30, 2012)

On the other hand, a lesser lens for a lesser camera (6D) ;D


----------



## hmmm (Oct 30, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a *17*-70mm f/4L IS. Now, _that_ would be interesting...



Good idea: This is my favorite spin on the rumor so far! 8)


----------



## marekjoz (Oct 30, 2012)

hmmm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a *17*-70mm f/4L IS. Now, _that_ would be interesting...
> ...



... or this is not EF but for MF


----------



## plutonium10 (Oct 30, 2012)

The 24-70 F4L IS makes good sense as a 6D kit lens. Better IS and image stabilization than the 24-105 at an affordable price sounds pretty reasonable to me, but the lack of telephoto range is unfortunate. It may well come with a release price of $1000+ but will likely be a steal when bundled with the 6D, leaving buyers with more spare cash to spend on a 70-200.


----------



## Bosman (Oct 30, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Of all Canon lenses that ever could be made and/or updated THIS is what I MOST wanted out of everything in the history of everything and the people of the earth NEEEED it...
> 
> And yes, I am of course kidding, this is the dumbest crap I have ever seen.....


Haha Viggo! I can't believe this is CR3. Whatever the case it will no doubt be video friendly which seems to be more important than being photographer friendly these days, like an illuminated focus point...


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 30, 2012)

I find a few things interesting

1. suddenly the 24-105, which used to be too slow, have too much distortion, and be a 'gimmick L' lens is getting a LOT of respect! (I read so much crap about this lens that i held off buying it for years, and now that i have one i'm so happy.)

2. Because someone here 'didn't ask' for this lens, they assume no one did. Others assume to have Canon's market research knowledge based on what they read in forums.

3. People seem unable to set reasonable expectations. $500 for this? Really? Cheaper than a 7yr old L? Nothing in the camera marketplace or Canon's recent history point to that. And just because it is said in a forum does not mean it will impact a company's pricing strategy.

4. Its already DOA, and the specs aren't even out yet. Seems like we're piling on even earlier than usual.

-Brian


----------



## DB (Oct 30, 2012)

The only reason for Canon to make a 24-70mm f/4L IS as opposed to an f/2.8L IS is simply cost. It is much easier and cheaper to make an IS lens with a smaller aperture, by a multiple of the cost of redesigning the 24-70mm f2.8 II lens (not twice as cheap but one eighth or one-tenth as cheap or some other fraction like that).

Everybody on CR moans about how pricey new L lenses are - so Canon are finally listening.

Daniel Flather + Unfocused have it right between them:

24-70mm f/4L $800,
24-70mm f/4L IS $1000

Both of these will appeal to 6D buyers (and 6D buyers will outnumber 5D3 owners by a similar factor as Rebel owners outnumber 7D owners).

Remember, the sharpest zoom lens that Canon ever made with IS was their 1st ever 4-stop lens: the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM lens @ 85mm is sharper in the center than the newer 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II according to multiple reviews (and noticeably sharper than the non-IS version btw).

For 6D owners with 11 AF points and only 1 x cross-type center point, this f4 IS lens is perfectly suited (and as Unfocused says it will become the kit lens - just as the 24-105 f/4L IS was for the 5D2)

Finally, Canon may even release a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lens in late-2013, but it will cost probably $2,700 or $2,800, so will only appeal to the comparatively fewer shooters that own a 5D3 or 1DX body.

edit: If I were Canon Inc. I would want a new affordable standard zoom for 6D owners, to be released in early-2013, one with better IQ than the current 24-105mm model whose focal length is too close to telephoto zooms.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 30, 2012)

Everyone complaining on this thread is gonna eat their words when they announce this as a 24-70 f/4L IS PANCAKE lens for $500. LOL


----------



## Woody (Oct 30, 2012)

Something to note: if Canon is planning a 50+ mp FF camera, I am not surprised they are introducing these lenses now.


----------



## LukieLauXD (Oct 31, 2012)

For those moments in life when a 24-105 is too convenient.

I mean I understand, if they are able to make this lens' picture quality closer to a 24-70 II's without making me have to sell my left kidney, good for them, but there are better things to release now Canon. T_T


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 31, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



A budget 40mm pancake at 2.8 isn't so bad. Now the question is would you buy if it was f/4? That's the question.


----------



## dave (Oct 31, 2012)

I am sorry but I don't get all the complaining. The 70-200 F/4L IS an absolute cracker. 

Frequently we find ourselves discussing image quality. If an affordable improved standard zoom becomes available with great image quality I can't see it being DOA. If people love the 24-105 well then it will probably become a little cheaper anyway so they can get it and everyone wins.

I reckon $1200.

...and for real, why is IS all of sudden only for videographers. Nasty Canon - always pandering to the needs of those fools who should just buy a real video camera.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Oct 31, 2012)

2n10 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?
> ...



I never thought the 24-105mm had enough reach. But I think a 24-70 f/4 is a waste. Um, there is already two 2.8's coming...

Give me a 28-135/150mm f2.8L and I'd be seriously happy.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm much too disinterested to read all of this eight-page thread so forgive me if I'm repeating anything.

Here is my speculation. This lens will be, to all intents and purposes, the 24-105mm II. It will be a better performer than the 24-105mm, but Canon decided that achieving their IQ goal in the final 35mm of its range was too much of a stretch so they decided to peg it back to 24-70mm, in which range its IQ will be consistently high. They probably felt that this was not too much of a compromise, given that most users will also have a telezoom starting at 70mm.

I'm expecting it to be considerably more expensive than the 24-105mm. The 24-105mm will remain as the FF kit lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2012)

dave said:


> I am sorry but I don't get all the complaining. The 70-200 F/4L IS an absolute cracker.
> 
> Frequently we find ourselves discussing image quality. If an affordable improved standard zoom becomes available with great image quality I can't see it being DOA. If people love the 24-105 well then it will probably become a little cheaper anyway so they can get it and everyone wins.
> 
> ...



I'm in the minority in believing that IS is great at _any_ focal length. IS buys me more handholdability in low light. I can keep my ISO sub-stratospheric and still net the shot.


----------



## dave (Oct 31, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> dave said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry but I don't get all the complaining. The 70-200 F/4L IS an absolute cracker.
> ...



It also means if we accidently drink too much coffee, we still have a fighting chance at a decent photo


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> There are also well known IQ issues with the 24-105 at the wide end that require the lens be replaced or updated before any high megapixel camera is made available for sale. It may be that a 24-105/f4 is unable to deliver the required IQ at 24mm whereas a 24-70/f4 can.



My 24-105 L is tack sharp at 24mm even on the corners (and I only use full frame cameras). I have a 24x36 enlargement taken at 24mm in my place and the corners (as well as overall) are unbelievable sharp. Without question the best general range zoom I have ever had. For the life of me I cannot figure out why they would make a 24-70 f/4 when the 24-105 f/4 is so good.


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

MrFotoFool said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > There are also well known IQ issues with the 24-105 at the wide end that require the lens be replaced or updated before any high megapixel camera is made available for sale. It may be that a 24-105/f4 is unable to deliver the required IQ at 24mm whereas a 24-70/f4 can.
> ...


Even if the 24-70 will be better at 24mm- and that's not certain - it will have a smaller range. Now I have heard of another L lens with an even smaller range that will inevitably be much better at 24mm: It's the 24mm 1.4L II ;D ;D (Surprise!)


----------



## EvillEmperor (Oct 31, 2012)

What if its EF M?


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

EvillEmperor said:


> What if its EF M?


Now you are talking! This is really interesting (and no kidding this time, although 24mm will be around 38mm)


----------



## Zv (Oct 31, 2012)

First of all I love the f/4L series of lenses and I'm glad Canon are looking out for the non-pro's out there!

I've been on the fence about buying the 24-105L, but now I am intrigued at this new rumor! I would buy the 24-70 f4 IS if it was cheaper than the 24-105 and had better (or similarish) image quality. Size should be compact too. It would fit in nicely with my 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses.

Though I kind of think it will cost more than the 24-105. 

I really do think this will be the new kit lens for full frame cameras like 6D's and whatever. Marketing wise it makes sense to have less focal range in a kit to later sell more 70-200s.


----------



## yogi (Oct 31, 2012)

RGomezPhotos said:


> 2n10 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I 2nd the 28-135/150 range. Have always wanted an L lens like the 28-135. I have that one, but dont use it much since i have several L zooms now.


----------



## pwp (Oct 31, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk2?
> This lens will be DOA.



Agreed. Seems like an odd choice for a fresh lens. A refreshed 24-105 f/4isII would make a whole lot more sense. While I doubt it would be a DOA, it's hard to imagine who would buy it. Unless the IQ totally blows the 24-105 out of the water and comes in at a much lower price. Weird. Anyway, I'm getting a 24-70 f/2.8II.

-PW


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

Zv said:


> I would buy the 24-70 f4 IS if it was cheaper than the 24-105 and had better (or similarish) image quality. Size should be compact too. It would fit in nicely with my 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses.
> Though I kind of think it will cost more than the 24-105.


Similar quality and a price not lower than existing 24-105 = useless lens
Better quality and higher price = stale mate: It depends: How much better IQ, how about product variation, etc.
Better or Similar quality and a price lower than existing 24-105 = unlikely scenario. 



Zv said:


> I really do think this will be the new kit lens for full frame cameras like 6D's and whatever. Marketing wise it makes sense to have less focal range in a kit to later sell more 70-200s.


Unless people use their brains and think they do not wish to be milked by Canon :


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2012)

tron said:


> EvillEmperor said:
> 
> 
> > What if its EF M?
> ...



Oh, snap! Never thought of EF-M getting L lenses. Good out of the box thinking.

I defer to the group, but I'd peg this (being EF-M) as dubious as the 1.6 of the crop doesn't make sense for a 24-70. Many crop users own a 24-70 (I did before the FF upgrade), but the FF equiv of 38 to 112 is an odd length. When I used my 24-70 on my crop, I always kept my 10-22 on me just in case, you know?


----------



## Woody (Oct 31, 2012)

bbasiaga said:


> I find a few things interesting
> 
> 1. suddenly the 24-105, which used to be too slow, have too much distortion, and be a 'gimmick L' lens is getting a LOT of respect! (I read so much crap about this lens that i held off buying it for years, and now that i have one i'm so happy.)



I was about to point this out too. ;D


----------



## Act444 (Oct 31, 2012)

Woody said:


> bbasiaga said:
> 
> 
> > I find a few things interesting
> ...



Yes...it really is the best compromise (i.e. all-purpose) zoom lens that exists for the Canon system, IMHO. The other zooms in a similar range are variable aperture, lack weather sealing & good build quality, and just plain don't deliver good IQ.


----------



## Plato the Wise (Oct 31, 2012)

I think some of the folks are right in thinking this will be another kit lens.

The new full-frame will be geared toward the prosumer market and a small, decent lens will work better for them. I have the 24-105 and even though it is smaller than the 24-70 2.8, it is still a big lens.

And there is no reason to think canon will not offer two kit versions of the 6D, like they do with the 7D with the 18-135 and the 28-135.

A company the size of Canon does not make decisions without researching their target markets. I have worked on advertising for Canon in the past and they do their homework.


----------



## Woody (Oct 31, 2012)

dilbert said:


> There are also well known IQ issues with the 24-105 at the wide end that require the lens be replaced or updated before any high megapixel camera is made available for sale. It may be that a 24-105/f4 is unable to deliver the required IQ at 24mm whereas a 24-70/f4 can.



Based on (i) the conflicting results of Photozone and the-digital-picture (ii) my experience with zoom lenses, there is probably copy-to-copy variation in the 24-105 lens. Some copies like the one tested by Photozone has disappointing edge performance near the tele end. An experience technician can tweak the lens to make the wide end sharper at the expense of the tele end performance, or vice versa.


----------



## Plato the Wise (Oct 31, 2012)

And don't forget that with the improved ISO performance in the newer cameras, the loss of 1 stop at 4f isn't as much of a deal breaker for most people - especially if they are not pros.

As I mentioned before, I do have the 24-105 and I think it is a great lens. The only complaint I have is with the distortion at 24mm.

But if I need a fast lens with less distortion, I'll shoot with a prime.


----------



## plutonium10 (Oct 31, 2012)

Now what I would really, really LOVE to see would be a *15*-70 F4L IS lens for APS-C. The biggest gripe I have with my 7D is not having a weather-sealed walk-around lens. If Canon will refuse to make an APS-C L lens, how about a 15-70mm lens that has full range on APS-C cameras and can be mechanically limited to 24mm on the wide end while mounted on a FF camera. Similar to the way Canon's 8-15 Fisheye has limiter switches for FF and APS-H. It wouldn't require much (if any) additional glass versus a normal 24-70, and could offer APS-C owners a future proof lens if they plan on going FF in the future.


----------



## Radiating (Oct 31, 2012)

This lens cannot make any sense unless it has earth shattering image quality or door busting price. I vote for image quality.


----------



## Gcon (Oct 31, 2012)

I read "24"..."70"...."IS"... and got excited. Then I read "f/4", and immediately got a migraine.

Why Canon - for the love of God why?!!!!! With so many other lens models in the line-up that actually need an update or need to come out - WHY?!!!!!

35L - needs rounded aperture blades and weather sealing
17-40L - needs improved edge sharpness and better coatings for richer colors/contrast
16-35L - as above
100-400L - needs a refresh I'm told
200-400L - needs to come out
14-24L - needs to come out
24-70 f/2.8 IS - needs to come out

Canon is making as much sense as a wookie choosing to live on endor.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 31, 2012)

Radiating said:


> This lens cannot make any sense unless it has earth shattering image quality or door busting price. I vote for image quality.



I agree however i think door busting price is more likely
say $400 to $500 range with IQ similar to the 24-105L

possible kit bundle with the 6D?


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 31, 2012)

I think this is an obvious replacement of the relatively old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to go along with the 6D. I think it will definitely be smaller and lighter than the aforementioned lens (as well as the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM), and priced around $600 to compete with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR. It would be the perfect kit lens for a first-FF DSLR buyer. It would definitely have better IQ and IS than the 1998.

Think about a 6D buyer looking at the currently lineup of FF standard zooms:

28-135mm $450 alone (big, heavy, old, fair IQ)
24-105mm $970 alone $800 kit (big, heavy, very good IQ, somewhat expensive)
24-70mm II $2300 alone (big, heavy, superb IQ, more expensive than the body)

...and that is all your currently-available new (not used) Canon options

Replacing the 28-135 makes total sense with the first entry-level FF coming out in a couple months. If the only option is 6D+24-105mm ($2900), it is more expensive than a D600+24-85mm ($2600), then Canon WILL lose customers, period. A more affordable is needed, and the 28-135mm is not the solution. A red ring and L in the name will elate potential customers (much better branding than Nikon's ED and gold ring designations).

EDIT: Price correction on 28-135mm


----------



## sanj (Oct 31, 2012)

Yawn


----------



## Act444 (Oct 31, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> I think this is an obvious replacement of the relatively old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to go along with the 6D. I think it will definitely be smaller and lighter than the aforementioned lens (as well as the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM), and priced around $600 to compete with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR. It would be the perfect kit lens for a first-FF DSLR buyer. It would definitely have better IQ and IS than the 1998.
> 
> Think about a 6D buyer looking at the currently lineup of FF standard zooms:
> 
> ...



That's a good thought. I never really considered it as a possible kit lens for the 6D, but that's the only way I see this lens making any real sense.

Again, if it's around the size of the old 24-85mm lens (or 28-105) and priced reasonably, we might have a winner, actually. A compact, lightweight EF zoom lens is missing from Canon's current line-up and this might be it. (then again, why not an update to one of those older lenses? More reach would be nice, for sure)

While they're at it, they should also consider putting out a smaller, lighter, non-L version of the 28-300mm lens. The L version (Canon's only FF super-zoom) is WAY too big, heavy and expensive for use as a walkaround...


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2012)

Consensus has shifted from DOA to good 6D kit lens with shorter focal length than 24-105, so does not eat into 70-200 sales (what myself & dilbert said). The 24-105 f4L IS is a very good lens, albeit an odd focal length. Canon probably want a *14-24, 24-70 and 70-200* as *wide/standard/telephoto* zooms for all FF bodies, and to have both fast and f4 apertures, with and without IS....eventually. As someone else here has said, Canon do conduct their own research...nobody here on CR would object to that variety/choice (3 x reference zooms).


----------



## birtembuk (Oct 31, 2012)

Good idea ! Providing this 24-70/4 has better IQ than 24-105, it's 77mm and it's lighter a bit. The 24-70/II would actually cost me 3000+ with a set a proper filters - UV, PL, 2xND - because I have no 82 mm filters but have all at 77. 

With the 24/II now going at less than 1700, would still have 1300-1400 for this 24-70/4. Winning ticket for me. Well, if true and if the release date is not September 2019.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 31, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> Good idea ! Providing this 24-70/4 has better IQ than 24-105, it's 77mm and it's lighter a bit. The 24-70/II would actually cost me 3000+ with a set a proper filters - UV, PL, 2xND - because I have no 82 mm filters but have all at 77.
> 
> With the 24/II now going at less than 1700, would still have 1300-1400 for this 24-70/4. Winning ticket for me. Well, if true and if the release date is not September 2019.



my guess will be filters smaller than 77mm
maybe 67mm? all plastic construction 
similar size and build to the 100f2.8L macro perhaps
length similar at full extension and half as tall when retracted maybe
i wonder if they might make it the first STM L lens too? that would guarantee it wont canibalise the 24-105 and make it appeal to the video crowd who seeming are much more important to canon these days than still shooters


----------



## birtembuk (Oct 31, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> birtembuk said:
> 
> 
> > Good idea ! Providing this 24-70/4 has better IQ than 24-105, it's 77mm and it's lighter a bit. The 24-70/II would actually cost me 3000+ with a set a proper filters - UV, PL, 2xND - because I have no 82 mm filters but have all at 77.
> ...



Sigh about still shooters ... Well, apart from STM, I'd be happy with a 100L design style I guess. What's important is that 24/II takes 77mm and that's perfect for me for landscapes. A 24-70/4 would just be a nice complement as walk-around lens like street photo.


----------



## ronderick (Oct 31, 2012)

The only logical argument I could think of is to use this lens to replace the 24-105 f4L as the kit lens for future FF cameras. 

By doing so, Canon will be able to introduce a possible 24-120 f4L which it can categorize as a non-kit lens, giving it perfect excuse to jack up the starting price...


----------



## EchoLocation (Oct 31, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> This lens will be, to all intents and purposes, the 24-105mm II. It will be a better performer than the 24-105mm, but Canon decided that achieving their IQ goal in the final 35mm of its range was too much of a stretch so they decided to peg it back to 24-70mm, in which range its IQ will be consistently high. They probably felt that this was not too much of a compromise, given that most users will also have a telezoom starting at 70mm.
> 
> I'm expecting it to be considerably more expensive than the 24-105mm. The 24-105mm will remain as the FF kit lens.


This is what they're most likely thinking. I think they have oversaturated the market with 24-105's lately after all the 5DII,5DIII,6D kit sales. This new lens will give a decent upgrade(with loss of focal range) to 24-105 owners who want the newest, best toys(who don't have $2300 for the 24-70 2.8II), probably at around $1250-1500. The price of this lens and the oversaturation of the 24-105 will combine to heighten the perceived value of the 24-70 2.8.
I'd imagine they will try to eventually faze out the 24-105 and make this the new kit lens when the 5D IV(5DX, whatever comes out.) The newness of the kit lens will be intriguing for people upgrading from 7D's,5D's, etc. And, att 1500ish dollars this will give Canon an even more expensive kit lens to increase future profits, and while being sharper, will also be less useful compared to the 24-105(smaller focal length,) thus forcing even more lens sales as people buy 70-200's.
This lens is definitely a little baffling, so i'm thinking there must be some sort of strategic value in introducing it as most buyers don't really seem to care that much for it. 
I hope I'm wrong and it ends up being a super small 18-55 size(dream) and a light weight for $600!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2012)

DB said:


> Consensus has shifted from DOA to good 6D kit lens with shorter focal length than 24-105, so does not eat into 70-200 sales (what myself & dilbert said). The 24-105 f4L IS is a very good lens, albeit an odd focal length. Canon probably want a *14-24, 24-70 and 70-200* as *wide/standard/telephoto* zooms for all FF bodies, and to have both fast and f4 apertures, with and without IS....eventually. As someone else here has said, Canon do conduct their own research...nobody here on CR would object to that variety/choice (3 x reference zooms).




I still think (see prior summaries of this thread) that a better for video (STM?) lens or a super small/light lens are other viable reasons for this new one. It just needs _one _value/useability/spec difference to have it stand out as a unique offering to consumers.

I am _not _buying that Canon is shoe-horning us into 24-70 to protect 70-200 sales. That can't happen if the 24-105 is still in play. So to protect 70-200 sales, they will obsolete a very popular lens in the 24-105? That's only a takeaway, so I just don't buy it.

I still contend this new lens must have an ace up its sleeve (pick any one) -- vastly improved IQ, low cost, modernized for video, small / light, etc. -- or this thing will be DOA without obsoleting the 24-105.


----------



## aroo (Oct 31, 2012)

From Canon's pitch for the 24-105:

"Complementing the EF 17-40mm f4L USM and EF 70-200mm f4L USM, the lens completes Canon's f4L-series zoom lens range."

Reading that sentence again with this new lens in mind, it makes even more sense. The 24-105 will stay popular because of its versatile range. The 24-70 f/4 will be immediately popular as part of this three lens system. On crop bodies, both the 17-55 and 15-85 get a lot of love; there's no conflict, just a lot of different tastes out there.

I'd guess this new 24-70 is very similar to the 24-105 in IQ but about 20% lower weight and price.


----------



## candyman (Oct 31, 2012)

x-vision said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70mm f/4L IS?
> ...


 
this


----------



## Ew (Oct 31, 2012)

All specs aside, I really think that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the market / sales. 

With the Tamron getting to market first, many fans held out. But as delays came on folk began to jump ship - especially when the price was verified by the vendors. 

With the v1 24-70 gone, all of the sudden sales are down, even with a proported fatter margin on the v2. 

We've all read the rumors that there was an IS version being tested - but this all went out the window once the v2 was Announced.

Many consumers will prefer to stay away from off brand even at f4 vs f2.8. I would expect simpler housing, pricing iine with Tamron VC 2.8 24-70. 

Kit option - possibly. 

Another marketing gimmick - "you don't need 2.8 anymore - just push your ISO - it will still look great - oh, you don't like the 3200 on 7D or rebel ? Well there are the new low noise high ISO bodies just for that. Buy the new body, save on the lens."

Ok - so I'm taking the conspiracy apple box stand. 

We a bit jaded as far as lens prices go - and should try to step back and see this from a mass market POV. That is, after all, where this lens is targeted. 

If and when there is something to consider - we will. Just take a look at the harsh 6D reactions from the announcement, and now people slowly peeping in "I'm considering it"


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 31, 2012)

candyman said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1. Compactness is the key word here. I wonder if it will be a non-L lens? (Unlikely given its got a constant aperture).


----------



## Woody (Oct 31, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> my guess will be filters smaller than 77mm
> maybe 67mm? all plastic construction



I doubt it'll be an all plastic construction simply because of its L designation. 

From Wikipedia:
Most L series lenses share a number of common characteristics:
- Tough build, made to withstand trials in the field (some incorporating dust and moisture resistant rubber seals).
- At least one fluorite or ultra-low dispersion glass element, combined with super-low dispersion glass and ground aspherical elements.
- Non-rotating front elements, which are optimal for some filters (e.g. circular polarizers).
- Relatively large apertures compared to other Canon lenses in the same focal lengths.
- Ring-type USM (ultrasonic motor) and full-time manual focusing.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 31, 2012)

What if they followed the new trend with weight loss, then this lens could be VERY light. That is worth something to someone, say,6d owners. 

It's still an insane idea by canon... I think a few lenses must be updated first and that the timing is the stupid thing here. Seems canon care more about getting people to buy a fullframe than keeping them there...


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Oct 31, 2012)

Ew said:


> All specs aside, I really think that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the market / sales.
> 
> With the Tamron getting to market first, many fans held out. But as delays came on folk began to jump ship - especially when the price was verified by the vendors.
> 
> ...



I disagree. It's not like they could design/test/set-up for manufacturing all since the 24-70 MkII came out. That's too little time for such a reaction. I'd be very surprised if they _ever_ update the 24-105L after this new lens is on the market. With rationalisation of their zoom range, Canon's new blurb after December:

"Complementing the EF 17-40mm f4L USM and EF 70-200mm f4L USM, the 24-70 f4L IS STM lens completes Canon's f4L-series zoom lens range."


----------



## Ricku (Oct 31, 2012)

As if the world needs another 24-70? If this is true, there will now be 5 of them.

24-70L f/2.8 (still available in many shops, and on Ebay).
24-70L II f/2.8.
24-70L II f/4.0.
Tamron 24-70.
Sigma 24-70.

What the world needs is a 14-24L.


----------



## nameless (Oct 31, 2012)

Its probably the kitlens for the 6d, but then it has to be small, light and cheap. So 450g and around 500$ street price? Everything else, doesn't make sense in my eyes.

I love the long end of the 24-105mm and that is the only reason i never switched to the 24-70/2.8.


----------



## cpsico (Oct 31, 2012)

nameless said:


> Its probably the kitlens for the 6d, but then it has to be small, light and cheap. So 450g and around 500$ street price? Everything else, doesn't make sense in my eyes.
> 
> I love the long end of the 24-105mm and that is the only reason i never switched to the 24-70/2.8.





triggermike said:


> Hmmm, what does this do to the 24-105L . . .


Why would anyone buy this over a 24-105? I have a 24-70 2.8 and unless the iq is stellar I can't see a use for an f4 lens in this length


----------



## dave (Oct 31, 2012)

nameless said:


> Its probably the kitlens for the 6d, but then it has to be small, light and cheap. So 450g and around 500$ street price? Everything else, doesn't make sense in my eyes.
> 
> I love the long end of the 24-105mm and that is the only reason i never switched to the 24-70/2.8.



Small, cheap AND L lens. That would be a pretty odd about-face from Canon, given their recent history.

How many L lenses are $500... And with IS.

If it is $500 I'll donate my 5d2 to sandymandy.


----------



## insanitybeard (Oct 31, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > The 28 2.8 IS will be my next lens. Low key, low light, hand holdable. 4 stops? Crazy cool. $100 off? easy choice now.
> ...



At some point I shall get the 24 IS for the same reasons- compact, light, sharp accross the aperture range (checkout the photozone test on the 28) and with IS- good for video clips (where you can't always take a tripod-such as up a mountain where I like to take a video panorama on occasion), useful in lower light for landscape and on a crop camera the equal to 40mm so a slightly wide standard lens. The only thing stopping me at the moment is cost but prices are already starting to drop so in 12 months or so- a winner for me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 31, 2012)

nameless said:


> So 450g and around 500$ street price?



I'm sure the price for the lens alone will be rather high - few people would buy it anyway to replace their existing standard zoom, and this way Canon will be able to market apparently incredible deals as a kit with the 6d


----------



## plutonium10 (Oct 31, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> nameless said:
> 
> 
> > So 450g and around 500$ street price?
> ...



I agree. Maybe closer to $1000 at first but a great deal in the 6D kit. Look at the EF-S 18-55 IS. It's actually great value for the price when it's in a kit, but who buys it by itself?


----------



## Einstein333 (Oct 31, 2012)

*Finally a great standard zoom for full frame?*

The underwhelming optical quality of the 24-105 lens and the missing IS of the 24-70 lenses were two important reasons that have been keeping me away from full frame. I really hope that this is going to change now!


----------



## preppyak (Oct 31, 2012)

*Re: Finally a great standard zoom for full frame?*



aroo said:


> Reading that sentence again with this new lens in mind, it makes even more sense. The 24-105 will stay popular because of its versatile range. The 24-70 f/4 will be immediately popular as part of this three lens system. On crop bodies, both the 17-55 and 15-85 get a lot of love; there's no conflict, just a lot of different tastes out there.


Yes, but the difference between those two lenses is very significant. One does f/2.8, while the other is variable aperture, so you are either trading low light for range or vice-versa. Here, you are just giving up 70-105 for, at the moment, nothing. Now, it may be a weight tradeoff, or there may be less barrel distortion; maybe like the 70-200 lenses, the f/4 version will be as sharp as the f/2.8. But as of right now, that difference isn't clear like it is with those two EF-S lenses.



Einstein333 said:


> The underwhelming optical quality of the 24-105 lens and the missing IS of the 24-70 lenses were two important reasons that have been keeping me away from full frame. I really hope that this is going to change now!


I get the feeling this lens is gonna really disappoint you then; because I can't imagine it being on par with the new 24-70 without costing $1500+, and if the 24-105 is underwhelming to you, then anything less than the new 24-70 wouldn't work


----------



## Micko (Oct 31, 2012)

I bought my 5D3 and 24-105 f4L IS kit back in April and I have to say that I've been very happy with the results that the 24-105 produces.
Things such as cost and IQ being approximately equal, would I...
Buy a 24-70 f4L IS to complement my 24-105 f4L IS? No - I'd rather go for a f1.4L wide angle prime to complement the zoom.
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS? No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f2.8L II? Well, I do regard that as an upgrade and it's not out of the question one day, but...
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f2.8L II IS? Absolutely!! 

The point I'm trying to make is that if Canon intends to replace or supplement the 24-105 f4L IS (kit) lens with a new 24-70 f4L IS (kit) lens, that in itself won't make a lot of difference to me and, I suspect, probably not to many others who already own the 24-105. I'm happy to wait a year or so to see what happens with the 24-70 f2.8L II. Either there will be an IS version as many here hope, or the price of the f2.8L II will drop to a more affordable level.


----------



## Einstein333 (Oct 31, 2012)

*Re: Finally a great standard zoom for full frame?*



> I get the feeling this lens is gonna really disappoint you then; because I can't imagine it being on par with the new 24-70 without costing $1500+, and if the 24-105 is underwhelming to you, then anything less than the new 24-70 wouldn't work


I believe that the optical quality will be close to the one of the new 24-70 f2.8. Because it's f4 it will be much cheaper though (1200-1500 being ok for me)


----------



## madmailman (Oct 31, 2012)

I think this will be the new FF kit lens. Probably even for the 5Diii. Everybody keeps saying that nobody would buy it as a stand alone lens but that's exactly the poiint. When last did you hear of somebody with a Rebel or xxD camera actually go and buy a 18-55 IS lens? That's just the kit lens. If you want something better you go and buy the 15-85 (24-105 for FF) or the 17-55 f2.8 (24-70 f2.8 for FF). this lens will be cheapish and it will be small and in every FF kit as standard.

Just my 2c worth.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 31, 2012)

How many people who think this thing will be $500 are going to switch camps if its not? When the time comes, remember I like to buy used gear...lol. 

Only possible (and still not probable) if its not an L series. 

-Brian


----------



## KyleSTL (Oct 31, 2012)

bbasiaga said:


> How many people who think this thing will be $500 are going to switch camps if its not?


Absolutely I'd switch camps, it this proposed lens is $1000+ and/or replaces the 24-105mm in the Canon lineup I would be extremely disappointed. Even if it has IQ equal to 24-70mm II for the same price as the lens it is replacing, I think the good image quality is an excellent trade-off for the expanded range of the current 24-105mm. When was the last time you actually saw range shrink with a replacement lens?:

80-200 -> 70-200 ( 2.8 )
35-70 -> 28-70 -> 24-70 ( 2.8 )
20-35 -> 17-35 -> 16-35 ( 2.8 )
75-300 -> 70-300 ( 4-5.6 )
... or any number of lower quality variable aperture zooms

The only one I can think of is the mid-grade USM standard zoom:
35-135 (1990) -> 28-80 (1991) -> 28-105 (1992) -> 24-85 (1996) -> 28-135 (1998) -> 28-105 II (2000)


----------



## dadgummit (Oct 31, 2012)

My thoughts exactly:



Micko said:


> I bought my 5D3 and 24-105 f4L IS kit back in April and I have to say that I've been very happy with the results that the 24-105 produces.
> Things such as cost and IQ being approximately equal, would I...
> Buy a 24-70 f4L IS to complement my 24-105 f4L IS? No - I'd rather go for a f1.4L wide angle prime to complement the zoom.
> Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS? No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.
> ...


----------



## enraginangel (Oct 31, 2012)

I am about to buy a 24-105mm mainly to take video. I don't really see the purpose in getting the 24-70mm f4L IS unless reviews say it is just significantly optically superior in every way compared to the 24-105mm for its range. I think the price of the 24-70mm IS out the gate will be my main deterrent from the new lens and if Canon follows their 70-200mm formula, I should probably just wait for the 24-70mm f2.8L IS because we all know that's what everyone really wants.

If someone like Sigma can get their 24-70mm OS out the door before Canon does, I'd happily get that to complement my 70-200mm OS. I had my eye on the Tamron, but I'm hearing a few issues like onion bokeh, focusing issues and random lens error lockups.


----------



## old_york (Oct 31, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> Now what I would really, really LOVE to see would be a *15*-70 F4L IS lens for APS-C. The biggest gripe I have with my 7D is not having a weather-sealed walk-around lens.



Couldn't agree more. I have a 7 and the 15-85....which is a great combo, but a weather sealed lens would be sooooo much better. A modest price ie....lower than the 24-105 would seal the deal.


I terms of the 24-70 f4 IS. Hmmm, well, ok, Erm, could be worse. I could do with a standard zoom for my 5mk3 and I'd far rather spend the money needed for the 24-70 2.8 II on a couple of primes...so a relatively cheap compromise might do nicely. 
Then again....if its no cheaper than the 24-105, then it's still not the one for me - I'll probably go for whichever is the cheaper of the two. (Though Nuero's idea of a 17-70 has me quite giddy)


I have no problem with Canon making a cheaper L to "70-200" the range, but if they are going for a range, then given the price of the 24-70 2.8 ii, what on earth figure would the 24-70 2.8 IS command? Do numbers go up that high?


----------



## Einstein333 (Oct 31, 2012)

Micko said:


> Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS? No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.



Disagree. I can see (or hope for) a much improved optical quality (24-105 is not so good). If that should happen (what I believe it will) then this lens makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think that it will be a cheap kit lens. I believe (and hope) it will be rather expensive with a top notch optical quality


----------



## BXL (Oct 31, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used. This lens would have to be 599$ for it to fly and knowing canon lately, I seriously doubt that.
> 
> My guess. DOA.


I disagree... looking to Nikon, they got the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR ($599) and the excellent 24-120mm f/4G VR ($1.299). When the EOS 6D was launched, many people complained that Canon didn't present a new Kit Lense. I thought that Canon might present a 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (see http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/11/ef-24-105-f3-5-5-6-is-patent/) but what sense does such a lense make when we got the excellent 24-105mm f/4 IS and the old but decent 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS?

The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS is officially priced at $1.149 and currently retails for $969. IMO there is a gap in Canon's lense lineup for a 24-70mm f/4 that is similar priced like the Nikkor 24-85mm. Looking at Nikon, to me this lense makes sense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2012)

*Re: Finally a great standard zoom for full frame?*



Einstein333 said:


> The underwhelming optical quality of the 24-105 lens and the missing IS of the 24-70 lenses were two important reasons that have been keeping me away from full frame. I really hope that this is going to change now!



I find comments like this interesting, and a little confusing. IMO, the best general purpose zoom lens for APS-C is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The full frame equivalent of that lens would be a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens (f-number in terms of DoF for equivalent framing), meaning the 24-105mm on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 'best' APS-C standard zoom, and still has IS. FWIW, the 24-105mm on FF will deliver better all-around IQ than the 17-55mm on APS-C. So really, nothing should be holding you back from the standpoint of IQ with a standard zoom. 

Now, if you want to talk the cost of the FF system, including replacing EF-S lenses and perhaps buying even longer lenses if you need the reach on FF, that's a different argument.


----------



## DB (Oct 31, 2012)

Einstein333 said:


> Micko said:
> 
> 
> > Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS? No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.
> ...



Whatever about top-notch quality, well that remains to be seen, but we do know that it is easier to make improvements in IQ by restricting the zoom focal length -> this is precisely what Tokina has done with their 11-16mm f2.8 lenses (mkI and mkII) as opposed to Canon with the 10-22mm


----------



## Ew (Oct 31, 2012)

shinjuku-thief said:


> Ew said:
> 
> 
> > All specs aside, I really think that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the market / sales.
> ...



I didn't mean to imply that Canon shot this right out quick. It was obviously (if rumor translates to release) one of the variants being tested before the v2 lens was formally announced. Some mods to rework its positioning and wala!


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Oct 31, 2012)

nobody wants f4 !! gaaahh. why is it not 2.8 ! and if its 24-70 f4, then would it be the same price and/or cheaper than the 24-105? to me... i dunno, doesnt really seem worth it atm. even if the glass is better its debatable.

sigh


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

Gcon said:


> I read "24"..."70"...."IS"... and got excited. Then I read "f/4", and immediately got a migraine.


They love doing that to us ;D


----------



## Rat (Oct 31, 2012)

Ew said:


> wala!


That's it, I'm switching to Nikon.

...srsly. If someone can switch to Nikon for something Canon is offering, rather than because of something Canon _isn't_ offering, I can buy a g*****n D3200 if you misspell 'voila'. Just sayin'.


----------



## dhofmann (Oct 31, 2012)

It's a ploy by Canon to extract the most amount of money possible out of its customers:

First, the 24-70L f/2.8 USM II, because the v1 has a known user base, and the II is an obvious upgrade path for v1 users.

Then, the 24-70L f/4.0 IS USM, because some of the II users need IS, compactness, and light weight more than f/2.8.

Then, the 24-70L f/2.8 IS USM, as the new top end lens in this focal range. People who bought the above two lenses who want the strengths of both will buy this lens. Expect this lens to be announced in a few months, after the f/4 IS lens sales start to drop off.

And then finally, the 24-70L f/4.0 USM, for people who can't afford any of the above but still want a quality lens in this focal range. Like the f/2.8 IS USM, it will be announced after sales of the f/4.0 IS USM drop off so as not to cannibalize any sales.

Canon is quite the crafty company!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 31, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.



Sure I'd be pissed - I use the long end of the 24-105mm often. While the difference in the long end between the Canon 24-105mm and the Nikon 24-120mm is small, the difference between 70mm and 120mm isn't.


----------



## weekendshooter (Oct 31, 2012)

guysguysguys, everyone relax!

If this rumor does turn out to be true, it's gotta be a new kit lens for the 6D, most likely in response to Nikon's 24-85 VR. This would make it very light, easy to handle on a lighter FF body, and quite cheap.

I've played with the 24-85 and while I don't think the IQ passes muster, the size and weight are simply superb. It's about the same as my 85/1.8G and handles very very well on a D600, whereas the existing 24-70/2.8 would feel like a front-heavy hog.

Canon is not trying to sway any of you to give up your 24-70/2.8's in favor of this lens, they're just recognizing that the 24-105 isn't the ideal lens for the next generation of entry-level FF bodies. Assuming the IQ doesn't suffer as much as on Nikon's version (and the L designation implies it won't), it'll make a great addition to the Canon lineup. Take it for what it is, not as a replacement for any existing lens, and all will be well, I promise


----------



## Jakontil (Oct 31, 2012)

With the retra range, i'd stick with my 24-105 IS for sure


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2012)

Gang, 

This is a fascinating thread. I've never seen so many people deadset on what they think this new lens is, and what it means for future offerings.

My ongoing list (from all of you) of what this lens might have been made for (besides making Canon money):

1) _Video_ focused, or perhaps more specifically, a still lens that has been modernized to better support DSLR video (STM)

2) _Value_ focused, an inexpensive L lens in the vein of the 17-40, 70-200 F/4, etc. There has also been chatter on this point that it might be non-L akin to Nikon's 24-85 or Canon's non-L 28-135 -- a reasonably priced standard zoom option.

3) _Form factor_ focused -- a lighter and shorter lens than the large/heavy 2.8 standard zooms. There were a few comments re: smaller sizer allowing -- much like the 70-200 F/4 glass -- smaller / more common filter diameters than their 2.8 counterparts.

4) _The new kit FF_ lens (either just for the 6D or all FF bodies), and in the vein of the (much cheaper) 18-55 EF-S, this becomes the standard length zoom that _no one actually buys by itself_. In _that_ sense, this new lens isn't competing with the higher end 2.8 zooms -- it's just another lens with a red ring out there. That red ring, some folks astutely noted, may become the tantalizing extra that draws people into FF with Canon's 6D rather than into FF with Nikon's D600.

5) _Far better IQ_ than the 24-105 IS. This plays part and parcel with the notion that this 'family' of new 24-70s is intended for the upcoming high MP bodies we shall see down the road.

6) This new lens _will replace the 24-105_, eliminating the 70-105 overlap that current lens has. This is a deliberate move by Canon to sell more 70-200 glass. (I have poked a few holes in this theory, but it's as plausible as anything else on this list).

...and it obviously could be a combination of a few of the above points. Time will tell.

And for those calling this a rumor, this is a CR3, and I have faith in our moderators in that call. 

Excellent discussion, all. 

- A


----------



## zim (Oct 31, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> guysguysguys, everyone relax!
> 
> If this rumor does turn out to be true, it's gotta be a new kit lens for the 6D, most likely in response to Nikon's 24-85 VR. This would make it very light, easy to handle on a lighter FF body, and quite cheap.
> 
> ...



+1 well said


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

So many opinions about this ... so called lens! What are we going to do should this rumor turn CR0 suddenly ? ;D ;D 

Seriously now, CR3 or not, it is still hard to believe it...


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 31, 2012)

Geez some of you are having ridiculous reactions to this. A few things to keep in mind before you speak:

1) Just because the lens doesn't seem appealing to you doesn't mean it won't appeal to others. 
2) Someone said why didn't they update this lens or that lens instead. Just because Canon is releasing this doesn't mean that something else won't get released, they are a giant company, surely they can make more than one lens at a time. 

I swear Canon can't release anything without catching a bunch of crap, if they announce something that you don't like just don't buy it and move on.


----------



## tron (Oct 31, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Geez some of you are having ridiculous reactions to this. A few things to keep in mind before you speak:
> 
> 1) Just because the lens doesn't seem appealing to you doesn't mean it won't appeal to others.
> 2) Someone said why didn't they update this lens or that lens instead. Just because Canon is releasing this doesn't mean that something else won't get released, they are a giant company, surely they can make more than one lens at a time.
> ...


Feel free to tell us whether you like it or not instead of judging our reactions...
Unless we are not allowed to express our opinions :


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Oct 31, 2012)

I kind of find this thread to be a bit odd. It's like walking into an ice cream parlor and hearing patrons complaining that they have vanilla, French vanilla and vanilla with peanut butter. 

Different needs, tastes, budgets. Really don't see how more options hurt anything, and I doubt that Canon is unable to refresh other lenses because they developed another f/4 zoom. They will update the 35, 135, etc. when they decide to.


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Nov 1, 2012)

Micko said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that if Canon intends to replace or supplement the 24-105 f4L IS (kit) lens with a new 24-70 f4L IS (kit) lens, that in itself won't make a lot of difference to me and, I suspect, probably not to many others *who already own the 24-105.*



I don't think that owners of the 24-105L are the target market for this lens. It will be mostly for people new to FF, such as 6D purchasers. It will cost less to manufacture than the 24-105 and probably sell for around the same price circa $800-900, I reckon.


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.
> ...


It isn't logical. A 24-70 f/4L IS is a subset of the 24-105 (We cannot know of IQ and 1stop better IS is no big deal). 24-105 cannot go eol.


----------



## marekjoz (Nov 1, 2012)

tron said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > marekjoz said:
> ...



What is not logical? EOL of 24-105? From Canon or users' point of view?


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...


User's point of view!


----------



## marekjoz (Nov 1, 2012)

tron said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Most users will agree. The question is if Canon managers responsible for company income are more users or more loyal employees  Even if they are wining after their working time as the users, when they make those decisions they are in the office, unfortunately


----------



## DB (Nov 1, 2012)

Guys like it or loathe it, Canon sees the future in smaller/lighter FF DSLR bodies, that implies lighter lenses (more plasticky, shorter etc.)


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 1, 2012)

Woody said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > my guess will be filters smaller than 77mm
> ...


You must have missed the 100 f2.8L IS Macro and 24-70 f2.8L II both are engineering plastics....


----------



## drummstikk (Nov 1, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> 6) This new lens _will replace the 24-105_, eliminating the 70-105 overlap that current lens has. This is a deliberate move by Canon to sell more 70-200 glass. (I have poked a few holes in this theory, but it's as plausible as anything else on this list).



Eliminating the 24-105 would certainly be a consumer hostile move. The focal length overlap certainly did not stop me from getting a 70-200. The overlap is extremely useful in my work. There are some jobs I do pretty much entirely with the 24-105, whereas if I had the 24-70 (one of the least interesting focal ranges I can imagine - my opinion only), I'd do a lot of switching between the two lenses.

Someone earlier called the 24-105 "slow." Could not disagree more. I use it all the time for basketball in gyms with permanently mounted studio flashes or with my own flashes temporarily mounted. On the 7D, I have ideal reach all the way from right under the goal to three-point land. The f/4.0 max aperture does make manual focus difficult or near impossible, but fortunately, I get a near 100% AF hit rate.

I'd look at this rumored 24-70 as a secondary lens, possibly for remote mounted use or when more compactness is desired, such as for recreational shooting, especially if it addresses the 24-105's minor optical shortcomings (distortion/curvature at edges).


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2012)

drummstikk said:


> Eliminating the 24-105 would certainly be a consumer hostile move. The focal length overlap certainly did not stop me from getting a 70-200. The overlap is extremely useful in my work.


+1 Very true! The same here. I have both 24-105 and 70-200 lenses.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 1, 2012)

Just like the 24 and 28 IS lenses, I feel this will be geared toward a video audience.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 1, 2012)

I admit I am getting confused here. I planned on selling my 24-105 to a friend to get a new 24-70 Mark II, but now I am caught in between waiting for a possible 24-70 f2.8 IS and not wanting to replace my 24-105 with a 24-70 f4 IS and maybe, just maybe, purchasing a second 24-105 just in case it gets eliminated from the lineup. This is annoying. The only thing for sure is that this 24-70 f4L IS is not for me. :-\


----------



## K-amps (Nov 1, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> I admit I am getting confused here. I planned on selling my 24-105 to a friend to get a new 24-70 Mark II, but now I am caught in between waiting for a possible 24-70 f2.8 IS and not wanting to replace my 24-105 with a 24-70 f4 IS and maybe, just maybe, purchasing a second 24-105 just in case it gets eliminated from the lineup. This is annoying. The only thing for sure is that this 24-70 f4L IS is not for me. :-\



If it makes it any easier for you... I got a 24-70 f2.8 mk.ii and was not blown away by the IQ (compared to the mighty 70-200 mk.ii). It was nice and F2.8... and AF was fast... but I Paid more for it than the tele, it has no IS, the lens elements were not 100% aligned (asymmetric vignetting)... so unless they sold it for $1500-1700, I wont miss it much. I have a 17-40 and a 70-200, there is not a whol lot between 40mm and 70 than a nice 50mm prime could not cover...


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't get it. What would I do with such a lens? I see _some_ value in the 24-105 due to the flexible focal length. For that I'm willing to put up with f/4 and IS under certain circumstances. Yes, IS to me is a negative not a plus. Same for 24-70? No way. Nothing gained there.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 1, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Yep. Wikipedia is wrong about this. Most L lenses in fact are plastic. I may be wrong but of the more recent lenses I think only the original 24-70 had a metal barrel (and then some plastic parts in key areas anyway) - and probably some of the big white tele lenses and zooms I'd think.
But as much as I like my 50L and 135L: plastic and I treat them like raw eggs. Even the filter threads are plastic on all lenses these days. Those feel and handle better than my rather flimsy 24-105, but still. Non of this compares to the feel and sturdiness of my old FD lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 1, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> Non of this compares to the feel and sturdiness of my old FD lenses.



I found the LensRentals review of the 24-70ii most interesting concerning the "sturdiness" because Roger pointed out that the mk1 might be metal, but at the same time it's more fragile than the mk2 because the older lens is much more prone to decentering when taking a hit.

So when not always thinking of the worst-case scenario (lens or body falls from a skyscraper and is overrun by a truck) a newer plastic construction might outmatch an older/cheaper metal one in real world usage. But I'd still like my 100L to be metal


----------



## plutonium10 (Nov 1, 2012)

I somewhat doubt Canon will kill the 24-105 completely. Maybe they'll replace it with a 24-120 or something, while the 24-70 becomes the lens for more size- and weight-conscious shooters. When I travel, I take my 70-300L with me to capture wildlife photos, as well as a 15-85mm walk-around lens. If I had a full frame camera, I would gladly trade a 70-105mm overlap for lighter weight and smaller size to reduce the overall bulk of my backpack.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 1, 2012)

Thats too bad about this new lens. I just got my 24-105L for 750$.

Score. 8)


----------



## tron (Nov 1, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> maybe, just maybe, purchasing a second 24-105 just in case it gets eliminated from the lineup.


You look like you do not want to part with 24-105 so I would suggest to keep it until you make up your mind...


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 1, 2012)

Since all canons new lenses are the sharpest, I may invest in one. This what I think canon has in mind...

"rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.

Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup

This means...
-a new f4 wide angle
-maybe a new 70-200 f4 is ii
-maybe a 70-200 2.8 is iii

Maybe canon is using special glass, for the 24-105, they had to compromise on glass quality, I think since everyone wants a 24-70, they'll give a budget one, with good glass.

This could be a competitor for the tamron 24-70 vc, so people have to decide, tamron 2.8, or canon sharpness and build quality. With the Iso capabilities of canon dslrs, f4 won't be an issue, this is probably going to be launched with the 6d.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 1, 2012)

SJTstudios said:


> "rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.
> 
> Some f4 wide angle (ex. 12-24 f4) + 24-70 f4 is + canon 70-200 f4 is -enthusiast setup


I think the f/2.8 wide angle will be 14-24mm, but I think the f/4 will be 16-35 IS to directly compete in all aspects with the Nikon lens. That will make it wider than the current f/4, sharper (as pretty much all lenses have been over their predecessors) and likely more expensive. Hopefully, Canon will come out with cheaper variable aperture [or non-IS] UWA to replace the long-extinct 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM for the lower end of the budget (~$500), as well. Think about this (as a beginner):

Canon 6D + '24-70mm f/4 IS' = $2600 (same price as Nikon D600 kit)
Canon '18-35mm f/4' or '16-35mm non-IS' = $500
Canon 70-200mm f/4 USM = $630
TOTAL = $3730

Pretty sweet [theoretical] package for <$4000, right? Not that 2 of the three lenses even exist, but it is certainly possible.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 2, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> SJTstudios said:
> 
> 
> > "rumored" canon 14-24 l 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 ii + 70-200 2.8 is ii - this is the pro setup.
> ...



There already _is_ a value/budget F/4 ultrawide L -- the 17-40 F/4L. It's super popular -- I'd guess one of the most frequently standalone bought (i.e. non-kit) L lenses due to its price, length and good IQ.

So I'd say no new ultrawide is needed on the cheap end, IMHO. But this thread (hell, this whole forum) has been screaming for the _higher_ end ultrawide with the 14-24.


----------



## plutonium10 (Nov 2, 2012)

I would agree that the 17-40 has good optical quality, but perhaps not as excellent as the average L lens. Not good enough to be a worthwhile upgrade to my 15-85, except for the build quality and weather sealing. Now if there was a new 14-24 or 16-35 lens with f4 and excellent optical quality at a reasonable price I would sell my 15-85 and buy it as well as a 24-70 IS


----------



## flanker (Nov 2, 2012)

24-70 f/4 from Canon makes sence. 

In terms law of physics, the dimension of front element can be similar to EF 24-85 f/3,5-4,5. The whole lens and its optical formula can be close to 24-85, too or it can be even smaller.

The 24-70 f/2,8 mkII or 24-105 f/4 can be expensive kit lens for 5DmkIII. But they are too expensive to relative cheap 6D body. Canon needs cheaper kit standard zoom for 6D. So the Kit 6D + something can have relative lower price opposite to 24-70 f/2,8 or 24-105 f/4. More people will buy 6D kit with this lens then.

Orientation to video (like EF 24 IS, EF 28 IS, EF 40 STM etc.) is good reason, too.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now

DOA.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now
> 
> DOA.



I agree if purchased separately, but the theory was all along that this price will be just a marketing joke to be able to sell heavily "discounted" kits with the 6d making the new camera body more attractive.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now
> ...



I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. The 5D3+24-105L kit was still around the combined MSRP price when sold originally.

I could buy a 24-105L and 100mm 2.8L Macro used for just the price of the absurd 24-70 F/4L


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 7, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now
> 
> DOA.



yeah cant really argue with that logic

I'm wondering at this rate if i should pick up another 24-105L now just in case they ever get discontinued
mines gets used alot and if it ever breaks I would have nothing to replace it with


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations! At the MSRP of 1500$ for the 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens is now
> ...



That's the scenario that makes sense to me.

It's a good FF kit lens, in the sense that it goes from wide to short tele, has IS & USM, and allows a taste of macro without buying a macro lens, but I don't see it selling well as anything else. E.g. someone who shoots macro would buy a macro lens, and someone who doesn't (like me) wouldn't care for 0.7x max magnification and IS being hybrid.

I hope Canon wouldn't EOL the 24-105mm - I like it, my copy shows sign of age, and I find 70mm a bit short. If it's upgraded for a reasonable price, I might buy it.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm wondering at this rate if i should pick up another 24-105L now just in case they ever get discontinued
> mines gets used alot and if it ever breaks I would have nothing to replace it with



I fully agree with that logic. Canon may be actually increasing 24-105mm sales, because of introduction of that vastly underwhelming 24-70 f4. Why in hell would I care about lens size over usability?

The potential prospect of not being able to purchase a new 24-105mm any longer bothers me quite a lot!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> Why in hell would I care about lens size over usability?



The newer IS system and near-macro capabilty is a big usability plus, many people might want to trade in the 70-105 zoom range if they have a 70- tele zoom anyway (and most will sooner or later). So as with the 6d, this zoom is ideal for traveling, maybe in combination with a physically short 70-300L

It's just and again the price tag that clouds the sky and the assumption that Canon does not want to give people the choice but wants to engineer them into buying more expensive gear than they'd like. And imho it's still the aftermath of the 5d3 price shock, Canon simply being greedy and thus alienating their former loyal customers.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2012)

DB said:


> Guys like it or loathe it, Canon sees the future in smaller/lighter FF DSLR bodies, that implies lighter lenses (more plasticky, shorter etc.)



Nope.


----------



## syder (Nov 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> It's just and again the price tag that clouds the sky and the assumption that Canon does not want to give people the choice but wants to engineer them into buying more expensive gear than they'd like. And imho it's still the aftermath of the 5d3 price shock, Canon simply being greedy and thus alienating their former loyal customers.



The 5Diii is available for £2339 in the UK now... Considering that it's a tool that considerably outperforms the 5dmii for event shooting and indy video that seems pretty reasonable. The price is not that far off what you'd have paid for a 5dmii a few years back.

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III_Body_pc.html


----------



## kobeson (Dec 11, 2012)

When is this coming out?

Will go nicely in my kit with 35L, 85 1.4, 100L. When I add a 70-200 f2.8 (mk II or Tamron) it will be complete (for now).


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2012)

kobeson said:


> When is this coming out?
> 
> Will go nicely in my kit with 35L, 85 1.4, 100L. When I add a 70-200 f2.8 (mk II or Tamron) it will be complete (for now).


I beg to differ. The 24-70 f/4L IS will go nicely with the 70-200 f/4L IS. Only 24-70 2.8L II goes nicely with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. You have to match your lenses or they will feel uncomfortable ;D


----------



## kobeson (Dec 11, 2012)

tron said:


> kobeson said:
> 
> 
> > When is this coming out?
> ...



Haha yeah good point - I think I will need f2.8 in the tele end though, I have that covered in the wide-normal end. Big brother will have to take it easy on the little fella


----------



## sanj (Dec 11, 2012)

tron said:


> kobeson said:
> 
> 
> > When is this coming out?
> ...



Does not make any sense to me. I have various lenses with various f stops and they all go 'nicely together'.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 11, 2012)

sanj said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I beg to differ. The 24-70 f/4L IS will go nicely with the 70-200 f/4L IS. Only 24-70 2.8L II goes nicely with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. You have to match your lenses or they will feel uncomfortable ;D
> ...



Neither to me - it depends on what you want. If a shallow dof is required f2.8 on a wider lens is more important than on a tele lens. If the lens is required to be "fast" for low-light shooting it's the other way around.


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Hasn't anyone noticed the smile icon ;D in my post ?


----------



## AmbientLight (Dec 11, 2012)

tron said:


> Hasn't anyone noticed the smile icon ;D in my post ?



Well, I did. It appears that some take things rather too seriously around here ???.


----------



## kobeson (Dec 11, 2012)

tron said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Yeah mate I sure did


----------



## sanj (Dec 13, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Hasn't anyone noticed the smile icon ;D in my post ?
> ...



Ah!


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 28, 2012)

tron said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I actually agree with this completely. My 2.8 zooms didn't like their 24-105 f/4 adopted cousin (bought used) and he was sold on Craigslist soon after the arrival of the 24-70 II. The newest member of the family is having a rough time fitting in as an f/4 (8-15mm) but he's a special child so the others are a little more accepting... even though he has a tendency to lose his hat (lens cap) for no apparent reason.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Families just need to learn to deal. My 600/4 II feels a little gangly and self-conscious around the 40/2.8, but that's his problem... You'd think the 40/2.8 and MP-E 65/2.8 would play nicely, being so close in height, but they just can't seem to work at the same distance.


----------



## Zv (Jan 1, 2013)

Had a play about with the 24-70 f/4 IS today at a camera store. It feels a bit like a 24-105 but a bit more plasticky. The zoom ring felt quite stiff and didn't move smoothly, could be because its new but it had a courseness to it that i didnt like. There was no card in 6D test camera but from the preview screen the images looked quite sharp. IS was good down to 1/8th second at 70mm! Though i couldnt zoom in to the preview to check sharpness. Macro was fun, I can see this lens being quite popular with 6D users.


----------



## AdamF (Jan 1, 2013)

Where were you able to find a 24-70 F4 to play with ?

I thought they weren't coming out until later on this month ?


----------



## spdntrxi (Jan 1, 2013)

Yeah I want this more then the 2.8 at the moment...


----------



## kobeson (Jan 2, 2013)

AdamF said:


> Where were you able to find a 24-70 F4 to play with ?
> 
> I thought they weren't coming out until later on this month ?



Digital Camera Warehouse in Australia says in the next week or so they will have stock.


----------



## Zv (Jan 2, 2013)

kobeson said:


> AdamF said:
> 
> 
> > Where were you able to find a 24-70 F4 to play with ?
> ...



I live in Japan, but yeah even I was kinda surprised. The release date was 31st dec. 

The store was Top Camera in Sakae district, Nagoya btw. Pretty sure Bic Camera will have it too.


----------



## kobeson (Jan 4, 2013)

Any purchases or reviews yet??


----------



## sick_666 (Jan 4, 2013)

kobeson said:


> Any purchases or reviews yet??



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


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 4, 2013)

sick_666 said:


> kobeson said:
> 
> 
> > Any purchases or reviews yet??
> ...




that is no review... not yet.

it´s a preview.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> The newer IS system and near-macro capabilty is a big usability plus



no it´s not really imo... the macro functionality is very limited.

if you only have this lens with you then yeah... better then nothing... at least for stationary macro objects.


----------



## Zv (Jan 4, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > The newer IS system and near-macro capabilty is a big usability plus
> ...



Yeah I'd agree with that, the macro mode wasn't anything special. the 77mm front end blocks a lot of light too. And something about the macro lock switch I just didnt like. Its not a real switch, you kinda have to push and hold. A dumb two hand job.


----------



## zim (Jan 23, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> sick_666 said:
> 
> 
> > kobeson said:
> ...



True but you do seem to be able to compare target shots, looking forward to the full review though


----------

