I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.
What little benefit?? I never kept a 24-105L longer than a week they left me so disappointed at 24mm. I kept the 24-70 f/4 IS until swapping it for 16-35 f/4 IS (which is less redundant to the 24-70 II). So much better at 24mm for landscapes.
Way smaller and lighter than the sigma 24-105 and better stopped down for landscapes and barely costs more. I don't even see the point of the sigma for a canon shooter (24-105 costs less, 24-70 f/4 IS barely costs more and is better and much smaller and lighter, 24-70 II is the same size and much better and f/2.8, tamron is same size and better and f/2..
Way smaller and lighter than the tamron 24-70 vc and a few hundred less expensive, although tamron does give you f/2.8 so it's an either or decision.