My opinion on the 24-70L f/4 is that for 1500$, it's exactly how I originally imagined it. DOA.
This lens should have been a affordable FF lens for users not needing 2.8 or the extra reach of the 24-105L. It proved to be neither of those things.
What do you want? Canon to sell it for $500 and make a LOSS then go BUST
"it proved to be neither" - that's past tense! Affordability is subjective...depends on the consumer, plus this lens is not out yet
Go back 6 months on CR and read how many contributors said @ $3.5k the 5D3 was DOA vs D800 and then look at the CR commentators that said 24-70mm mk II @ $2.3k was DOA.....several months on and they're in the kit bags of many CR bloggers. LOL
Well, I just picked up a new 24-105L for 750$. That alone says enough about the value for money of this lens. I could buy a 24-105L and a 100mm 2.8L macro for almost the price of the 24-70 F/4L.
Yes. Past Tense because it you cannot change it now that its been released. Its not cheap, its has a shorter reach and the 24-105L is already sharp.
The 5D3 is too expensive and many agree. I didn't pay full price for mine, I paid 3000$. The Fire sale on evil bay from adorama for 2799$ also says otherwise.
24-70 2.8L II is a work horse professional lens. We need speed and you pay premium for that but F/4? For 1500$? Bah!