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
