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..
April 19, 2014, 06:35:36 PM
Topic: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS Coming [CR3] (Read 42272 times)
blonigan16
- PowerShot G16
-
- Posts: 16
- Canon EOS 60D
-
Logged
Canon EOS 60D: 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS: 28mm f/2.8: 50mm f/1.8 II:70-200 f/4: 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Drizzt321
- 1D X
- Posts: 1645
-
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?!?)
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.
Logged
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com
zim
- 6D
-
- Posts: 621
-
ah ha so I got it spot on yesterday 
I bagsy the cred on that
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
I bagsy the cred on that
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
Logged
EYEONE
- 6D
-
- Posts: 623
-
Should be nice and compact at least.
Logged
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3
ahsanford
- 6D
- Posts: 513
-
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
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
Logged
well_dunno
- 7D
- Posts: 356
-
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!
Logged
canon rumors FORUM
Daniel Flather
- 1D Mark IV
-
- Posts: 839
-
Maybe?
24-70 f4
24-70 IS f4
24-70 f2.8
24-70 IS f2.8
24-70 f4
24-70 IS f4
24-70 f2.8
24-70 IS f2.8
Logged
| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100 macro | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |
ahsanford
- 6D
- Posts: 513
-
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?!?)
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.
Logged