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

[PackLight]

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

[Act444]

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]

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]

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.   

[camerabug]

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

[max]

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]

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]

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]

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 

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? 

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 

[Act444]

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]

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]

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

[docsmith]

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]

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 

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? 

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 

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

[picturesbyme]

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 ....