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

[boateggs]

All I can come up with is they will price this ~$700, crank out a 24-105 IS mk2 and price it at roughly what the 24-70 mk1 was.  This "low cost" 24-70 will help form a bottom stepping stone to the mid level 24-105 mk2 and then to the high end 24-70 mk2.  I doubt it will have STM as unless the 6d has STM support, none of the full frame options support it.  This is all I could come up with

[rh81photo]

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.   

I suspect a combination of 2, 3 and 4: tailored for video in a light and small package, possibly the first L Lens with STM focus(oh gosh!) and an IS supporting the video fraction (you lot know what I mean, not the tight grip Tamron VC but something smoother for handheld video).
I don't suspect superior resolution...that would take away sales from the relativeley new and good 24-105L and the video guys need only so much resolution. It then should at least have good contrast though
My guess for the pricepoint would be 900 to 950 bucks msrp with kit-prices below that at lets say 800..or even less if the IQ is just on the 'almost L' level...but then again Canon hasn't released cheap optics recently anyway. ugh, I don't know. they completeley scramble their lineup with this. at least its a constant aperture lens and not a 3.5-4.5 like in the nikon world.

CR3 definateley brings the band together 

[funkboy]

All I can come up with is they will price this ~$700, crank out a 24-105 IS mk2 and price it at roughly what the 24-70 mk1 was.  This "low cost" 24-70 will help form a bottom stepping stone to the mid level 24-105 mk2 and then to the high end 24-70 mk2.

This is almost exactly what I was just about to post.  A new 24-70 f/4 IS had better be a lot smaller/lighter *and* cheaper than the existing 24-105L.  Which is possible... (look at e.g. the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX lenses)

At least Canon didn't have any production facilities in the path of Hurricane Sandy, but their US HQ probably got whacked pretty hard.

[x-vision]

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

More like $900 but in principle you are correct.

If priced above $1K, this rumored lens will have the same fate as the 24/28 IS - sitting on the shelves until it gets discounted.

[jchong62]

Do you believe this rumor even made sense?

24-70 f/4L IS is nowhere between 24-70mm f/2.8L and 24-105mm f/4L IS.

[dhofmann]

Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.

The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?

If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.

[Old Ben]

Hi - first time poster but long time lurker. 

I have never used the 24-105.  Does the lens have any faults, e.g., significant pincushion distortion, that may be corrected by shortening the focal length range? 

[hendrik-sg]

If the 24 and 28 is cost so much, forget about a 3 digit 24-70. Whats the gain over the 24-105? look at it from Canons point of view: investing developement costs in any product needs to generate a financial flow back, that's economics for beginners.

What might canon get from an "update" of 24-105 to 24-70? Either reduction of production costs or increase in price or most likely both.

What will we get from this update? a better IS which costs Canon nothing, its just better algorithm or more computer power. Further we will get the attributes "new" and "higher price", both means prestige and third we will get less weight which most likely costs Canon less.

So every one is happy? Canon? for sure, Yes i am, i keep my 24-105 which was just calibrated and is nicely sharp. You? I dont know what makes you happy

P.S.: If you want a brighter lens which has no distortion at 24mm the 1.4L has even more prestige

[unfocused]

Seems like the perfect kit lens for the 6D. Don't know why this is a surprise. If you are going to offer an "entry-level" full frame camera, you've got to give people a decent and affordable kit lens to go with it.

Yes, it has to be priced under the 24-105. Doing so would enable Canon to offer a 6D with lens combination in the neighborhood of $2,600.

I do question the "L" designation, but that's just marketing anyway. Slap a red ring and $20 worth of weather-sealing on it and call it good.

[ahsanford]

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

More like $900 but in principle you are correct.

If priced above $1K, this rumored lens will have the same fate as the 24/28 IS - sitting on the shelves until it gets discounted.

I have to keep sticking up for the 24/28 IS lenses.  My 28 is fantastic, and I'm a still shooter -- to compare them to the old 24/28 non-L lenses is a huge disservice.  These have the build quality of the 100L (very very good, but not legendary like the 70-200 or 24-70 Mk I), and the performance is wonderful. 

If the 24/28 IS lenses had red rings on them, they'd sell just fine. 

[BXL]

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).

+1

I also assume that this 24-70/4 IS will fill the gap of the 24-85 USM. Guess that the "L" is just a marketing gag.

[cliffwang]

Is Canon a marketing company now?

[Marsu42]

This lens will be DOA.

No, it will be cheaper on production, just like 6d. And it will make people buy more 70- teles.Plus the 6d af is made for f4+ lenses.

[arn]

Is this a joke?

24-70 f4/L with IS? 

Wow.  I think Canon has finally lost its marbles.

Everyone wants a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS?  OK - why don't you check out this nice new 24-70 f/FOUR with IS instead?!?!  ehh??  sexy... no??!

What?  Everyone wants a 5D2 with a new sensor and market leading megapixels, dynamic range and NR at low-ISOs?  We know it's no D800, but check out this newfangled 5DTHREE instead!!!  Ehhh???  sexy... no??  Oh wait... how about this crippled 5D3 we call a 6D!?!?!?!  Pretty HOT eh?

f*ck you canon.  i'm so sick of your bullsh*t.

Well said... 

If the supposed 24-70/4 IS is very small, it actually makes sense and I might be quite interested. Otherwise, no way.

[neuroanatomist]

Who would buy the 24-70 II when they could get something with the same focal range that's just as sharp, half the weight, more compact, and 2-3 stops more handholdable? Not many people. A few, but not many.

People who need f/2.8, that's who. Who buys the 85/1.2L with the 85/1.8 available?  Lots of people.

The 24-70 II is like the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens. Who buys that one?

People who need a sharp f/2.8 but can't afford the 70-200 II.

If they can get the price of the 24-70mm f/4 IS down below $2,000, it's a sure winner.

I bring out the WTF again on this.  The 24-105 f/4L IS close to $1000, if the 24-70 f/4L IS is anywhere even close to $2000, it's a sure big fat loser.