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

[Canon-F1]

This lens will be DOA.

no it will not....

[ahsanford]

For those just joining us and trying to make sense of this non-trivial CR3 -- and are not furious right now -- we've been riffing on these possibilities:

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.  Sub-$1000.  Logically paired with the new 6D.
5) This will be legendarily sharp for the new uberpixel bodies we will get down the road.
6) This new 24-70 IS will replace the 24-105 IS and drive more people to buy pricey 70-200 lenses.

For the record, I really thought more people would be outright furious about this.  I thought 50% of respondents would be out for blood.  Good composure, team.

- A

[RLPhoto]

You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. 

I see this one as a cheaper plasticy (like 100L) 6d kit, lighter weight, smaller size and latest IS vs 24-105. Many people will prefer it and put the $$$ saved into a 70- tele.

Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used. This lens would have to be 599$ for it to fly and knowing canon lately, I seriously doubt that.

My guess. DOA.

[RS2021]

For those just joining us and trying to make sense of this non-trivial CR3 -- and are not furious right now -- we've been riffing on these possibilities:

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.  Sub-$1000.  Logically paired with the new 6D.
5) This will be legendarily sharp for the new uberpixel bodies we will get down the road.
6) This new 24-70 IS will replace the 24-105 IS and drive more people to buy pricey 70-200 lenses.

For the record, I really thought more people would be outright furious about this.  I thought 50% of respondents would be out for blood.  Good composure, team.

- A

Or, #7,  it is a mistranslation or something missed in the rumor and either the range or the speed is wrong. If it is a "real" thing, God save Canon. Next quater will be even lower revenues and hopefully they will fire the marketing bozos.

[t.linn]

What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a 17-70mm f/4L IS.  Now, that would be interesting...

Yes, that would be very interesting.  Otherwise, not interesting at all.

[ddashti]

Woah, CR3 all of the sudden! The f/2.8 sure sounded better than the f/4...

[ahsanford]

What if there was another loss in translation, and this will actually be a 17-70mm f/4L IS.  Now, that would be interesting...

Or... it could really just be the 24-70 IS f2.8, though I don't see how Canon can price that thing after the 2.2K for the non IS version. For a standard zoom over 2500-2800  would be a bit high and they wont' be able to move them in large numbers. All I know is the f4 IS version makes no sense... none.

I'm not sure about not moving a $2500-2800 lens.  I think the standard zoom 2.8 IS is a bit of a holy grail kind of lens that -- if absolutely top quality -- will sell for $3k, and sell well.  I sure as hell won't buy it, but many would.  I'd also throw an F/2 standard zoom in that same holy grail bucket, but I'd imagine it would weigh 4 tons.   

[Canon-F1]

 And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. 

because it sells as kit lens.... 

if canon sees this new lens as a kit lens for the 6D and coming entry level FF cameras it will make sense.

[Marsu42]

Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used.

But Canon sells new :-> and since the 24-105 margin will be pretty low by now they need a lens that can go along with the 6d price drop that everyone predicts.

[ahsanford]

Also, can someone speak to why the EF-S folks have a $1000 17-55 F/2.8 IS and EF folks are left wanting? 

Is making such a lens for a crop that much more technically feasible or inexpensive?  (Or is the 17-55 not a good lens?  I've never tried it.)

[keithfullermusic]

For those just joining us and trying to make sense of this non-trivial CR3 -- and are not furious right now -- we've been riffing on these possibilities:

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.  Sub-$1000.  Logically paired with the new 6D.
5) This will be legendarily sharp for the new uberpixel bodies we will get down the road.
6) This new 24-70 IS will replace the 24-105 IS and drive more people to buy pricey 70-200 lenses.

For the record, I really thought more people would be outright furious about this.  I thought 50% of respondents would be out for blood.  Good composure, team.

- A

it makes total sense why people are pissed.  NO ONE is asking for this lens - NO ONE.  Sure, it might be good for video, and sure, it might be a good low priced option.  But as far as I can tell the 24-105 already does this and more.

It just indicates to consumers that Canon doesn't give a rat's @ss what people want - they are just going down their own path.  people have been begging for the new 24-70 with IS for YEARS, and this is Canon's response?

If they are getting rid of the 24-105, then ok - this makes sense.  However, if they are still offering both I don't get it.

[blonigan16]

Yes, It will be cheaper in production, Just like the 18-55mm kit lens. And just like that 18-55mm kit lens, You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. 

I've been looking for a replacement for my 18-55 and this lens seems somewhat ideal as it fits between the 10-22 and the 70-200 if you have a crop body. I do agree with you otherwise though, I can't see many other reasons for someone to consider this lens other than mine.

why not get a 24-105mm?

Sorry I forgot to mention I'd be considering this lens only if it was cheaper than the 24-105. I'm hoping this costs somewhere between 700-850 and has some kind of other advantage over the 24-105 other than price.

[marekjoz]

It really has to be either much cheaper or much better than 24-105. The third option is 24-105's end of life and price and IQ of 24-70 f4 on the same level as 24-105. If the last option would be true, then many people would hate Canon even more and finally found a reason to switch to N.

[dirtcastle]

Only if it is cheap and small will it compete against the 24-105mm f/4 (unless of course they discontinue the 24-105mm).

[wickidwombat]

You won't see many people actually going and Buying this lens for they're current cameras. 

I see this one as a cheaper plasticy (like 100L) 6d kit, lighter weight, smaller size and latest IS vs 24-105. Many people will prefer it and put the $$$ saved into a 70- tele.

Yeah but the 24-105L is already sharp for around 800$ used. This lens would have to be 599$ for it to fly and knowing canon lately, I seriously doubt that.

My guess. DOA.

I agree, however i also thought the 40mm pancake looked weak on paper however for the size, price point and image quality it delivered in spades!
now mentioning that little bad boy I cant see much value in a 24-70 f4 vs the 40mm pancake other than IS

its certainly a wierd offering considering the 50mm line so desperately needs an update

its gonna have to be cheap, sub $500 to fly IMO