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

[dave]

I am sorry but I don't get all the complaining. The 70-200 F/4L IS an absolute cracker.

Frequently we find ourselves discussing image quality. If an affordable improved standard zoom becomes available with great image quality I can't see it being DOA. If people love the 24-105 well then it will probably become a little cheaper anyway so they can get it and everyone wins.

I reckon $1200.

...and for real, why is IS all of sudden only for videographers. Nasty Canon - always pandering to the needs of those fools who should just buy a real video camera.

I'm in the minority in believing that IS is great at any focal length.  IS buys me more handholdability in low light.  I can keep my ISO sub-stratospheric and still net the shot.

It also means if we accidently drink too much coffee, we still have a fighting chance at a decent photo

[MrFotoFool]

There are also well known IQ issues with the 24-105 at the wide end that require the lens be replaced or updated before any high megapixel camera is made available for sale. It may be that a 24-105/f4 is unable to deliver the required IQ at 24mm whereas a 24-70/f4 can.

My 24-105 L is tack sharp at 24mm even on the corners (and I only use full frame cameras).  I have a 24x36 enlargement taken at 24mm in my place and the corners (as well as overall) are unbelievable sharp.  Without question the best general range zoom I have ever had.  For the life of me I cannot figure out why they would make a 24-70 f/4 when the 24-105 f/4 is so good.

[tron]

There are also well known IQ issues with the 24-105 at the wide end that require the lens be replaced or updated before any high megapixel camera is made available for sale. It may be that a 24-105/f4 is unable to deliver the required IQ at 24mm whereas a 24-70/f4 can.

My 24-105 L is tack sharp at 24mm even on the corners (and I only use full frame cameras).  I have a 24x36 enlargement taken at 24mm in my place and the corners (as well as overall) are unbelievable sharp.  Without question the best general range zoom I have ever had.  For the life of me I cannot figure out why they would make a 24-70 f/4 when the 24-105 f/4 is so good.

Even if the 24-70 will be better at 24mm- and that's not certain - it will have a smaller range. Now I have heard of another L lens with an even smaller range that will inevitably be much better at 24mm: It's the 24mm 1.4L II      (Surprise!)

[EvillEmperor]

What if its EF M?

[tron]

What if its EF M?

Now you are talking! This is really interesting (and no kidding this time, although 24mm will be around 38mm)

[Zv]

First of all I love the f/4L series of lenses and I'm glad Canon are looking out for the non-pro's out there!

I've been on the fence about buying the 24-105L, but now I am intrigued at this new rumor! I would buy the 24-70 f4 IS if it was cheaper than the 24-105 and had better (or similarish) image quality. Size should be compact too.  It would fit in nicely with my 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses.

Though I kind of think it will cost more than the 24-105. 

I really do think this will be the new kit lens for full frame cameras like 6D's and whatever. Marketing wise it makes sense to have less focal range in a kit to later sell more 70-200s.

[yogi]

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk.2?

This lens will be DOA.

Their evil plan is to drive all of the moaners and groaners nuts. 

I doubt it will be DOA if the price is significantly less than the 2.8 is.

I never thought the 24-105mm had enough reach.  But I think a 24-70 f/4 is a waste.  Um, there is already two 2.8's coming...

Give me a 28-135/150mm f2.8L and I'd be seriously happy.

I 2nd the 28-135/150 range. Have always wanted an L lens like the 28-135. I have that one, but dont use it much since i have several L zooms now.

[pwp]

Err, I think canon is losing it. Why not just re-vamp the 24-105L Mk2?
This lens will be DOA.

Agreed. Seems like an odd choice for a fresh lens. A refreshed 24-105 f/4isII would make a whole lot more sense. While I doubt it would be a DOA, it's hard to imagine who would buy it. Unless the IQ totally blows the 24-105 out of the water and comes in at a much lower price. Weird.  Anyway, I'm getting a 24-70 f/2.8II.

-PW

[tron]

I would buy the 24-70 f4 IS if it was cheaper than the 24-105 and had better (or similarish) image quality. Size should be compact too.  It would fit in nicely with my 17-40 and 70-200 f4 lenses.
Though I kind of think it will cost more than the 24-105. 

Similar quality and a price not lower than existing 24-105 = useless lens
Better quality and higher price = stale mate: It depends: How much better IQ, how about product variation, etc.
Better or Similar quality and a price lower than existing 24-105 = unlikely scenario.

I really do think this will be the new kit lens for full frame cameras like 6D's and whatever. Marketing wise it makes sense to have less focal range in a kit to later sell more 70-200s.

Unless people use their brains and think they do not wish to be milked by Canon 

[ahsanford]

What if its EF M?

Now you are talking! This is really interesting (and no kidding this time, although 24mm will be around 38mm)

Oh, snap!  Never thought of EF-M getting L lenses.  Good out of the box thinking.

I defer to the group, but I'd peg this (being EF-M) as dubious as the 1.6 of the crop doesn't make sense for a 24-70.  Many crop users own a 24-70 (I did before the FF upgrade), but the FF equiv of 38 to 112 is an odd length.  When I used my 24-70 on my crop, I always kept my 10-22 on me just in case, you know?

[Woody]

I find a few things interesting

1.  suddenly the 24-105, which used to be too slow, have too much distortion, and be a 'gimmick L' lens is getting a LOT of respect!  (I read so much crap about this lens that i held off buying it for years, and now that i have one i'm so happy.)

I was about to point this out too. 

[Act444]

I find a few things interesting

1.  suddenly the 24-105, which used to be too slow, have too much distortion, and be a 'gimmick L' lens is getting a LOT of respect!  (I read so much crap about this lens that i held off buying it for years, and now that i have one i'm so happy.)

I was about to point this out too. 

Yes...it really is the best compromise (i.e. all-purpose) zoom lens that exists for the Canon system, IMHO. The other zooms in a similar range are variable aperture, lack weather sealing & good build quality, and just plain don't deliver good IQ.

[Plato the Wise]

I think some of the folks are right in thinking this will be another kit lens.

The new full-frame will be geared toward the prosumer market and a small, decent lens will work better for them. I have the 24-105 and even though it is smaller than the 24-70 2.8, it is still a big lens.

And there is no reason to think canon will not offer two kit versions of the 6D, like they do with the 7D with the 18-135 and the 28-135.

A company the size of Canon does not make decisions without researching their target markets. I have worked on advertising for Canon in the past and they do their homework.

[Woody]

There are also well known IQ issues with the 24-105 at the wide end that require the lens be replaced or updated before any high megapixel camera is made available for sale. It may be that a 24-105/f4 is unable to deliver the required IQ at 24mm whereas a 24-70/f4 can.

Based on (i) the conflicting results of Photozone and the-digital-picture (ii) my experience with zoom lenses, there is probably copy-to-copy variation in the 24-105 lens. Some copies like the one tested by Photozone has disappointing edge performance near the tele end. An experience technician can tweak the lens to make the wide end sharper at the expense of the tele end performance, or vice versa.

[Plato the Wise]

And don't forget that with the improved ISO performance in the newer cameras, the loss of 1 stop at 4f isn't as much of a deal breaker for most people - especially if they are not pros.

As I mentioned before, I do have the 24-105 and I think it is a great lens. The only complaint I have is with the distortion at 24mm.

But if I need a fast lens with less distortion, I'll shoot with a prime.