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

[plutonium10]

Now what I would really, really LOVE to see would be a 15-70 F4L IS lens for APS-C. The biggest gripe I have with my 7D is not having a weather-sealed walk-around lens. If Canon will refuse to make an APS-C L lens, how about a 15-70mm lens that has full range on APS-C cameras and can be mechanically limited to 24mm on the wide end while mounted on a FF camera. Similar to the way Canon's 8-15 Fisheye has limiter switches for FF and APS-H. It wouldn't require much (if any) additional glass versus a normal 24-70, and could offer APS-C owners a future proof lens if they plan on going FF in the future.

[Radiating]

This lens cannot make any sense unless it has earth shattering image quality or door busting price. I vote for image quality.

[Gcon]

I read "24"..."70"...."IS"... and got excited. Then I read "f/4", and immediately got a migraine.

Why Canon - for the love of God why?!!!!! With so many other lens models in the line-up that actually need an update or need to come out - WHY?!!!!!

35L - needs rounded aperture blades and weather sealing
17-40L - needs improved edge sharpness and better coatings for richer colors/contrast
16-35L - as above
100-400L - needs a refresh I'm told
200-400L - needs to come out
14-24L - needs to come out
24-70 f/2.8 IS - needs to come out

Canon is making as much sense as a wookie choosing to live on endor.

[wickidwombat]

This lens cannot make any sense unless it has earth shattering image quality or door busting price. I vote for image quality.

I agree however i think door busting price is more likely
say $400 to $500 range with IQ similar to the 24-105L

possible kit bundle with the 6D?

[KyleSTL]

I think this is an obvious replacement of the relatively old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to go along with the 6D.  I think it will definitely be smaller and lighter than the aforementioned lens (as well as the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM), and priced around $600 to compete with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR.  It would be the perfect kit lens for a first-FF DSLR buyer.  It would definitely have better IQ and IS than the 1998.

Think about a 6D buyer looking at the currently lineup of FF standard zooms:

28-135mm $450 alone (big, heavy, old, fair IQ)
24-105mm $970 alone $800 kit (big, heavy, very good IQ, somewhat expensive)
24-70mm II $2300 alone (big, heavy, superb IQ, more expensive than the body)

...and that is all your currently-available new (not used) Canon options

Replacing the 28-135 makes total sense with the first entry-level FF coming out in a couple months.  If the only option is 6D+24-105mm ($2900), it is more expensive than a D600+24-85mm ($2600), then Canon WILL lose customers, period.  A more affordable is needed, and the 28-135mm is not the solution.  A red ring and L in the name will elate potential customers (much better branding than Nikon's ED and gold ring designations).

EDIT: Price correction on 28-135mm

[sanj]

Yawn

[Act444]

I think this is an obvious replacement of the relatively old 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to go along with the 6D.  I think it will definitely be smaller and lighter than the aforementioned lens (as well as the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM), and priced around $600 to compete with the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR.  It would be the perfect kit lens for a first-FF DSLR buyer.  It would definitely have better IQ and IS than the 1998.

Think about a 6D buyer looking at the currently lineup of FF standard zooms:

28-135mm $450 alone (big, heavy, old, fair IQ)
24-105mm $970 alone $800 kit (big, heavy, very good IQ, somewhat expensive)
24-70mm II $2300 alone (big, heavy, superb IQ, more expensive than the body)

...and that is all your currently-available new (not used) Canon options

Replacing the 28-135 makes total sense with the first entry-level FF coming out in a couple months.  If the only option is 6D+24-105mm ($2900), it is more expensive than a D600+24-85mm ($2600), then Canon WILL lose customers, period.  A more affordable is needed, and the 28-135mm is not the solution.  A red ring and L in the name will elate potential customers (much better branding than Nikon's ED and gold ring designations).

That's a good thought. I never really considered it as a possible kit lens for the 6D, but that's the only way I see this lens making any real sense.

Again, if it's around the size of the old 24-85mm lens (or 28-105) and priced reasonably, we might have a winner, actually. A compact, lightweight EF zoom lens is missing from Canon's current line-up and this might be it. (then again, why not an update to one of those older lenses? More reach would be nice, for sure)

While they're at it, they should also consider putting out a smaller, lighter, non-L version of the 28-300mm lens. The L version (Canon's only FF super-zoom) is WAY too big, heavy and expensive for use as a walkaround...

[DB]

Consensus has shifted from DOA to good 6D kit lens with shorter focal length than 24-105, so does not eat into 70-200 sales (what myself & dilbert said). The 24-105 f4L IS is a very good lens, albeit an odd focal length. Canon probably want a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 as wide/standard/telephoto zooms for all FF bodies, and to have both fast and f4 apertures, with and without IS....eventually. As someone else here has said, Canon do conduct their own research...nobody here on CR would object to that variety/choice (3 x reference zooms).

[birtembuk]

Good idea ! Providing this 24-70/4 has better IQ than 24-105, it's 77mm and it's lighter a bit. The 24-70/II would actually cost me 3000+ with a set a proper filters - UV, PL, 2xND - because I have no 82 mm filters but have all at 77.

With the 24/II now going at less than 1700, would still have 1300-1400 for this 24-70/4. Winning ticket for me. Well, if true and if the release date is not September 2019.
   

[wickidwombat]

Good idea ! Providing this 24-70/4 has better IQ than 24-105, it's 77mm and it's lighter a bit. The 24-70/II would actually cost me 3000+ with a set a proper filters - UV, PL, 2xND - because I have no 82 mm filters but have all at 77.

With the 24/II now going at less than 1700, would still have 1300-1400 for this 24-70/4. Winning ticket for me. Well, if true and if the release date is not September 2019.
   

my guess will be filters smaller than 77mm
maybe 67mm? all plastic construction
similar size and build to the 100f2.8L macro perhaps
length similar at full extension and half as tall when retracted maybe
i wonder if they might make it the first STM L lens too? that would guarantee it wont canibalise the 24-105 and make it appeal to the video crowd who seeming are much more important to canon these days than still shooters

[birtembuk]

Good idea ! Providing this 24-70/4 has better IQ than 24-105, it's 77mm and it's lighter a bit. The 24-70/II would actually cost me 3000+ with a set a proper filters - UV, PL, 2xND - because I have no 82 mm filters but have all at 77.

With the 24/II now going at less than 1700, would still have 1300-1400 for this 24-70/4. Winning ticket for me. Well, if true and if the release date is not September 2019.
   

my guess will be filters smaller than 77mm
maybe 67mm? all plastic construction
similar size and build to the 100f2.8L macro perhaps
length similar at full extension and have as tall when retracted maybe
i wonder if they might make it the first STM L lens too? that would guarantee it wont canibalise the 24-105 and make it appeal to the video crowd who seeming are much more important to canon these days than still shooters

Sigh about still shooters ... Well, apart from STM, I'd be happy with a 100L design style I guess. What's important is that 24/II takes 77mm and that's perfect for me for landscapes. A 24-70/4 would just be a nice complement as walk-around lens like street photo.

[ronderick]

The only logical argument I could think of is to use this lens to replace the 24-105 f4L as the kit lens for future FF cameras.

By doing so, Canon will be able to introduce a possible 24-120 f4L which it can categorize as a non-kit lens, giving it perfect excuse to jack up the starting price...

[EchoLocation]

This lens will be, to all intents and purposes, the 24-105mm II. It will be a better performer than the 24-105mm, but Canon decided that achieving their IQ goal in the final 35mm of its range was too much of a stretch so they decided to peg it back to 24-70mm, in which range its IQ will be consistently high. They probably felt that this was not too much of a compromise, given that most users will also have a telezoom starting at 70mm.

I'm expecting it to be considerably more expensive than the 24-105mm. The 24-105mm will remain as the FF kit lens.

This is what they're most likely thinking. I think they have oversaturated the market with 24-105's lately after all the 5DII,5DIII,6D kit sales. This new lens will give a decent upgrade(with loss of focal range) to 24-105 owners who want the newest, best toys(who don't have $2300 for the 24-70 2.8II), probably at around $1250-1500. The price of this lens and the oversaturation of the 24-105 will combine to heighten the perceived value of the 24-70 2.8.
I'd imagine they will try to eventually faze out the 24-105 and make this the new kit lens when the 5D IV(5DX, whatever comes out.) The newness of the kit lens will be intriguing for people upgrading from 7D's,5D's, etc. And, att 1500ish dollars this will give Canon an even more expensive kit lens to increase future profits, and while being sharper, will also be less useful compared to the 24-105(smaller focal length,) thus forcing even more lens sales as people buy 70-200's.
This lens is definitely a little baffling, so i'm thinking there must be some sort of strategic value in introducing it as most buyers don't really seem to care that much for it.
I hope I'm wrong and it ends up being a super small 18-55 size(dream) and a light weight for $600!

[ahsanford]

Consensus has shifted from DOA to good 6D kit lens with shorter focal length than 24-105, so does not eat into 70-200 sales (what myself & dilbert said). The 24-105 f4L IS is a very good lens, albeit an odd focal length. Canon probably want a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 as wide/standard/telephoto zooms for all FF bodies, and to have both fast and f4 apertures, with and without IS....eventually. As someone else here has said, Canon do conduct their own research...nobody here on CR would object to that variety/choice (3 x reference zooms).

I still think (see prior summaries of this thread) that a better for video (STM?) lens or a super small/light lens are other viable reasons for this new one.  It just needs one value/useability/spec difference to have it stand out as a unique offering to consumers.

I am not buying that Canon is shoe-horning us into 24-70 to protect 70-200 sales.   That can't happen if the 24-105 is still in play.  So to protect 70-200 sales, they will obsolete a very popular lens in the 24-105?   That's only a takeaway, so I just don't buy it.

I still contend this new lens must have an ace up its sleeve (pick any one) -- vastly improved IQ, low cost, modernized for video, small / light, etc. -- or this thing will be DOA without obsoleting the 24-105.

[dilbert]

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.

The field curvature at 24mm on the 24-105 is a killer.