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

[Einstein333]

The underwhelming optical quality of the 24-105 lens and the missing IS of the 24-70 lenses were two important reasons that have been keeping me away from full frame. I really hope that this is going to change now!

[preppyak]

Reading that sentence again with this new lens in mind, it makes even more sense. The 24-105 will stay popular because of its versatile range. The 24-70 f/4 will be immediately popular as part of this three lens system. On crop bodies, both the 17-55 and 15-85 get a lot of love; there's no conflict, just a lot of different tastes out there.

Yes, but the difference between those two lenses is very significant. One does f/2.8, while the other is variable aperture, so you are either trading low light for range or vice-versa. Here, you are just giving up 70-105 for, at the moment, nothing. Now, it may be a weight tradeoff, or there may be less barrel distortion; maybe like the 70-200 lenses, the f/4 version will be as sharp as the f/2.8. But as of right now, that difference isn't clear like it is with those two EF-S lenses.

The underwhelming optical quality of the 24-105 lens and the missing IS of the 24-70 lenses were two important reasons that have been keeping me away from full frame. I really hope that this is going to change now!

I get the feeling this lens is gonna really disappoint you then; because I can't imagine it being on par with the new 24-70 without costing $1500+, and if the 24-105 is underwhelming to you, then anything less than the new 24-70 wouldn't work

[Micko]

I bought my 5D3 and 24-105 f4L IS kit back in April and I have to say that I've been very happy with the results that the 24-105 produces.
Things such as cost and IQ being approximately equal, would I...
Buy a 24-70 f4L IS to complement my 24-105 f4L IS?    No - I'd rather go for a f1.4L wide angle prime to complement the zoom.
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS?        No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f2.8L II?      Well, I do regard that as an upgrade and it's not out of the question one day, but...
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f2.8L II IS?    Absolutely!!   

The point I'm trying to make is that if Canon intends to replace or supplement the 24-105 f4L IS (kit) lens with a new 24-70 f4L IS (kit) lens, that in itself won't make a lot of difference to me and, I suspect, probably not to many others who already own the 24-105.   I'm happy to wait a year or so to see what happens with the 24-70 f2.8L II.  Either there will be an IS version as many here hope, or the price of the f2.8L II will drop to a more affordable level.   

[Einstein333]

I get the feeling this lens is gonna really disappoint you then; because I can't imagine it being on par with the new 24-70 without costing $1500+, and if the 24-105 is underwhelming to you, then anything less than the new 24-70 wouldn't work

I believe that the optical quality will be close to the one of the new 24-70 f2.8. Because it's f4 it will be much cheaper though (1200-1500 being ok for me)

[madmailman]

I think this will be the new FF kit lens. Probably even for the 5Diii. Everybody keeps saying that nobody would buy it as a stand alone lens but that's exactly the poiint. When last did you hear of somebody with a Rebel or xxD camera actually go and buy a 18-55 IS lens? That's just the kit lens. If you want something better you go and buy the 15-85 (24-105 for FF) or the 17-55 f2.8 (24-70 f2.8 for FF). this lens will be cheapish and it will be small and in every FF kit as standard.

Just my 2c worth.

[bbasiaga]

How many people who think this thing will be $500 are going to switch camps if its not?  When the time comes, remember I like to buy used gear...lol. 

Only possible (and still not probable) if its not an L series. 

-Brian

[KyleSTL]

How many people who think this thing will be $500 are going to switch camps if its not?

Absolutely I'd switch camps, it this proposed lens is $1000+ and/or replaces the 24-105mm in the Canon lineup I would be extremely disappointed.  Even if it has IQ equal to 24-70mm II for the same price as the lens it is replacing, I think the good image quality is an excellent trade-off for the expanded range of the current 24-105mm.  When was the last time you actually saw range shrink with a replacement lens?:

80-200 -> 70-200    ( 2.8 )
35-70 -> 28-70 -> 24-70    ( 2.8 )
20-35 -> 17-35 -> 16-35    ( 2.8 )
75-300 -> 70-300    ( 4-5.6 )
... or any number of lower quality variable aperture zooms

The only one I can think of is the mid-grade USM standard zoom:
35-135 (1990) -> 28-80 (1991) -> 28-105 (1992) -> 24-85 (1996) -> 28-135 (1998) -> 28-105 II (2000)

[dadgummit]

My thoughts exactly:

I bought my 5D3 and 24-105 f4L IS kit back in April and I have to say that I've been very happy with the results that the 24-105 produces.
Things such as cost and IQ being approximately equal, would I...
Buy a 24-70 f4L IS to complement my 24-105 f4L IS?    No - I'd rather go for a f1.4L wide angle prime to complement the zoom.
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS?        No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f2.8L II?      Well, I do regard that as an upgrade and it's not out of the question one day, but...
Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f2.8L II IS?    Absolutely!!   

The point I'm trying to make is that if Canon intends to replace or supplement the 24-105 f4L IS (kit) lens with a new 24-70 f4L IS (kit) lens, that in itself won't make a lot of difference to me and, I suspect, probably not to many others who already own the 24-105.   I'm happy to wait a year or so to see what happens with the 24-70 f2.8L II.  Either there will be an IS version as many here hope, or the price of the f2.8L II will drop to a more affordable level.

[enraginangel]

I am about to buy a 24-105mm mainly to take video. I don't really see the purpose in getting the 24-70mm f4L IS unless reviews say it is just significantly optically superior in every way compared to the 24-105mm for its range. I think the price of the 24-70mm IS out the gate will be my main deterrent from the new lens and if Canon follows their 70-200mm formula, I should probably just wait for the 24-70mm f2.8L IS because we all know that's what everyone really wants.

If someone like Sigma can get their 24-70mm OS out the door before Canon does, I'd happily get that to complement my 70-200mm OS. I had my eye on the Tamron, but I'm hearing a few issues like onion bokeh, focusing issues and random lens error lockups.

[old_york]

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.

Couldn't agree more. I have a 7 and the 15-85....which is a great combo, but a weather sealed lens would be sooooo much better. A modest price ie....lower than the 24-105 would seal the deal.


I terms of the 24-70 f4 IS. Hmmm, well, ok, Erm, could be worse. I could do with a standard zoom for my 5mk3 and I'd far rather spend the money needed for the 24-70 2.8 II on a couple of primes...so a relatively cheap compromise might do nicely.
     Then again....if its no cheaper than the 24-105, then it's still not the one for me - I'll probably go for whichever is the cheaper of the two. (Though Nuero's idea of a 17-70 has me quite giddy)


I have no problem with Canon making a cheaper L to "70-200" the range, but if they are going for a range, then given the price of the 24-70 2.8 ii, what on earth figure would the 24-70 2.8 IS command? Do numbers go up that high?

[Einstein333]

Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS?        No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.

Disagree. I can see (or hope for) a much improved optical quality (24-105 is not so good). If that should happen (what I believe it will) then this lens makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think that it will be a cheap kit lens. I believe (and hope) it will be rather expensive with a top notch optical quality

[BXL]

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 disagree... looking to Nikon, they got the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR ($599) and the excellent 24-120mm f/4G VR ($1.299). When the EOS 6D was launched, many people complained that Canon didn't present a new Kit Lense. I thought that Canon might present a 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (see http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/11/ef-24-105-f3-5-5-6-is-patent/) but what sense does such a lense make when we got the excellent 24-105mm f/4 IS and the old but decent 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS?

The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS is officially priced at $1.149 and currently retails for $969. IMO there is a gap in Canon's lense lineup for a 24-70mm f/4 that is similar priced like the Nikkor 24-85mm. Looking at Nikon, to me this lense makes sense.

[neuroanatomist]

The underwhelming optical quality of the 24-105 lens and the missing IS of the 24-70 lenses were two important reasons that have been keeping me away from full frame. I really hope that this is going to change now!

I find comments like this interesting, and a little confusing.  IMO, the best general purpose zoom lens for APS-C is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.  The full frame equivalent of that lens would be a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens (f-number in terms of DoF for equivalent framing), meaning the 24-105mm on FF is wider, longer, and faster than the 'best' APS-C standard zoom, and still has IS.  FWIW, the 24-105mm on FF will deliver better all-around IQ than the 17-55mm on APS-C.  So really, nothing should be holding you back from the standpoint of IQ with a standard zoom. 

Now, if you want to talk the cost of the FF system, including replacing EF-S lenses and perhaps buying even longer lenses if you need the reach on FF, that's a different argument.

[DB]

Trade in my 24-105 f4L IS against a 24-70 f4L IS?        No - I can't see that I'd gain much by doing that.

Disagree. I can see (or hope for) a much improved optical quality (24-105 is not so good). If that should happen (what I believe it will) then this lens makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think that it will be a cheap kit lens. I believe (and hope) it will be rather expensive with a top notch optical quality

Whatever about top-notch quality, well that remains to be seen, but we do know that it is easier to make improvements in IQ by restricting the zoom focal length -> this is precisely what Tokina has done with their 11-16mm f2.8 lenses (mkI and mkII) as opposed to Canon with the 10-22mm

[Ew]

All specs aside, I really think that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the market / sales.

With the Tamron getting to market first, many fans held out.  But as delays came on folk began to jump ship - especially when the price was verified by the vendors.

With the v1 24-70 gone, all of the sudden sales are down, even with a proported fatter margin on the v2.

We've all read the rumors that there was an IS version being tested - but this all went out the window once the v2 was Announced.

I disagree. It's not like they could design/test/set-up for manufacturing all since the 24-70 MkII came out. That's too little time for such a reaction. I'd be very surprised if they ever update the 24-105L after this new lens is on the market. With rationalisation of their zoom range, Canon's new blurb after December:

"Complementing the EF 17-40mm f4L USM and EF 70-200mm f4L USM, the 24-70 f4L IS STM lens completes Canon's f4L-series zoom lens range."

I didn't mean to imply that Canon shot this right out quick. It was obviously (if rumor translates to release) one of the variants being tested before the v2 lens was formally announced. Some mods to rework its positioning and wala!